What should Government Motors (GM) build?

General Motors is effectively under new ownership. The mega-corporation has gone through dramatic changes this past year, and the GM that emerges from Chapter 11 will be much different than the domestic titan that dominated the global automotive industry for many years. It will divest itself of Hummer, Pontiac, Saab, and Saturn, along with far more employees than my heart and mind can calculate. Through its restructuring GM has found funding from you and me, managed by the federal government, along with a significant underwriting from our Canadian neighbors.

For now, government is the majority stakeholder. While president Obama’s Autos Task Force insists it will allow GM management to run the company, there is potential for influence. We know that the U.S. government wants GM to return to profitability, and we also know that fuel economy is a major priority, with increasingly stringent mileage targets recently put in place.

It makes me wonder: What would the government do with GM were it free to run the day-to-day operations? (For one, they may realize the challenge in chasing profit and fuel economy at the same time…)

The big question is, what kind of cars would Government Motors produce?

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

—Jeff Bartlett 

Comments

[scott myatt]

I just started as a salesperson for GM. They absolutely need to streamline getting new competitive small cars/crossovers to the dealers. The 2009 Malibu with 2.4L/6 speed can compete with any conventional midsize car in the world. the 2010 equinox will get over 30mpg. the Volt will be America's answer to the Prius. It's time to rebuilt GM's reputation as the world leader for value, quality, and reliability.

[Andy]

GM needs to concentrate on building cars that consumers want to buy. Sound like too simple an answer? What if the government, by means of CAFE standards, is demanding that GM build expensive fuel sippers, when low gas prices mean consumers want big SUVs, like they did in the 1990s?

The government should let GM do its best to make whatever consumers want. And, if the government wants consumers to buy fuel efficient cars, then it needs to do the only sensible thing - increase gas taxes to ensure that gas costs at least $3/gallon - to prompt consumers to want such vehicles.

[Ann]

If GM could push the hearing past July 10th, the Treasury promised to take it's hooks out of the heart of GM. Let's all prey GM can hold off and restructure away from the government involment.

[Martin Legault]

It's fairly simple! Michael Moore explained it on his blog http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=248 ... Use GM to build the long-lasting electric vehicles we need, and transform a few of the factories to produce trains, buses, solar panels and windmills that could be used to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. The transformation has been done in the past, nothing could prevent us from doing it again today.
We could also put taxes on gas as an incentive to get people to change their inefficient and environmentally-destructive habits, such as riding SOVs (Single Occupancy Vehicles). But yes, it is going to come at the expense of a tiny bit of our comfort and disposable income... Or maybe a fair bit, but hey, the price of gas always always goes up and is (inevitably) never going to come back down!

[Byron Horn]

First, our car company engineers haven't been of the same quality as our top engineers that design weapons for the Pentagon. Japan's top engineers design cars and electronics, both of which we introduced and sold to the world originally.
Somehow bring a sufficient number of our really top engineers to GM and really turn them loose to design the very best small and midsize cars in the world.
These same engineers design the best military weapons in the world and we sell them to Japan and the rest of the world's governments.
Average engineering (at best) and an even worse philosophy was the problem over the years.
One of GM's engineers told me about 35 years ago, "If we put four wheels and a Chevrolet badge on a nickel box of matches it'll sell. They did and Japan whipped them.

[Carl Bezanson]

Reliable, affordable, stylish cars. The president of American Hyundai said that any car company's main competitor is the perfectly good used car sitting in the driveway. Regular improvements in fuel economy and safety help motivate that decision to trade in the used car.

[melissa]

Dear GM,

We want smart diesel! 55mpg or better! Or at least a car with 30mpg+ with a $18k or less price tag, that we won't look like idiots in *coughAZTEKcough*

With Love- US Consumers

[Tommy]

Diesel vehicles. Period.

[ian]

They need to work on suspensions in their small cars. And their large ones. They're doing a good job gunning for Honda with fuel economy...it would be nice if they could take on Mazda for handling. Do both better than either and you don't even have to bring reliability quite up to that level. (See: Mini...actually, for price, don't)

They need to look at what they did right with cars like the W-platform, reliability-wise, and make sure they do that with their small cars.

They need to come up with a cheap mid-to-large sized RWD platform, because NO ONE does big FWD cars well, and GM isn't exactly near the top of that pack regardless.

If they're going to keep selling Daewoos here, they need to upgrade the interior materials...the vinyl on the door panels, for example, should be thicker. Daewoo is extremely penny-wise-pound-foolish.

[Chris Hernandez]

I believe GM should start looking into more fuel efficient compact and midsized vehicles but also look into hybrid trucks. Most of my family owns a truck because we either a) pull an RV, or b) do construction work. And when you have a large haul behind you fuel efficiency drops real quick. Last year we tried to do our part and go to State Parks but when gas is $4 a gallon you tend not to go very far. So rather than looking into more fuel conservative compacts let's also look into making trucks a lot better as well.

[Aaron]

I was just reading today about a single person vehicle, ideal for solo commuting, that would run almost entirely on electricity. It's a plug-in model but also has a diesel engine, IIRC.

For this to happen though, a lot of things need to change and, at the same time, more and less money needs to change hands. Less from the oil companies buying out technologies that move us off of oil and more from investors wanting to see change in the automotive world.

Secondly, research diesel efficiency to make the most out of both the money we spend on fuel and also the fuels we have available. I hear of cars that get 40-50 MPG on diesel easily.

Going back to the single person vehicle idea, I would absolutely love something like that. I don't know how many people commute solo like I do, but I'm sure it's a lot. In my case, most of the car is empty space and while it's nice to have that space there, I don't need it 95+% of the time. A small vehicle with a limited size trunk, if any, would be on my to-buy list as soon as I can get a loan for it.

[Jon Smiff]

As a former victim of GM products I could care less what that company builds. Just give me my money back (which I never wanted them to have in the first place) and die in that free market they crow so loud about when asking the Government for special treatment.

This month I am clear of the loan on my last ever GM vehicle and am actively looking at Toyota and Nissan offerings.

I ask people:
Whats the difference between a 2004 Saturn with 350K miles?

Answer, I can depend on the Toyota to start every time and get me to my destination without involving AAA.

[Zachariah Koppers]

I for one would really love to see small (less than 2.0 liters) diesels in cars. While a few car companies have released (in limited numbers) a small diesel engine, we still do not have enough. In the short run, putting out economical diesels could help focus the consumer on small cars, which is always a good thing.

The problem with small cars is lack of power, lack of options, and extremely high prices. Small cars should be priced to sell, come with manual transmissions, have at least 150hp, and a respectable list of standard equipment.

GM needs a cheaper answer to the Honda Fit. The only way to compete with imports is to undercut their prices, exactly how Honda, Toyota, and in recent years, Hyundai, has done with domestics like GM.

Oh, and stop captive imports! Start some original thinking! Stop stealing ideas!

[David]

Very simple: Build what drivers really want. The average driver doesn't WANT a staid, plain, utilitarian family sedan, they want one that is fun to drive, too.

The average driver doesn't want an econobox that LOOKS like an econobox, they want it to be sporty and fun.

The average driver doesn't want a 'priced out of everyone's range' useless-for-hauling convertible pickup truck, they want it priced IN everyone's range and give it some real ability to haul a load if it needs to. After all, the El Camino was a very popular car/truck that bridged the 'mid-size truck' range

The people don't want to choose between two essentially-identical sports cars (Camaro/Firebird) They want ONE that can compete with similar cars from their competitors.

Oh, and people don't want to have to choose between dozens of essentially-identical family cars. All you end up doing is diluting your own market.

At one time, every brand had it's own identity. You bought a Pontiac, everyone knew it was a Pontiac. Now you go out and you can't tell the difference between a Chevy Cobalt, Saturn Ion or Pontiac Sunfire (you know what I mean.)

Saturn was a good idea. Turning Saturn into a rebranded Opel model, not so good. Saturn had an identity. Saturn had a reputation. Saturn had a very loyal user base. Saturn has... Opels?

[montreal used car]

It is bad news for us. But we hope that these days will be gone.

[Devin]

Setup GM as two brands, GM and GM Fleet. make only 7 different cars, and eliminate any GM brand that would just produce clones of these 7 car models.
1. the fastest, craziest gas guzzling sports car possible, money no object. (corvette)
2. the most efficient and safest midsized sedan possible, money no object. (A GM version of the Honda Accord Hybrid)
3. a cheap and efficient mode of transportation that with the remaining budget is as safe and reliable as possible. (a GM version of the Toyota Yaris)
4. A big, hybrid SUV like the Chevy suburban hybrid.
5. A small SUV crossover, like the saturn VUE hybrid.

GM Fleet:
6. A pickup truck (GMC 150,etc. series).
7. A cargo van (GMC 150,etc. series).

Let other car makers worry about the rest, just keep improving on these 6 and GM will be fine forever.

[Justin]

After rethinking the mass transit question. We need a strategy of comfortable non intrusive transportation.

street cars, buses, trains.

Why are cars barely clearing 20 miles per gallon?

A 1969 nova with less than 100 dollars worth of modifications is clearing 24/28 miles per gallon

40 years and no improvement at all...

Cash for Clunkers should have required a GM vehicle to replace the clunker.

Municipal Electric Vehicles Program

The same technology in EV could be used to produce wind turbines. GM should invest its efforts into becoming a power supplier.

Vehicles under 10000 dollars should be exempt from many of the current regulations. introduced after 1974

[John]

GM should let me be the designer. Here's why: My ideas are awesome. I idealise a GM car, that's not branded as GM. Call it something new like Toyota did with Scion. Call it Shezon or something. It's got a japanese vibe to it and it will appeal to everyone. Then build a car that fits in a regular parking stop. Then build a car that doesn't drink petrol like it's water. Then build a car that is safe and fun to drive. Then build a car that's not age/gender specific. (ie. not big trucks for men, little tiny pink cars for women.)

[Scott Morris]

ONE WORD REALLY BIG!!

WE ARE AMERICANS, AND WE NEED TRUCKS THAT SAY HEY! WERE AMERICAN! WE DONT DRIVE WIMPPY SMALL JAPANESE CARS!!1

I THINK THAT ONLY FOR TIRES IS AN OLD IDEA SO GM NEEDS TO START MAKING ALL THEIR TRUCKS WITH SIX OR MORE TIRES. THEN WHEN IM DRIVING MY NEW GM TRUCK EVERYBODY WILL SAY THERE GOES A REAL AMERICAN!

[Larry]

I'm not sure we have inferior engineers here. While too few American college students choose engineering, we still train engineers from all over the world. A few more dollars, if necessary, would keep them here.

The problem is the willingness of GM management to make smart market-based decisions and of union leaders to do what's best for the long-term benefit of ordinary union workers and their country.

GM's bankruptcy has been a long time coming. Its causes are no secret. Since the 1980's they have been building inferior cars under too many makes. GM management, as the above poster noted, used to be incredibly arrogant. Peruse today's Detroit or auto industry press, and it's clear there is still a lingering arrogance that blinds GM management and union leaders to the need to make difficult decisions to forestall even more difficult consequences.

In the 80's GM management told us that American workers couldn't make quality cars. Then Japanese companies started making quality cars in America with American workers. GM said Americans don't want safe cars. Japanese companies built them, and Americans bought them. GM said Americans don't want fuel-efficient cars. Japanese companies built them, and Americans bought them. GM said that foreign companies can't compete on large cars and trucks. Now they do. GM management can blame the workers, the unions, pension and healthcare obligations or anything else they want. Build good cars, and Americans will buy them.

Let's hope that the government doesn't tell GM to build cars based on political considerations rather than market considerations. That will be a step towards American bankruptcy. We bailed out GM, but who will bail us out?

[John]

Hey, Consumers Report.....you are the ones who help put GM in the position it's in today! GM could build the best cars in the world and you'd still find very little good to say about it. I remember when the Japanese cars were junk and still, you rave about them. Now, you have the nerve to call them Government Motors. Can you find just a little guilt?

[Tyler Karaszewski]

The Volt is the only thing even on the table right now that would make me consider buying an American car, so they should do a good job on that.

[Laternser]

The failure of GM, Chrysler, and Ford:
Engineering for reliability and fuel economy!

Hondas and Toyotas maintain value because they
last with reasonable maintenance.
By the way ... this is so green! It takes
a couple of thousand gallons of fuel to build
a car.

Engineer a base vehicle for
1) Reliable Durability.
2) Engine fuel economy.
3) Every part easy to replace.
You see exactly the same parts
in both the Toyota and the Lexus.
Do it right once and keep using it.
4) Comfort with simplicity.

Then and only then add all the gadgets
and the miles of wires ... to optional
luxury models.

I am an engineer. Years ago I had the opportunity
to simultaneously disassemble a Nissan and a GM.
The Nissan was a breeze, the bolts on the GM were
rusted and frozen when it was less than five years old ...
The Nissan lasted 180,000 miles.
The GM sedan lasted 210,000 miles ... with 2.5 engine
replacements and many many many maintenance problems.
However ... the body lasted.
The problems with GM were not caused by the line worker
... they were the fault of the engineer.

I gave my brother a Volvo 240 with 178,000 miles and it
is still going with 270,000 miles on the same engine.
You can actually take this engine apart while it is
still in the car ... but of course it has never needed
it ... even the radiator is original and it is now
31 years old.

Where have all the good engineers gone? I have been
to three engineering universities ... and I believe the
problem starts in our colleges. My nephew finished his
doctorate in Switzerland ... and boy was his training
different from ours. My father (an engineer) once went
up against an integrated engineering team from Korea ...
nothing to be trifled with ... excellent skills and
management backing for actual use of the engineering talent.

Where in the U.S. is the incremental improvement in quality
that has made Toyota and Honda rulers of the world.
Way too little and way to late in the U.S.

Why does Ford lose one billion on the Focus?
Engineering!

Some point to BMW as quality ... I think it is
great engineering with a lost path. My 525
touring wagon was a piece of junk ... always
something needing work ... while my brothers
Toyota Corolla went on year after year with
no trouble.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEND MY PRECIOUS LIFE
TAKING A CAR TO THE DEALER.

Please GM ... focus on reliability and easy
easy easy maintenance.

As a side note: I have owned three Chrylser
full size vans ... all with zero problems ...
except they were designed to rust. The water
goes in the front vent below the window ...
trickles down to the wheel whell ... rusts
through on the interior flat well ... then
flows back into the rocker panels and rusts
the vehicle out from the inside. I once
drained three gallons of water out of the
rocker panel seven feet from the front of
the vehicle ...
But the one I still have carries a ton and
still gets 20MPG around town.

I wish ... oh how I wish for a great design
of a simple vehicle.

- from the Nebraska Plains.

- I once serviced a Nebraska Company that sold grain
moving equipment round the world ... but did not employ
any engineers ... they appeared to have Nebraska farm-boys
just weld stuff together using common sense. I often wonder
what would have happened if they hired, developed, and used engineering talent.
Engineering Talent must be nurtured and developed over a
period of years. It cannot be cooked like a packet of
instant potatoes.

I so want to buy and American Car!
Next week my brother will go buy a new Toyota Corolla.
His last one cost less than 1,000 per year excluding
fuel and insurance. You won't do that with ANY Ford
GM or Chrysler.

[Marc]

In order to turn around and build desirable cars/trucks GM/Chrysler must pay the white collar engineers/designers more. Also, UAW has forced management to cut salaries of the creative workforce in favor of the blue collar workforce. Blue collar workforce salaries need to be in line with the rest of the countries salaries for autoworkers. GM in recent months has done stupid things to kill off most of its veteran middle management and designers, the only way to lure talent back is to get aggressive on pay.

This is long overdue...Small trucks need small diesels and 4cyl with high torque and beefed up towing capacity, better interiors, quiet/smooth operation, good emmissions, and superior reliability and off-road capabilities. Tacoma is the benchmark, but has become too thirsty and its interior is weak. Ranger and S-10 could be drastically improved to get large pickup buyers who no longer want to fork over 50 plus each fill up. Jeep can improve its brand with a stump puller diesel in Wrangler and better interiors/ ergonomics. Aftermarket off-road equipment should be added to select models.

DI/turbos need to be put on V-6 muscle cars/luxury sedans that have been put on a diet. Camaro and Challenger are too heavy and too thirsty.

The interiors on domestic cars still need more effort especially at Chrysler. The new Dodge truck is spectacular, but reliability needs improvement. Fiat models will need more quality and more American style to be successful here. Lastly Accord and Camry need to be benchmarked and improved upon. They are great cars and more American than most cars built by GM/Chrysler, but they have become bulky slow and bloated. Now is the time to improve Malibu and Avenger/Sebring ect to compete. Regular gas is the goal for new more effecient/powerful 4cyl engines. VW has good turbo 4cyls but require Premium which pushes buyers away. TDI is also something GM/Chrysler need to find a better engine to compete with.

[Ethan]

A "toyota corrola/ford focus/honda civic" so over engineered that it will last 20 years with routine maintenence.

GM should make cars so reliable that they can afford to pay for all the repairs/maintenece themselves. I'd gladly pay $2k-$5k more for a car if I knew I would never need to pay anything else again to keep it running. (except for gas)

American car manufacturers have a reliability reputation so poor I wouldn't buy a car from them unless they engaged in a major inititive to try to be twice as reliable as the japanese cars. The japanese cars aren't eating GM's lunch because they are sexy or big. They are eating GM's lunch because of reliability and fuel economy.