Sometimes I thinik Lutz is bad PR for GM

[Scotsman]

Mercedes-Benz Goes Big on Green: Near-future lineup includes diesel, hybrids, Diesotto, and fuel cell cars
Cost doesn't faze Mercedes - shouldn't, with those margins

By Paul Horrell

Cost won't stop Mercedes-Benz delivering a huge near-future lineup of diesel, hybrids, Diesotto and, later, fuel cell cars, Daimler chief Dieter Zetsche says. Whereas GM's Bob Lutz says cars will get far more expensive if they're to meet fuel economy standards, Zetsche takes a different line. "I hear some competitors speculating that whatever it costs to meet the targets, that will be transferred to the customer. But since this is a legal requirement in order to sell the cars, the willingness of the customer to come up with the full bill will be limited. I consider the realistic definition for the pricetag is that the [customer's] investment has a payback as a fuel saving during the first three or four years of the vehicle's life."

Mercedes is making progress on the Diesotto engine, Zetsche said at the Geneva Show. It is composed of a suite of technologies, the last of which is its variable compression ratio, "which is the toughest step to execute, involving a lot of investment." Mercedes can get about 85 percent of the improvements without it in three to five years he says, with variable compression ratio seven years away.

The S-class Bluetec hybrid is two years off. "The diesel Bluetec has a cost premium over less-clean diesels." Mercedes will offset part of the engine's cost with "efficiency gains" in the rest of the car and some cost passed on to customers. Lower refueling costs will offset the higher price, he says. "But we will protect our intended margin of 10 percent while selling this kind of vehicle."

Mercedes will begin producing one fuel cell B-Class per day in 2010, Zetsche said. He believes it can be economically feasible and competitive with conventional cars. "Today we are convinced by 2014 or '15 we can offer fuel cell vehicles that compete technically and on price with conventional powertrains, in the range of 100,000-plus units a year. It's a stretch but realistic target." Mercedes won't wait for a hydrogen infrastructure. It's in discussions with such power-generation companies as Linde. "One percent of today's hydrogen production would fuel 5-million fuel cell vehicles, so it's not a totally new world."

Like Toyota, Mercedes will make its leading edge Green car special. "We learned from the Prius that for a new technology it is essential that the neighbor asks 'What are you driving there?' in order to create the hype. So we would have to make it clearly visible. You don't do that when you're making one a day but when you get to volumes I'm talking about, the body would be significantly different from other vehicles."

http://www.motortrend.com/features/a...enz_goes_green

[Mr. Wyndham]

I don't consider Lutz as bad PR...he just doesn't sugar-coat things. Which can be both good and bad.

Read exactly what Zetsche said, "I consider the realistic definition for the pricetag is that the [customer's] investment has a payback as a fuel saving..."

He hides the fact that cars will be getting more expensive by saying it will all work out in the end...Lutz just came out and said "look, cars will be getting more expensive because of these new regulations." I guess it all comes down to what you'd rather hear.

[DGthe3]

I'd rather have someone give me the straight up truth rather than beat around the bush. Its not so much that he is bad for PR, as the press likes taking little quotes and placing them out of context. Like the global warming thing. He stated his opinion, which is shared by many people, then said that it is not the opinion of General Motors. Well that last part got left out most of the time.

[Jay]

I think Lutz is both bad and good in general. Personally, I think he has too big a mouth some times as a businessperson.

[Scotsman]

Guys, you don't get it. Zetsche basically said the SAME thing Lutz said without making it sound like a doomsday prophecy (which I must say Lutz is quite good at), he basically said the consumer will receive a return on their more expensive investment in the price of the car being higher than what it is today, not just saying, "well yeh, it's really gonna blow for the customer because they can only expect to pay more for cars in the future because of the greater cost of developing and implementing fuel saving technologies into cars". You can't give customers half the picture, you have to give them the big picture.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Guys, you don't get it. Zetsche basically said the SAME thing Lutz said without making it sound like a doomsday prophecy (which I must say Lutz is quite good at), he basically said the consumer will receive a return on their more expensive investment in the price of the car being higher than what it is today, not just saying, "well yeh, it's really gonna blow for the customer because they can only expect to pay more for cars in the future because of the greater cost of developing and implementing fuel saving technologies into cars". You can't give customers half the picture, you have to give them the big picture.

C'mon Scotsman, don't be roped in, man:(....that's not telling consumers the "whole picture"; that's sugar-coating it! The price of gas is going to go up: we all know that. So, at best the whole "return on investment" is going to be nothing, in which case the consumer ends up paying more on both fronts. More to get the 'better' car, and more spent on expensive gas. Ideally, gas stays the same, and only the price of the 'better' cars goes up. That's the only scenario where what Dieter Zestche says would be true. But since we know that's not going to happen, it would probably be cheaper for the consumer to just pay more for gas (An idea which Lutz happens to support, btw).

So, no - Lutz isn't telling the whole picture. But niether is the German. If anything, you could argue what Lutz is saying has more truth to it, than Zetsche's comments. But I won't

...but...besides this instance, which I concede the point, and agree that Lutz makes things sound pretty bad here - what else has he said that sounded like a "doomsday" prophecy?

All the above with much to you, Scotsman, I'm not flaming you!

[Scotsman]

Well, consider the excitement he caused around the pricing of the 5th-gen. Though he did make the V6 sound like an exciting and enticing proposition. I know he's said other things as well, just can't recall them at the moment.

I think the whole point is that regardless of the increased cost the reality is the consumer will be making fewer trips to the pump for refills, even if they're still running on gasoline. If alternatives like cellulosic ethanol and diesel really take off then the cost of fueling or how often people will have to gas up will become almost a non-issue.

[DGthe3]

When I read what Zetsche said, I interpreted it as what Lutz said. I didn't have to translate Bob's words in my mind. Also, some of what Zetsche is saying is a crock anyway. Most people that buy cars from his company aren't too interested in saving money while driving. Plus, technology like hybrid systems don't save any money for most drivers, the increased cost doesn't get paid back durring ownership. Same with diesel. Often, they simply cost more. I can't imagine the cost of a diesel hybrid ever paying for itself. There are exceptions but they are not the norm. And so, what Bob is saying is more truthful than Zetsche was

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Well, consider the excitement he caused around the pricing of the 5th-gen. Though he did make the V6 sound like an exciting and enticing proposition. I know he's said other things as well, just can't recall them at the moment.

Fair enough...I had forgotten about that one...

I think the whole point is that regardless of the increased cost the reality is the consumer will be making fewer trips to the pump for refills, even if they're still running on gasoline.

True...but since gas will be more expensive by the time most cars reach that minimum 35mpg rating...it will cost more to fill up each time on those fewer trips...effectively cancelling out any cost benefit..

If alternatives like cellulosic ethanol and diesel really take off then the cost of fueling or how often people will have to gas up will become almost a non-issue.

We agree here. But this would still be true without the 35mpg-meeting equipment, wouldn't it?

Regardless of what rukus his mouth causes, Lutz is the guy responsible for bringing GM back in terms of design, and engineering. I'll take a few crude, out of context comments in light of that.

[Scotsman]

I don't get this gloomy outlook on diesel: point is (like I've said) you're making less trips to the pump spending more time on the road than in a gas powered equivalent, there's no way around that. Hybrids are bunk, that I definitely agree with as it takes for longer to re cooperate the initial increased cost to the consumer. And regardless of how much or little wealthy consumers are concerned about the fuel consumption of their German land yachts is irrelevant, MB and others have to answer to world governments now regarding emissions and fuel consumption of their cars. Plus I think most people would rather be driving something "green" than "mean".

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

But this would still be true without the 35mpg-meeting equipment, wouldn't it?

Right, but that's not the case.

Regardless of what rukus his mouth causes, Lutz is the guy responsible for bringing GM back in terms of design, and engineering. I'll take a few crude, out of context comments in light of that.

It took more than just Lutz, there's Ed Welburn, Rick Wagoner and many others that have contributed to GM's continuous and profound turn around. Lutz is the juice behind much of the cause though.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Right, but that's not the case.

Sure it is. If the extra "equipment" wasn't in the cars, they wouldn't cost as much. So the cost savings of using E85, etc (i.e a cheaper fuel) would be amplified even more.

I realize I might be coming off a little agressive, what with the point, counter-point and all. But my issue is not about the fuel economy. I'm all for more efficient cars; whole heartedly! But we could have reached this goal soon enough, so my problem is that it was forced on the industry, which means higher cost to implement this stuff NOW, as opposed to over time, where the costs would have been spread out.

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Sure it is. If the extra "equipment" wasn't in the cars, they wouldn't cost as much. So the cost savings of using E85, etc (i.e a cheaper fuel) would be amplified even more.

I realize I might be coming off a little agressive, what with the point, counter-point and all. But my issue is not about the fuel economy. I'm all for more efficient cars; whole heartedly! But we could have reached this goal soon enough, so my problem is that it was forced on the industry, which means higher cost to implement this stuff NOW, as opposed to over time, where the costs would have been spread out.

I'm saying that 35 mpg CAFE is REAL, it's not a fictitious idea and we can just dismiss.

Off-topic but I think with increased purchase price for cars people will probably be forced to hold onto their cars longer, and I know this will effect lease payments as well. Unintended consequences.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Fair enough...I had forgotten about that one...
There is also the global warming comment

True...but since gas will be more expensive by the time most cars reach that minimum 35mpg rating...it will cost more to fill up each time on those fewer trips...effectively cancelling out any cost benefit..

plus, we can never forget about inflation

We agree here. But this would still be true without the 35mpg-meeting equipment, wouldn't it?

yup

Regardless of what rukus his mouth causes, Lutz is the guy responsible for bringing GM back in terms of design, and engineering. I'll take a few crude, out of context comments in light of that. Agreed. There were others involved but Bob has had a hand in pretty much everthing. And the turnaround coincides quite nicely with when he showed up+development time for new cars

We also have to remember Bob for some of his good quotes (these are from memory, so they might be a little off)
"At Pontiac, we were making cars with enough plastic clading to fill an Aztek"
"With the Volt we have the noble motive of reducing fossil fuel usage. And perhaps the less noble motive of kicking Toyota in the teeth"