LexFather

GM’s Lutz Calls for Break on Crash-Testing in U.S.

JOLIET, IL – The U.S. should suspend crash-testing requirements in order to allow auto makers to speed more fuel-efficient models to the market, says Bob Lutz, General Motors Corp.’s vice chairman and product-development chief.

In a wide-ranging interview here at a preview of ’09 models, Lutz denies there are plans to drop the Saturn Outlook cross/utility vehicle, as has been widely speculated, and he reveals retail customers won’t be able to get behind the wheel of a new Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle before November 2010.

In addition, Lutz says GM is worried about the future of its Corvette sports car as a result of tightening fuel-economy regulations.

“I’m not going to get into individuals, but I will tell you what we want from whoever it is,” Lutz says when asked which of the two major-party presidential candidates would benefit the auto industry more. “We have tremendous pressure from mandates on fuel economy and safety that are going to add weight to vehicles, and so we are victims of the federal government.

“So it’s not unreasonable to request federal loan guarantees from the government to fund the new technology needed to meet the mileage and safety mandates.”

Detroit-based auto makers are lobbying for a $50 billion federal financing package to fund product development and retooling to more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Lutz: No Lamda vehicles to be dropped.

“We also would like a 3-year moratorium on certain U.S. front- and side-impact crash test regulations,” Lutz adds. “The regulations impact our ability to bring in several high-mileage small cars we make elsewhere in the world.

“In Europe, the crash-test procedures are different than in the U.S., so the tests are different. If our government says cars that meet crash tests in other countries are good enough to be sold here, we would have more high-mileage, small-car flexibility.”

As for the Saturn Outlook being discontinued now that the more volume-oriented Chevrolet Traverse is hitting the market, Lutz says simply, “No Lambda-based crossover will be dropped.”

He does reconfirm that plans for fullsize rear-drive Chevrolet and Buick have been cancelled due to higher gasoline prices. Also impacted is the new Camaro sports coupe set to roll out.

“I get letters from people saying they heard we were going to add a supercharged 600-hp V-8 to the Camaro lineup, and I write back saying ‘Sorry, with new (corporate average fuel economy) standards (for 2020), we aren’t going to do it.”

The new minimum CAFE standard of 35 mpg (6.7 L/100 km) in 2020 and additional pressure from California and 15 other states to limit carbon dioxide is part of what may force Chrysler LLC to jettison its Viper high-performance model. Chrysler said this week it was examining options for its Viper business, including a sale.

“Setting lower CO2 limits would equal setting CAFE at 43 mpg (5.5 L/100 km),” Lutz says. “This is why the sale of the Dodge Viper by Chrysler makes sense, because anyone selling fewer than 50,000 vehicles annually would be exempt (from fuel-economy requirements).

“So if someone else bought Viper, they could sell to capacity, but Chrysler couldn’t. This is why we are concerned about Corvette.

“The reason California set the exemption for less than 50,000 units is that it would mean the Hollywood folks could keep driving their Lamborghinis and Ferraris.”

Based on the 50,000-unit exemption “Porsche could sell 11-mpg (21.4 L/100 km) Cayennes, but we couldn’t sell 20-mpg (11.8 L/100 km) Chevy Tahoes,” Lutz adds.

GM is happy with the pace of battery development for the Volt, but he emphasizes the car won’t be available to the public any earlier than 26 months from now.

“The batteries have proven trouble free,” he says. “It’s almost frightening.

“We’ll start releasing (the car) to the public in November of 2010. No one, no one, will get one any earlier,” he says, adding “the first generation won’t be profitable.”

Asked how auto makers will generate profits from small cars, Lutz says, “Profits follow demand. When SUVs were in big demand it meant profits. When small cars are in big demand, it will mean profits.

“The Chevy Malibu transaction price is up by $4,000 this year because it is in big demand,” he says. “The old Malibu it replaced we had to give away with incentives.”

Meanwhile, Lutz continues to insist retirement isn’t on his radar screen.

“I have no plans to retire,” he says. “But that doesn’t mean someday Rick (Wagoner, GM’s chairman) or the board might say, ‘Hey, you’re starting to ramble.’”

Lutz, who notes he is “76-and-a-half” says, “When I’m 80 we’ll have a party in my office and have cake.”

But he concedes he has made some concessions to age.

“I’m not shy about taking my vacation time, I just don’t take it all at once,” he says. “As I get older, I think I’ll probably take more time off.

“I think I’ve figured out the perfect work week – Fridays and Mondays off.”

mmarshall

No more crash tests? Maybe Lutz is planning on getting a Smart-for-Two.

Stormwind

Thats funny European crash test are tougher than US tests. The only reason he wants US to stop crash tests is so GM doesn't have to make their cars as strong/safe to be sold here.

knihc2008

iTrader: (1)

Yeah I would give up fuel economy for safety...

Scottward

I think they should at least quit becoming more stringent and freeze them where they are now. Vehicles are pretty darn safe compared to what they used to be. The laws of physics can not be overcome and to keep adding weight to the cars by ever more stringent crash standards will never allow us to achieve our mpg goals. Sure we can all drive around in Abrahms tanks and we will all get 5 mpg. The 87 Honda CRX would achieve about 40% less fuel mileage if it had to carry around the safety baggage that today's vehicles must.

UberNoob

stupid Lutz

if US suspends these safety standards, chinese automakers will come in and totally kill off GM's cheap cars!!!
that will be a nightmare for GM

Lutz cant think things thru eh?

Scottward

That's a pretty harsh statement. Many of GM's latest products are very good, the CTS and Malibu are just two that quicky come to mind.

Threxx

All Lutz is saying is that crowds of people are demanding cheap small fuel efficient vehicles right now. Those vehicles already exist in Europe and are PLENTY safe... however as governments do, one government requires these boxes to be checked, and the other requires some other boxes to be checked meaning the US government finds some technicalities that keep the Euro models from being imported directly over to the US with minimal delay.

The conversions required will take 18-24 months at least in most cases... so Lutz is saying to help the gas situation and give consumers what they want... relax on the technicalities... say that if it's good enough to pass certs over in Europe, it's good enough now.

It's not actually saying let us put out unsafe cars... far from it. These are just technicalities... ones that are keeping the gas crunch from softening as quickly as it could for people who want these cars ASAP.

BTW... whoever said Chinese cars would come over here and put a hurting on GM's cheap cars... you have to be kidding me. The cars coming out of China are disposable mostly copied/replica garbage compared to GMs offerings.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

You guys are missing the point. He's saying if it already passes stringent European tests, why force a manufacturer to waste more time and money doing U.S. tests as well.

mmarshall

Have you actually seen, driven, or reviewed any Chinese-made cars? I will withhold comment on them until I actually get the chance to do so myself.........and I eagerly look forward to doing so, but there seems to be a continuing delay getting them to our shores.

mmarshall

Well, for one thing, average driving conditions in Europe are different from America, and, of course, vary even more country by country. England, of course, uses right-hand drive models, which may affect the crash-resistance of the car's structure. In Germany, you have some areas with extremely high speeds....much higher then the U.S. In Italy, a million cars all try to get through the same hole at once. In the Alps, you have hairpin after hairpin. And, almost everywhere in Europe, no matter what the country, you have a lot of minicars (like the Smart for Two) that, simply by the laws of physics, are going to be at a disadvantage in a crash with a larger vehicle, no matter how well they do in "tests". So, the point is that it's rather difficult to have a "European" standard that is uniform across the board....or for both Europe and the U.S.

Mr Johnson

I may be mistaken but I was pretty sure the European NCAP standard was in fact a standard across the major European countries. There was a very recent AP article that at least scratches the surface of the issues. For me the government has way too many regulations to "protect" the stupid in our litigious society.

I would have no qualms buying a car that only adhered to European safety standards.

mmarshall

Perhaps so, but that still doesn't change the fact that one standard, in Europe, would be a compromised Jack-of-all-Trades...in a region with a lot of variation in both vehicles, driving conditions, and roads.

I8ABMR

lets stop doing crash tests???? This guy is a clown. I am getting 60 mpg, but I am killed in a minor accident. No wonder GM is a total mess. We have sharp people like this guy taking care of things. We all know they are not going to stop crash tests, but what concerns me is that the head of GM is making statements like this. What kind of corners do you think this dude would be willing to make if it was his decision. Thats why I will NEVER buy any GM product.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

And the U.S. doesn't have a vast variation of vehicles, driving conditions, and roads??

I'd have no worries driving a European approved vehicle here. They're at least as **** about safety there as here.