General Motors’ guiding principle in recent years has been CEO Mary Barra’s vision of “zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion.” But in the grand scheme of things, such a world is far, far away, and has been received as little more than wide-eyed grandstanding.
And if the vision sounds somewhat familiar, it’s because GM’s thinking, and even the mantra itself, isn’t exactly new. Automotive News reported Monday that German auto supplier Continental rolled out a “Vision Zero” strategy 10 years ago. What is “Vision Zero”? “Zero Fatalities. Zero Injuries. Zero Accidents.”
Then in 2016, Volvo announced a similar declaration when it called for zero vehicle-related deaths in its cars by 2020 via “Vision 2020.”
Although GM’s mantra also includes the ideas of zero congestion and emissions, the motif is nothing new. And realistically, each vision is rather pie-in-the-sky. To fully eliminate vehicle fatalities, governments would need to wipe every human driver off of the streets, and then all of the technology that contributes to the cause of zero fatalities would have to work flawlessly, all the time. And that’s not happening anytime soon.
To achieve zero emissions, consumers would need an epiphany to ditch big V8-powered trucks and SUVs and opt for fuel-cell and battery-electric powered cars. The market for said vehicles is a sliver of new-vehicle sales in North America. Even China still buys more gasoline-powered cars than it does “new-energy vehicles.” And the Chevrolet Silverado, GM’s moneymaker, isn’t dropping the internal-combustion engine in the near future.
Visions may guide, but reality often paints a much different picture.
Comments
Exactly what I have been saying all along!
“zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion.”
Zero congestion sounds the most impossible.
“Zero congestion sounds the most impossible.”
Have you heard of V2V and V2I?
What happened to zero down and 0% interest?
Mary and the board are becoming too ‘progressive.’ Also, they need to start pumping up production numbers for the Camaro SS. There’s such a small supply of them that when you find one at a dealer the price is jacked up significantly higher than msrp. Need to produce more to take on Charger, Challenger, Mustang, etc, which have flooded the market due to lower prices.
What do you mean by too progressive? Is investing a technology that every other automaker is investing into for the sake of their survival ‘progessive’ now, or is it progessive because you personaly don’t like the kind of a future autonomous cars present?
If it’s that latter, then you need to ask yourself why GM (and every other automaker) is putting money into autonomous cars and not into 400hp V8 RWD cars that retail for than $25K.
Besides, product quality is more important than product quantity, and resales values are much more important than winning a sales race.
I guess the point that i’m trying to make is that not many people want to pay 50k for a Camaro, especially when you can get a Charger, Challenger, Mustang, etc. with very similar performance and quality for 10-15K less than a new Camaro. I agree the Camaro probably is better in performance and quality, but is it worth it when you have to drive 100+ miles to find one at a dealer and then pay another $10,000 – $15,000 over the competitors? GM has forgot the importance of sales volume on some models.
I agree quality is important. Resale value is not as important. I actually prefer if the resale value drops like a meteor in the Arizona desert. Because I’ve never bought a new car. I’ll let the first owner take the hit in depreciation.
Then you shouldn’t be looking at Cadillac or any luxury automaker, because luxury cars are overwhelmingly bought on lease, not outright, and therefore resale values are exceedingly important after the lease term is over.
Also, if you’re not buying new, you’re not a luxury consumer. A luxury, by definition, is something that isn’t easy to get that makes living more sumptuous. You don’t go down into the used market expecting that whatever you buy will launch you back up into the luxury market. That’s like all the fools who bought a 300C thinking it also came with a measure of respectability when they called it a ‘Baby Bentley’
Now, you can find 300C’s in front of apartment complexes everywhere instead of parked in circular driveways of private estates.
But anyway….if the resale value of the car at the end of the least is worth less than a comparable car in the same segment (or worse, worth less than average than cars not in any luxury segment), then the consumer won’t come back. That’s not something Cadillac needs, and the last thing Cadillac needs is to be associated with the used market because it’s residuals couldn’t hold up after 3 years.
I mean Mercedes and Lexus can retain more than 40-45% of their market value after 3 years, why can’t Cadillac? Cadillac shouldn’t be a standout star in the used market, as that isn’t where Cadillac should be celebrated.
What GM needs a steady rotation of lease holders to keep Cadillac at the forefront of the luxury consumers mind.
I know you’re going to think all of this is snobbery, but for luxury automakers, it’s snobbery that pays very, VERY well. For GM, there’s not reason to deliberately stunt Cadillac’s growth and keep them as a cut-rate, lower-priced, second-choice, second-tier luxury offering best suited for the used car lots, because that’s not where the money is.
.
Your best comment ever. Cheers from Canada.
Would you believe it was a repost? Probably not.
[BluenoserIsBetterThanABrownnoser]