- Posted on Thursday, June 1st, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Hyperbole and Defamation in The New York Times
By Steven J. Harris
Vice President, Global Communications
Imagine our shock when we read yesterday that GM is “more dangerous to America’s future” than any other company, is “like a crack dealer” addicting helpless Americans to SUVs, and is in a cabal with Ford and DaimlerChrysler to buy votes in Congress.
These weren’t the rantings of some obscure, clueless blogger. These were the thoughts of Thomas L. Friedman, author and influential columnist, on the op/ed page of The New York Times.
Mr. Friedman is not normally known for such shrill hyperbole. In fact, he’s generally well-respected and known for presenting rational, fact-supported opinions.
That wasn’t the case with yesterday’s column. That a journalist of his caliber and reputation could write such a defamatory, uninformed opinion was shocking to those of us dedicated to this company and proud of what GM builds and contributes to the nation’s economy.
The GM he describes is not the GM we know. Either Mr. Friedman is being a propagandist, or he’s woefully misinformed. We prefer to believe the latter. In fact, we’d like to invite Mr. Friedman out to Detroit to learn about the work GM is doing on alternative fuels, on hydrogen fuel cells and on technology to make all of our vehicles more fuel efficient.
GM understands the issue of our nation’s dependency on foreign oil as well as anyone, and we’re doing as much or more than anyone to address the issue, from making our gasoline engines more fuel-efficient to investing heavily in hybrid and fuel cell powertrains.
We also understand the impact of higher fuel prices on consumers. We offer Americans a full line of fuel-efficient options, including last year’s top-selling subcompact, the Chevy Aveo, and the well-regarded Chevy Cobalt compact. In fact, GM offers more vehicles that get 30 mpg or better EPA highway mileage than any other automaker. More than Toyota. More than Honda. More than Nissan.
We’ve suggested immediate ways that the United States can reduce its oil dependency, including getting more E85 ethanol fuel made from U.S. corn into our nation’s gas stations. Many of the GM cars and trucks that Mr. Friedman mentioned in his column can run on E85 fuel, which is one way we can significantly reduce the amount of oil we use – right now. We already have more than 1.9 million of these so-called “Flex Fuel” cars and trucks on the road.
Mr. Friedman takes exception to a limited incentive that offers a partial credit toward fuel purchases on certain midsize cars and full-size SUVs in two markets where we are working hard to increase our market share. This is nothing more than a creative way to get consumers’ consideration for our products in two very competitive segments.
Mr. Friedman sees it as something sinister, an effort to turn hapless Americans into fuel “addicts.” But let’s be intellectually honest here: A gas card is not going to get someone considering a $15,000 economy car to buy a $35,000 Chevy Tahoe.
The people who buy full-size SUVs, by and large, do so because they have a need for them – be it a large family to haul around or a boat to tow. And exactly how is offering a gas card that may be worth $1,000 any different or more sinister than the $2,000 cash rebate that Toyota’s offering right now nationwide on its full-size SUV, the Sequoia? The Sequoia, by the way, gets worse mileage than any of GM’s industry-leading full-size SUVs.
In fact, Mr. Friedman’s suggestion that Toyota’s approach toward fuel economy is vastly different than GM’s belies the facts. Give Toyota credit for the Prius hybrid. But if you look at the growth in Toyota’s business in the United States over the last decade, it has come primarily from expanding into the truck segments – including full size pickups and SUVs. GM entries in those segments, by the way, have better EPA mileage ratings than Toyota’s.
And which automaker is building a large new assembly plant in Texas to build its biggest full-size pickup yet? Toyota.
Don’t get me wrong. Toyota’s a fine company. But like GM, Toyota offers a full range of cars and trucks to satisfy all their customers across this nation, not just what New York and Washington journalists who ride in yellow cabs think the rest of America should drive.
Mr. Friedman also misstates our position on fuel economy standards. The fact is, GM is not opposed to reasonable standards. But there is no proof that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations have done anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, oil consumption has increased dramatically over the years, even as vehicle fuel efficiency ratings have improved significantly.
That’s because consumers make their own decisions on what to buy and how to drive. The sales-weighted “average fuel economy” numbers have not gone up more over the years because consumers have wanted larger, more powerful vehicles – even as our cars and trucks have become remarkably more fuel-efficient. Our new full-size SUVs that Mr. Friedman so despises, for example, now get more than 20 mpg on the highway.
GM has faced its share of criticism over the years, some of which was well-deserved. No company does everything right all the time. We appreciate constructive criticism that’s based on facts, and we try to listen and learn from it.
Today we’re in the midst of perhaps the largest turnaround in corporate history. We’re building the best, highest-quality cars and trucks in our history. We’re working closely and respectfully with our unions to lower our costs and fix the structural parts of our business that make us less competitive. And we continue to invest heavily in our future, a future that includes cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles.
We’re working hard to build a stronger GM and a stronger America that’s less dependent on foreign oil. Hyperbole and shrill editorializing on the pages of The New York Times shouldn’t mislead anyone.
P.S. Along with the comments and trackback below, please see commentator Joseph Pratt’s analysis of the situation.
51 Comments
Justin
I dont think anyone could of said it better then what you did Steven. I also wish that Mr. Friedman will take you up on that offer to go to Detroit and check out everything you guys are doing to make your vehicles better than all the rest. If he does go… I cant wait to read Mr. Friedman’s next artical in the New York Times, trying to apologize.
Oh, and keep up the awesome work!! Love the new vehicles, cant wait to see whats in the future! (The Camaro “Concept” is kick a**!)
Chris Whisonant
Great reply Steven, but this is the perception that a lot of Americans probably have - that Big Auto and Big Oil are in collusion with Big Govco to prevent us from branching out and reducing dependence on “fossil” fuel.
By the way, the Camaro IS awesome!! Please GM, do NOT pass by this concept photoshop for a Trans Am. WOW, please do it right the first time around and don’t make the same mistake as with the GTO (may it rest in peace) by making it too bland with no real options and overpriced to compete with the Mustang. GM can do a lot better!! (I have two car payments - both GM vehicles, so I’m on board.)
Black or White - I like both:
http://forums.motortrend.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Future&Number=28984&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all
Chris Whisonant
Oops - appears that the url I posted was too long. Here it is in Tiny URL format to the Motor Trends forum:
http://tinyurl.com/lnzqm
Jesse Perry
“These weren’t the rantings of some obscure, clueless blogger.”
No, but this was!
(it’s a joke.)
Jose
I acknowledge all mentioned above but here we are today without enough alternative fuel vehicles and the infrastructure to fuel them. GM is not doing enough. Period. I personally think GM is talking with both sides of the mouth. I want to see less PR and more beef. This is an industrial icon with , I hope, the capability of changing America again and supply it with cars run on anything but gas.
kays
Tom Friedman is an idiot - in fact you could say that of pretty much all of the journalists.
No person outside outside of any organization is qualified to discuss issues related to the day to day operation of that business.
As you indicated Friedman is clueless on the R&D that GM is doing towards finding alterative fuels.
I wish there could be a mechanism to hold these journalists accountable.
Paul Costello
Sorry Mr. Harris but Tom Friedman is right! GM’s marketing ploy continues to push the notion that we don’t have to change behavior and alter our addition to oil. A big thumbs down to GM!
JoJo
I think Friedman finally lost it. Its been brewing though for a while. He is part of the problem and he thinks he is the solution.
John
Why even waste time responding to that fool from the N.Y. Times.
Alan Black
It is about time someone wrote and article such as this that cut Mr. Friedman down to size. He is also a proponent of a $1 per gallon gas tax intended to reduce consumption and fund research into alternative to hydrocarbon-based fuels. In proposing this he ignores two facts: (i) the government’s taxes on gasoline are already 10x the profit margin the oil industry itself derives from its business - why on earth give the government more to squander?; and (ii) as someone who has lived in the Europe where government taxes are the difference between $9 per gallon gas (yes, that is how much a gallon costs today in London) and $3 in the U.S., I saw exactly zero impact on consumption. The M25 around London for example is as bad a the traffic jams from Manhattan to JFK - so much for taxes reducing consumers’ consumption. We should just tax water, it is no less a necessity than oil.
Mike OConnor
I do not read the NY Times mainly due to their uninformed opinionated writing staff. I’m not surprised by their lack of knowledge on the subject they write about, it occurs daily
Ray
“These weren’t the rantings of some obscure, clueless blogger.”
What’s hyperbole and defamation again?
Lori, Williamsburg VA
Very well put! One request: How about an ad campaign (or other method) to let the rest of us know about the work GM is doing on alternative fuels, on hydrogen fuel cells and on technology to make all of our vehicles more fuel efficient?
Gary Dikkers
Steven Harris said, “Our new full-size SUVs that Mr. Friedman so despises, for example, now get more than 20 mpg on the highway.”
Mr Harris,
Wow, 20 mpg! True story from two weeks ago: I had to make a 300 mile round trip to Chicago. I drove my VW Jetta with a turbo-charged diesel engine and a manual five-speed. Steady speed of 65 mpg, mostly on the Interstate. I got 53 mpg for the trip.
I’m sorry, but I have to agree with Mr Friedman. I live in the US. Why did I have to buy a German-made VW to get the car I wanted? Why can’t I buy a GM or Ford with an engine like the TDI?
Believe me, I would have preferred buying a US-made car.
I know GM and Ford know how to make cars like that. I lived in Germany for 11 years, and both GM and Ford make better cars in Europe than they do here — including diesels with manual transmissions. Why is that? I have absolutely no idea. What’s your explanation?
Your company makes better cars for the South American market than they do for the US market. Why is that? Why can’t we buy the sub-compact Montana pickup trip here? Why don’t you sell the Chevrolet Corsa and Celta in the US? They would be much better suited for city commuters than Tahoes and Avalanches.
In Europe, you see micro-commuter cars with three-cylinder engines that get as much as 70 mpg. Why don’t you sell those here? Don’t you ever feel a pang of guilt when you see a single suburban commuter driving a 5,000 lb SUV to work? Doesn’t it bother you to see someone burning energy to move more than two tons of steel, glass, plastic and rubber just to move one 190 lb body to and from work, the mall, or grocery store?
Are you an engineer or a marketing guy? I know your engineers are just as capable as the engineers that design your cars for the overseas market. Why doesn’t GM’s marketers let the engineers design the kind of cars I know they can – and that they probably would like to design?
Your marketers think it a big deal to offer Bluetooth capability, GPS, MP3 stereo players, and individually heated seats. Instead of those kinds of gimmicks, why not give us an engine like the VW TDI?
I know Mr Friedman has traveled widely and has a true international perspective, and that is why I give his views much credence. Your title says “VP, Global Communications.” I’ll go out on a limb and guess you have also traveled widely. If so, you must already know GM offers better cars overseas than they do here. If you haven’t traveled widely, get on the road and see what is happening in Europe and Asia.
Please explain why you let Opel make better cars in Germany than Pontiac or Buick make here? Is that intentional, or just a gigantic gaffe? Or is it because GM has always considered US consumers to be less sophisticated and demanding than European drivers?
Steven Harris said, “We’ve suggested immediate ways that the United States can reduce its oil dependency, including getting more E85 ethanol fuel made from U.S. corn into our nation’s gas stations.”
If you are a marketing guy, I’m sure you realize that GM’s current E-85 campaign is nothing more than a marketing ploy to make up for not having a hybrid vehicle to go head-to-head with Toyota and Honda. It is a way for you to try and convince the average American your corporation is concerned; in short, it is a way to at least look like you are making an effort.
But if you are an engineer, I’m sure you realize E-85 is not the solution. Unfortunately, making ethanol from corn means a continued dependence on fossil fuels. Our industrial corn farms can only raise corn in the enormous yields they do because of nitrogen fertilizers made from natural gas. Corn ethanol is neither a sustainable, nor renewable fuel, and it certainly isn’t green.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Hal
This is a clear and balanced retort to Friedman’s drive-by op-ed. The one thing that I disagree with is Mr. Harris’ comments on CAFE standards, which I find misleading. Our dependence on foreign oil is a function of relative low price of oil from the early 80s through 2000. Supply grew faster than demand (which was throttled in part due to CAFE standards and a shift to more fuel efficient vehicles in the early to mid 80s). The inflation-adjusted price for a gallon of gas fell to the point in the early 90s where Americans could afford larger vehicles such as SUVs. GM as well as others brought to the market what the customer clearly desired.
Friedman needs to do his homework on the subject - blaming Detroit without bringing all factors into context is at best counterproductive, and at worst, just tossing out another piece of red meat to those who enjoy nothing more than to rage at Corporate America.
P.S.
I really think that GM could score big if it can come out with a plug-in hybrid before the rest of the industry.
S Page
You do yourself no favors with the reverse spin. GM has all those pointless badge-engineered nameplates, so the number of brands of fuel-efficient cars you sell is irrelevant compared with your corporate average fuel economy.
GM’s hydrogen talk is just that. Honda has a few FCX cars in customer hands *right now* and has pledged to make the awesome next-gen available. Meanwhile GM doesn’t have a compelling hybrid to sell and doesn’t offer a single car in the top ten of the EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide, whether for smog, CO2, or fuel economy.
Hal
In response to Mr. Dikkers post:
You state that -
In Europe, you see micro-commuter cars with three-cylinder engines that get as much as 70 mpg. Why don’t you sell those here? Don’t you ever feel a pang of guilt when you see a single suburban commuter driving a 5,000 lb SUV to work? Doesn’t it bother you to see someone burning energy to move more than two tons of steel, glass, plastic and rubber just to move one 190 lb body to and from work, the mall, or grocery store?
Why should GM, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, or anyone else who sells large SUVs in the United States be bothered by the fact that their customers want to purchase and drive these vehicles?
The answer is clearly that they should not be concerned about the fact that they are offering vehicles that the the marketplace demands. Europe, as you would know if you spent any time there, is a different market with different factors weighing on consumers, not the least of which is significantly higher fuel costs due to taxation, greater population density, and less property ownership. In a nut shell, it is in many ways a different culture that does not value, to the degree we do in the U.S., the freedom to drive to and from work, transport family to leisure activities, or exploiting the family vehicle for utilitarian purposes such as hauling materials home for DIY projects.
Americans love to drive and if they can afford it, they love roomy vehicles. You may have a problem with this, but it is illogical to direct blame at manufacturers who seek to delight their customers.
Daimler and BMW build and sell SUVs in the U.S., and build and sell fuel efficient vehicles in Europe. Why don’t they simply build and sell their fuel-efficient products in both markets, thus realizing economies of scale? The answer is that they don’t see themselves being competitive at this time building and selling the smaller vehicles in the U.S. It would be insane for these or any other company to build and operate a $750 million manufacturing operation just to produce vehicles that won’t meet the clear demands of the marketplace.
Your criticism of the what you characterize as the fuel-wasting SUV driver is misdirected if that is what you find fault in. People will buy vehicles that meet their perceived needs to the extent that these vehicles are available. As we shift to an era of higher fuel costs those perceived needs may shift toward more fuel efficient vehicles - GM and all other manufacturers will have to adjust to survive and remain profitable.
If VW could profitably sell highly fuel efficient vehicles in the U.S., don’t you think that they would be more successful, as this is the best car market in the world. I travel all around the U.S. and I can safely say that there aren’t many VWs on the road. Why? Because regardless of the benefits you describe with these vehicles, consumers by and large do not want them. If and when they do, we will see more VWs on the road just like we did in the late 60s. That is not GMs fault; that is the reality of the marketplace.
Your comments regarding E85 assume that it is GMs responsibility to engineer a shift toward more sustainable sources of fuel. I am sorry to disappoint you but no corporation will soley take on that responsibilty. Consumers ultimately will decide which approach, or combination of approaches, will prevail in the marketplace. Automakers and fuel producers will respond accordingly. Government regulation may also have a hand. GM would be wise to pursue multiple avenues to increasing fuel efficiency/reducing petroleum-based fuel consumption in its fleet to the extent that their resources allow. E85, hybrids, bio-diesel, etc… are all on the table now and companies will respond to the consumer’s preferences. A cynic predisposed to dismissing any corporate initiative that couples product development with reduced emission/energy efficient goals will no doubt agree with your thesis. But few can reasonably argue with the fact that there is little else going on, at least on the surface, that suggests automakers are revolutionizing the market.
Believe me I am no GM apologist, but I get the feeling that the company is a lightening rod for all the misguided fear and angst associated with major changes in the balance of power related to resources.
I am reminded of an encounter with a friend of my wife and I who is an environmentalist and active in the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservency. She had just purchased a Honda Element. I asked her why she purchased an SUV knowing her views on the environmental impact of SUVs. She said that she did feel a little uncomfortable with the fuel mileage but that she and her husband were doing a lot more camping and project work with the Nature Conservency, and she found this particular vehicle to be the best fit for their needs (her husband drives a Corolla). She told me that she wouldn’t even consider buying an “American made” car because she felt that the quality was inferior and that GM or Ford hadn’t taken enough steps to improve the fuel mileage of their vehicles. I told her that my Saturn Vue was getting about 25 miles to the gallon when I didn’t have my bike rack on top. She blushed and told me the her Element was getting (we both have 4WD) about 22 mpg on the couple of trips she had taken. What I took away from this encounter was that even well-meaning, environmentally conscious people face trade-offs between what fits their lifestyle and what fits their agenda.
BTW -I don’t work for GM, no one in my family works for GM, I don’t own stock in the company, and I have owned cars from each of the Big Three. I will probably be the first in line to buy a plug-in hybrid whoever brings it to market first. My only interest is seeing some balance in the debate.
Tom W.
Does Mr. Friedman even own a vehicle?
Hard working gentleman need BIG trucks to GET THE JOB DONE! We’re not all laptop desk jockies looking for a Prius.
Some of the pressure needs to be on big oil and their distribution channels as well as advancement of fuel technologies. E85 has about 600 pumps in the U.S..
That’s not enough. Why not E100 like some of Europe? How about an education campaign from GM marketing informing the public on alternitive fuels and their advatages?
Take the lead role and keep up the hard work GM!
PS:Your fullsize trucks are STILL like a ROCK. Nuff said.
R.L. Herron
I am also shocked that such a well-respected columnist as Thomas L. Friedman would apparently join the chorus of ill-informed media who have so reveled in GM-bashing the past few years.
GM has, like any large corporation, made marketing missteps that it deserves to be criticized about. But it has also done tremendously good things that the public should know about as well.
GM has been in the forefront of research for things like hydrogen-fueled vehicles, solar-powered vehicles, alternative-fuel vehicles, electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles. They do, as Steve Harris mentions, have more vehicles that get 30 mpg or better EPA highway mileage than any other automaker, using the fuel that this country’s infrastructure currently requires.
It is the local marketplace that demands larger vehicles and SUVs in this country, and it is irrational to expect any manufacturer to ignore the marketplace and make huge investments in vehicles they cannot sell. There is no infrastructure in this country to support enormous volumes of alternative fuel vehicles and, beyond a vocal minority, apparently no tremendous rush to buy them!
When things like this are pointed out, there are always the “Mr. Dikkers” types who vent their frustrations with the marketplace and blame GM for not making vehicles here like they do in Europe or South America, totally ignoring the multitude of things that influence consumer demand. Those things are not GMs fault, and the fact they have been involved for decades in the necessary research to help solve America’s energy dependence on oil, are things that also need to be pointed out!
Chris Moore
Friedman may not be obscure; he is, however, a liberal and thus clueless about a great many things.
Paul
“Don’t you ever feel a pang of guilt when you see a single suburban commuter driving a 5,000 lb SUV to work? Doesn’t it bother you to see someone burning energy to move more than two tons of steel, glass, plastic and rubber just to move one 190 lb body to and from work, the mall, or grocery store?”
Let’s face facts: Corporations, all corporations, are in business to do one thing: Make a profit. The only difference is what each one does to make that profit. Some companies make computers. Others write code. Others make cars. Others sell people health care. All of them would stop doing those things in a heartbeat if it was more profitable to do something else.
There is no morality or emotion in this. They do it because it makes them the most money. Asking if GM employees feel bad about what they do is like asking a shark if it feels bad about eating a seal pup. Sure, some of them might feel bad, but there is no profit in feeling good about yourself and losing money for it.
And that’s what GM is doing with these gas rebates. Their gas-guzzlers are more profitable than their small cars. So they offer incentives that promote the sale of their gaz-guzzlers. They’ve done the math, folks.
Unfortunately, they’re not charging full price for these vehicles. There are a multitude of externalities in any economic transaction. If they were included in the cost of these vehicles, I wouldn’t have a problem with people buying the biggest SUV they could afford. They’d be paying the price for oil addiction, climate change, wear-and-tear on the roads, and all the other maladies associated with owning an SUV.
But when I’m paying taxes to support people who own gas-guzzlers and I’m not getting any benefit from it, that’s when I have a problem.
It’s not that GM shouldn’t be allowed to offer incentives. It’s that the price should be increased to pay for the costs inherent in buying a larger vehicle. And the only entity capable of increasing the price to include the externalities is the three levels of government; local, state, and federal.
Bhaskar Ramachandran
Things one should understand in any market:
1. Any companie’s foremost purpose is to provide shareholder value.
2. If small or fuel efficient cars are the most important criteria, people would buy those. Its not like the buying public do not have a choice.
More than anything, the above two factors drive supply and demand whether it be US, Europe or any other continent.
I truly believe in market based economy. The current slowdown in the SUV buying would prove that market based economy works. If the fuel prices go up to a point where it is so expensive, then naturally the buying public would shift their preferences to a smaller car.
In Europe fuel prices are very high because of tariffs and hence the public likes to buy smaller cars since they cannot afford to feed larger ones. Since the public buys smaller cars, manufactures make/sell them, again doing their best to return shareholder value, not becuase they are interested in the environment or not like to sell large SUV’s that have a higher margin.
Hence it is you and I and the shareholder that matter more to the auto companies than CAFE standards and air pollution. If we demand it we will get it, because they do not have a choice but to satisfy market need to provide shareholder value. Its that simple.
Mr. Friedman, I’m sorry, but offering gasoline price caps or any other incentive does not help GM or its shareholders in the long run and I’m sure they would, for that matter any other company would do what is needed - whether it be smaller cars, Diesel, E85, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Helium, Moonrock or anything else to provide shareholder value.
In the end, creating shareholder value and providing what the consumer wants are one and the same. All the auto manufacturers are trying to do exactly that. You can blame GM for not doing a good job of it, but do not blame it for making crack addicts out of consumers, because it simply cannot do it because it does not add shareholder value in the long run. You are just calling the consumers foolish, which they may be in the short run, just like the ones that read your column and take it seriously.
Dennis LaBelle
Enough!
Friedman really is clueless. Who else is?
I just bought a hybrid SUV, not a Prius. On the highway, it’s mileage is vey little more than the regular six cylinder. It the city, its great. It’s still 1/3 better than my old V/8 SUV used to haul a boat, lumber, trailer with 2000 lbs of dirt and it went through the snow. It fit my needs. But the new one does too. But it costs more than a gas one. The incentive tax credit to purchase helped. The price difference will be recovered over 8 years.
My son just bought the VW Jetta. He priced the diesel. The payback wasn’t there even with the extra miles per gallon and the cost of diesel. Nice car. It has a better drivers seat than mine which cost $15,000 more.
Don’t knock somebodys product until its considered on its merits, who needs it and why and the rest of the stuff that government screws up, including the oil supply. I’m old enough to know after 45 years of driving that automobile customers buy what they think they need and are safe not just what the car company’s make. There’s a huge selection out there; something for everyone, notwithstanding the Tom Friedmans of the world. If they had their way, I couldn’t use my trailer for dirt. Tell my wife she can’t redo her flower garden. The Aveo and Cobalt just won’t do.
Mike
This is a response to Gary Dikkers post. I think GM would like to borrow the calculator that you are using to post gas mileage. You state that the Jetta is getting 53 mpg. The government shows the highway mileage is 41 mpg. Not only would GM want to see this miracle vehicle, so would VW — apparently they did not pay their professional driver used for these tests enough money to do the job right. Given your calculation a GM SUVs should get more than 25 mpg.
Can you also tell me if you can install a snow plow on your Jetta? Or trailer 7,100 - 9,5000 pounds of boat, 5th wheel or maybe another car? There are so many things you can do with a large truck / SUV that you cannot do with any other vehicle. That is why they are purchased — because they are needed.
Gary Dikkers
Mike said, “You state that the Jetta is getting 53 mpg. The government shows the highway mileage is 41 mpg.”
Mike,
I was surprised too, but that’s what I got. It was a round trip of 330 miles and I burned 6.2 gallons of diesel. It was a cool, no-wind day, and I drove steadily at 65 mpg with very few stops and no rapid accelerations.
That trip is the best mileage I’ve ever gotten, but I do commonly get in the mid- to high-40s on the highway, and the low- to mid-30s driving around town.
The point of my post was not to brag about my mileage, but to ask why GM can’t offer an engine like the TDI.
Mike said, “Can you also tell me if you can install a snow plow on your Jetta? Or trailer 7,100 - 9,5000 pounds of boat, 5th wheel or maybe another car? There are so many things you can do with a large truck / SUV that you cannot do with any other vehicle.”
Mike,
No, obviously I can’t. Besides the Jetta, I also have a GMC pickup truck. But I use the Jimmy only for truck-type stuff, not for driving to and from Chicago, and back and forth to the mall. I use the car for car-type stuff, and the truck for truck-type stuff. In 2005, I put less than 2,000 miles on the truck.
There is definitely a need for big trucks to do manly things: Ranchers, cowboys, plumbers, forest rangers, contractors, farmers, etc. all need trucks for the things they can do. I have no problem with that. People who work need trucks — but people who commute back and forth from the suburbs to an air-conditioned office building don’t.
What I do have a problem with is seeing a 120 lb woman or 190 lb man driving a 5,000 lb SUV back and forth from a suburban home to an office just because we might get one or two snow storms a year when four-wheel drive is actually necessary. (Why do we need to burn energy moving two and half tons of SUV to carry only a 120 or 190 lb person around?)
Trucks and SUVs have a legitimate place, but about 90% of those driving SUVs have no need for them, and own them only because it was the trendy thing to buy, or because it somehow massages their egos. Most who own SUVs would be clueless if they had to actually take them off-road.
Most people who bought SUVs bought them only because GM’s marketers knew exactly how to appeal to whatever inner drive made those people think they needed an SUV.
Best regards,
Gary Dikkers
getalifeagain
Someone like this “writer” at the New York Times thinks he is well meaning, but is completely misguided and misinformed. It is this mentallity that does not realize that directly and indirectly the Big 2 1/2 contribute 7% to the GDP, more than all the transplants combined.
It is much better to gather the facts and then disseminate, than to look and act like a propagandist.
Jim Dermitt
The world is spikey. I wouldn’t be very concerned with the bad press. GM isn’t perfect, but it does produce products here in the United States and that seems to be unpopular in some circles. If a car is made here, I’m all for it. There are more helpful Americans than there are helpless Americans. I don’t consider Mr. Friedman very helpful. He’s selling books and ideas, that I suppose some people find helpful. It’s a free country. I’m saving up for a Corvette.
James
It is not Mr. Friedman’s fault that GM can be so easily likened to a “crack dealer”, and the word “hyperbole” is not needed to describe what he did by simply relating GM to a “crack dealer”.
You, the editor, say that the company that runs this blog should gain praise from consumers for putting so much money into investigating alternative fuels, but where is your Prius? GM has (or had) more money in the bank than any manufacturer, so why is it that GM is behind in the hybrid vehicle sales department by thousands of units? Why is it that incentives have been raised on your SUVs to get them moving, and that SUVs are GM’s top sellers? Why is it that a 700HP Corvette is rumoured to be on its way? Don’t you get it?
Little transparent rebuttles like this aren’t going to keep the consumer population of North America from becoming educated about the true nature of General Motors. If GM really wants to actively pursue positive ends on this issue, they should start walking “the walk” instead of talking “the talk”.
I could go on for at least another week, just rambling here like an already-discreditted “obscure, clueless blogger”, but I won’t - because I happen to be an employee of the automotive market intelligence community, and I have work to do.
George
I occasionally read Tom Friedman and find his columns interesting. But this one is way off the mark. For an economc journalist to believe that the reduction of competition in a free market is a good thing is just incomprehensible. The last I heard, the US was a free country with respect to the citizen’s lifestyles, i.e. they could choose what kind of vehicle they wanted to drive. To suggest that Toyota should purchase GM is poor reasoning, as at a minimum it would decrease consumer’s choices.
Probably no one in the media would have predicted consistent $3/gal gasoline prices pre-Katrina, but since last August, it looks like it will be a reality for most drivers in the US. Obviously, there will be some fallout on the sales floor across the country. I would like to see some research numbers on the sales of all brands of SUV’s since the higher gasoline prices have taken effect.
I think it has been an example of serendipity for several Japanese manufacturers that the hybrid vehicles they are forced to produce for the home market have been adopted as ‘green’ machines here in the US.
Here in the US we have an entirely different attitude concerning our vehicles and our mobility. For many of us, many of the solutions being offered by these hybrid vehicles are not acceptable solutions. Fortunately, the domestic manufacturers do have alternatives readily available and are pursuing other avenues to maintain the mobility which we desire.
I personally have no desire to purchase a hybrid, I don’t believe the premium paid would be recouped in gasoline savings alone. I think that clean diesels, and alt fuels like E85 would be a more appropriate solution for our economic and ecologic situation.
Chris
GM writes: The people who buy full-size SUVs, by and large, do so because they have a need for them – be it a large family to haul around or a boat to tow.
Poppycock! Most people who buy giant behemoth SUVs do so because they think they are “safe” and that their teenagers who are just learning to drive are better off navigating a giant metal box around rather than something smaller. Also, I’m sure the pervasive “Big Truck Means Big Ding-Dong” comes into the equation as well. By the way, you can fit a large family just as easily into a minivan or station wagon.
As for the boat owners, if they can afford a boat that’s big enough to need a giant SUV to tow it around, they can also afford a few extra bucks for gas.
SUV owners of today are like the people who bought giant Cadillacs in the late 60’s and 70’s as a way to flaunt their wealth. When the gas crisis of the 70’s hit, those went the way of the Dodo. Hopefully, with the current gas crunch, people will abandon their wasteful, dangerous and polluting SUVs as well.
Scott Reimert
GM has developed the Sequel - a production-ready H-powered vehicle that’s ready for mass-production as soon as the end-user can obtain H at the “gas” station (pun intended).
Where is Toyota’s production-ready H car?
CisteraNucleusBlog
New York Times and General Motors shoot it out
Thomas Friedman took some heavy shots at General Motors this week in his New York Times Op Ed. [Argus]
IS there a company more dangerous to Americas future than General Motors? Surely, the…
Randy
Did I read a post right? If one has a need for a truck, then its OK to have one, but for commuting to/from work or doing things that don’t require a truck you need to buy a car for that? The simple truth is many folks don’t have the resources, like apparently some do, to afford both.
Maybe the wife has the car today and the husband drove the truck because his commute is shorter. Or maybe the wife needs the car after work to do car stuff, like taking the kids to soccer practice, so the husband drove the truck to work, or vice versa. Just because someone is driving a truck or 9,000lb vehicle to work doesn’t make them any more or less responsible and/or environmentally aware.
Everyday during my commute I see plenty of the “socially elite” in thier hybrid vehicle driving faster than the posted speed - so much for getting the best possible fuel economy and the saftey of other drivers. Here’s another story, saw a canoe strapped to a hybrid. Saw the same driver and canoe on the river later that morning while fly fishing. Guess who had trouble keeping trash in thier canoe versus who was picking up after them on the walk back to the car (yes I drove my car that day, despite it was a questionable truck activity)?
While we are making generalizations, how about this: Truth be told, the average truck purchaser probably is involved in the outdoors. Through there purchases of outdoor gear that include excise taxes for State/Federal wildlife funds, and contributions (time & money) to not-for-profit groups such as Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Federation of Fly Fishers, etc… probable provide more direct dollars / time to making the environment better.
My point - generally speaking, generalizations do not work.
Steve, its about time GM punches back when someone decides to take a sucker punch at GM. The so called automotive industry experts (or those that claim to be) need to be taken to task when there best journalist effort is unbalanced and not based on fact. Unfortunately, posting a message here may not be enough, but at least it is a start.
Arthur Fontaine
If you really believe this I feel bad for you. YOU got everyone hooked on SUVs, stop blaming “customer choice.” GM reaped incredible profits on this approach for a while and then it went bad, which is why you’re where you are and how I describe justice. Travel outside our country and see how people feel about you and your monster SUVs, then search your soul a bit. You have left this world (and this country) a far worse place than you found it, and I hope you can live with that.
Oh, by the way I’m a free-market Republican. I just consider your behavior in manipulating the American public as the prototypical abuse of market power.
Ford is guiltier in my view. But if either of you made cars here like you do in other places, we wouldn’t be having this discussion — and I wouldn’t have two Toyotas.
GM stockholder in Virginia
Maybe GM would be better served by spending less time whining about a hard-nosed column and more time working on improved mileage for its cars and trucks.
Stockholder
GM is going to lose my vote if it doesn’t keep up with the cultural trend. And,
clearly, Friedman put a spin on a few things but none very far from the popular notion that big cars are less economical. Just give me a sign that everything will be all right and I will keep you guys for another year.
Get on with the times or dig your own grave.
Gary Dikkers
Randy said, “Did I read a post right? If one has a need for a truck, then its OK to have one, but for commuting to/from work or doing things that don’t require a truck you need to buy a car for that?”
Randy,
Yes, you did. One sign of a true craftsman is using the right tool for the job. If you are a rancher, farmer, or a contractor, then a truck is the right tool for the job.
If you are a PowerPoint jockey or accountant who drives mostly between a suburban home and an air-conditioned office, a truck or SUV is not the right tool.
If this was 1957 and this country imported no foreign oil, I wouldn’t care what you drove.
But in an era when we import more than 70% of the oil we use, and every month the balance of payments gets more and more lopsided against us mainly because of energy imports, people have to get smart and show some social responsibility.
We are living in a fool’s paradise and companies such as GM who refuse to acknowledge that and continue to say, “We just give the consumer what he or she wants.” are only leading us to disaster faster.
GM didn’t just give the consumers what they wanted, but used their marketing skills to convince consumers to buy what made the most money for GM, whether those trucks and SUVs made sense or not.
Watch a GM commercial for one of their SUVs and you will likely see a freewheeling spirit driving an SUV through the snow near a pristine mountaintop. But the reality is most SUVs do nothing more than drive from suburban home to office and back, along roads congested with tens of thousands of other vehicles. Did you ever see a GM commercial for an SUV that shows reality — an Avalanche or Tahoe in a traffic jam, or driving in the early morning commute bumper-to-bumper at 15 mph while burning fuel at the rate of 12 mpg?
I agree with GM Stockholder above who said, “Get with the times or dig your own grave.”
A question for GM VP Mr Steven Harris: If you have read any of the comments to this blog you started, why are you afraid to come back and answer the questions readers have posted?
* Please tell us why GM is more socially responsible in Europe than in the US?
* Tell us why you don’t sell the cars here you sell in South America and Europe? (It wouldn’t have anything to do with the larger profit margin on SUVs than a compact pickup truck such as the Chevy Montana you sell in Brazil, would it?)
* Please tell us why GM is so resistant to higher CAFE standards? (I recently heard one of your buddies being interviewed on NPR where he said if forced to comply with higher CAFE standards, they would sell cars that got better mileage, but they wouldn’t make those cars in the US. Please explain that threat.)
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
gina
What ever happened to the plug in electrical cars that were around in the early 90’s? If I remember correctly, they were tested in the American market on a lease only basis for about 2 years, then all of a sudden they were all recalled and destroyed. I’ve read that ethanol based fuels use just as much oil in their production as the oil they are purported to replace, and hydrogen fuel requires almost as much oil to be produced as they seek to replace. If people really wanted the least oil based, most fuel efficient cars, then why aren’t electric cars-whose electricity can be generated from wind, and/or solar panels, which can be used, stored up, or sold back to electric companies- produced for the green buying public? Just curious.
Pierre
Hi Steven,
GM pulled out its ads from the LA Times last year because of the anti GM bias from one of its editors. If GM has ad space in the WSJ, it should do exactly the same.
Jennifer Johnson
Gary Dikkers,
I’m glad to read your responses and say you are right on and that’s the reason Mr. Harris hasn’t rebuttled.
It’s a shame that ethanol is seen as an alternative to fossil fuels.
nycebo
GM builds the cars that most Americans want to drive. If they should be oversized SUVs that get poor mileage, than so be it. GM didn’t invent the rules of capitalism, they are simply playing by them. When an American driving public begins to drastrically demand smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, I am certain that GM and Ford will respond accordingly. Of course, the question is whether they will respond quickly enough so as to stem the continuing loss of market share to Toyota.
Gary Dikkers
Nycebo said, “GM builds the cars that most Americans want to drive. If they should be oversized SUVs that get poor mileage, than so be it.”
That’s not exactly true. Americans buy the GM cars that GM’s marketers persuade them to desire and buy.
GM has a professional marketing staff who are all skilled at the art of creating a brand and who know exactly how to punch people’s emotional buttons to flip them one way or the other. Among other terms it’s called hidden persuasion.
For years, GM (and Ford) have used those highly developed marketing skills to convince people to buy cars they didn’t really need, just because the profit margin on those cars was more in GM’s (and Ford’s) favor.
Think of the GM commercials you’ve seen lately. GM could make commercials convincing people to buy Aveos and Cobalts just as easily as they make commercials flipping people towards Suburbans, Tahoes, and Avalanches. But which commercials do you see? Not commercials for the Aveo because the profit on a $12,000 vehicle is a lot less than the profit on a $35,000 vehicle.
And when you do see a commercial for one of their SUVs, do they ever show reality? Of course not.
* Does GM show someone wheeling their Tahoe into a filling station and spending $100 to fill the tanks? Of course not.
* Do they show a commuter misusing a 5,000 lb vehicle to commute four miles in bumper-to-bumper traffic from a suburban home to an office building using a gallon of gas each way because the engine never gets warmed up? Of couse not.
* Do they show a soccer mom using a 5,000 lb SUV to take an 8 year old to practice at a park two miles away? Of course not.
What they do show is the fantasy, romance, and independence of wheeling an SUV through the wilderness with either a beautiful woman at your side, or with a bunch of buddies out for a weekend of male bonding. The SUV in that commercial will be rolling up a mountainside, winding through a virgin forest, or dashing across the Mojave desert, and strangely you will never see another vehicle in sight.
What GM is selling in those commercials is romance and independence, when the reality is that most SUVs will never go off-road, and will spend most of their time on a daily commute, going back and forth to work with all the other shlubs.
GM knows exactly what they are doing in those commercials and how to market their products for maximum profit.
We buy what GM wants us to buy. (Or at least most of us did until the reality of spending $100 each time you stop at a filling station started to hit people.)
Part of GM’s problem is that people are starting to get smart and have become independent, and they are more able to see through GM’s hidden persuasion. And unfortunately for GM, their business model in the States has yet to catch up with that.
It doesn’t have to be that way, and GM should know that. Their Opel division in Germany sells vehicles that are more socially responsible. The same is true for the vehicles they sell in Brazil.
The main point of Tom Friedman’s column was that GM is being irresponsible in offering free gasoline for a few months to persuade people to buy a GM truck or SUV. He is saying that is no better than a crack dealer offering someone a week of free product to get someone hooked, and he is right.
The SUVs that GM persuades people to buy now are going to be on our roads for another 7 to 8 years, merrily burning fuel at the rate of 12 mpg. (Actually probably lower than that – the mileage on those cars will go done as they are sold and passed on to people who are less likely to keep them in good running order.)
I think Friedman is saying that GM is being shortsighted by persuading people to buy SUVs now, instead of offering and persuading them to buy cars that will be more compatible with what is sure to be the harsh realities of our energy future.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Bernie Arbic
I have read both of Mr. Friedman’s columns regarding the $1.99 gas issue, and just read Mr. Harris’s response.
Mr. Harris said
“But there is no proof that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations have done anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, oil consumption has increased dramatically over the years, even as vehicle fuel efficiency ratings have improved significantly.”
The way I see it, U.S. manufacturers increased the fuel efficiency because they were FORCED to — by Congress, and by competition from foreign manufacturers. Even though our oil consumption is up, think of what it would have been, had CAFE standards not forced improvements.
I believe the American car buying public will pay more for fuel efficiency. Why do GM and Ford fight attempts to increase the standards?
Although my wife and I were very pleased with our 2000 Buick Century, we sold it last February and purchased a Prius. This time around, fuel costs seem unlikely to drop back very much, and I expect more and more Americans, come time to replace their vehicles, will be making similar choices. I hope GM and Ford will have competitive products.
cfw
Glad to see GM blogging.
Do not think GM can win this argument about being irresponsible without some discussion of Hummer. GM can either have a “bad boy” approach to gas guzzling (who cares, wimp?) or take a green approach. GM cannot persuasively go both ways.
I was pleased to get some info about how Toyota has increased its market share with non-hybrid vehicles. Shame on Toyota.
Hopefully we can see GM taking more of a leadership role in pushing for fuel efficiency rules, and building and selling fuel efficient vehicles.
How about some image ads that deflate the idea that it is manly, safe, etc. to drive around in several tons of steel (at x MPG) when one ton of steel (at 2x MPG) would do?
Mike Stone
mr. garry dikkers, while you have a very compelling argument, it just doesn’t hold water. i own one of those gas guzzler suburbans, and i also own a buick. i have five people in my family and run a small business that used to convert some of these vehicles to alternative fuels until the EPA made it too expensive to comply with the “rules” [blame your government]. my buick gets 34 miles to the gallon on the highway and it has a 3.1L v-6 engine. it is what i use to commute to work and back mostly and most of our running around to the store. [it has 350,000 miles on it!], small cars like your volkwagon are fine,but did you know that volkswagon didn’t make a tdi in 2006[couldn't pass emissions], using less fuel doesn’t mean that it is clean. my point is that there are more factors to building cars for the US market than there is for building cars for the european market, [crash testing,emissions testing, recyclability,fuel standards,etc..]i suggest that you read the GM blog a little more carefully, GM produces more vehicles that get more than 30 miles per gallon than any other car company–period. that is a commitment to the fuel conscious public. diesel cars in the united states have to pass very stringent standards, standards that are extremely difficult to meet [your volkswagon got an exemption along with all of the other diesel engine mfgs, because they were about to go out of business if they couldn't meet the stds.] so,yes, GM,FORD,CHRYSLER can build more efficient cars from a fuel savings point of view, but if the cars are dirty, it can’t be sold here. sorry to jerk the wind out of your corporate bashing rant, but you along with most of the other people in the US are so uninformed and misinformed by your own kind. so poorly misinformed that,people like you have suceeded in the shrinking of the skilled work force in this nation, i don’t know anyone in germany,japan or china that helps build/maintain our infrastructure,education or our standard of life [by paying income taxes], that people like you are rapidly ruining, by bad mouthing a corporation that was once the backbone of this country. being in the automotive repair industry and the alternative fuel industry at the same time gave me a unique opportunity to know these facts [ i own the only private/public alternative fueling facility in central texas that offers BIO-DIESEL[B99, which is 79% more "bio" than BIO-WILLIE],PROPANE [which is produced here in texas,not the middle east],NATURAL GAS,[also produced in texas]. GM,FORD and CHRYSLER have done more positive good in this country than bad, including:FORD who converted their painting plants electrical generation, to run on the paint fumes produced during the painting process, no one in china,japan,or germany does that. GM— water based polymer research for paints has reduced VOC’s in our atmosphere, chrysler has had one of the best running natural gas vans anywhere. and i haven’t even scratched the surface in the amount of research these companies have done to improve all manufacturing processes that the foreign companies have either stolen or copied to try to keep up. So mr. Dikkens, get informed, or you will be just like mr. friedman, who, came to a gunfight with a knife.
Jack Lauer
Don’t worry…we all knew that Friedman was a nutjob a long time ago. Keep up the good work of providing jobs for hard working Americans, and cars for our nation’s drivers!
gp
they’re all full of crap.i drive a 25 year old diesel mercedes that weighs in at 4700 lbs.that’s about two and a half tons loaded.it get 27 in the city and 34 in the country at 80mph. i’m cheap and i’m poor but i’m not an idiot.there’s people here bragging about getting 50 mpg in a 1900 lb car.whoopdefkndoo.there is something wrong with this picture.if my car weighed 1900 lbs shouldn’t i get twice the milage? what about if it was aluminum instead of steel and had some aerodymanics instead of that stout ,flat front end that they are so famous for.that should jack up the milage right there at least 30 per cent,eh? it just seems like it’s all a big con game, we should have come a lot farther in the last 25 years than this.all this magic technology in hybrid cars to get what,40 mpg? gimme a break! they must be tweeked at the factory to run badly to get 40,they should be getting at least a hundred with the technology that’s supposed to be in them.. my old austin mini back in the 60’s got 40 for gods sake and it was tuned!if i can get 34mpg in a 25 year old diesel and my cousin gets 45 in a brand new prius then something is rotten in pittsburg.
getreal
Very sad to see that what’s allegedly good for GM is very bad for life on earth.
Very sad to see GM sink deep in that river in Egypt, de Nial.
Is there hope for GM, we still hope so, but it would entail major changes in behavior, and getting rid of managers who still don’t ‘get it.’
Cor
It looks like GM is starting to feel the heat (finally) and is trying to spin what they do to look as good as they can.
Toyota has a proud ad saying that they have 9 models with better than 30 MPG,
So GM plasters different faces on the same economy car and claims that they have more cars that get 30 MPG than anybody else.
Instead of supplying real Hybrids that can drive electrically, they beef up the starter motor, so their cars become automatic starters, they call those hybrid and use proud words to claim that they make them cheaper than anybody else.
Duh - my bicycle is also cheaper than your car, because it is something else.
Then the FOOL cell technology that every major US manufacturer and government raves about… I can start a book but suffice to say that it is hot air and even if it would materialize in some form in the future, then the Hydrogen part makes it have a lower MPG than other technologies, so why bother?
Note that Hydrogen is not an energy source, it always is a converted form of energy; an energy carrier. Just like batteries are used to carry electricity. The vehicle with batteries reaches around 80% efficiency, while the Hydrogen vehicle does only half that, even worse than straight burning the petrol.
So why bother?
BTW, the European researchers have seen the light and are reducing their efforts in Hydrogen development. That should be an indication.
Oh yes - flex fuel vehicles.
Unfortunately there are almost no places where you can get the clean fuel for these vehicles, so the impact that these millions of units have on the environment is nil.
Then why is GM still building so many of these vehicles?
Because they can count them as clean vehicles, so they get the incentives that go with working on clean vehicles. Also - it costs nothing extra to produce a flex-fuel vehicle, maybe some ECM software.
Remember that song - getting money for nothing…..
Well, I think it is time that GM stops doing nothing and starts giving solutions instead of spinning words in an attempt to hide where they openly frustrated improvements that would really benefit US customers and environment. In 30 years the average gas mileage has not improved. The US is really the worst in the world. The proposed CAFE improvements would move the US slowly to the level that the Chinese already achieved and all other major markets are above that. How can GM and other manufacturers say that they cannot make cars like that?
Sounds like Mr Ford saying that his company would go belly-up if they were forced to install a seat belt in every car.
It is time to raise the bar.
Scott
What an awesome, well-articulated response to an unimpressive rant from someone who clearly has no passion for great cars. Are we ever going to get tired of villifying American auto makers, and lauding everything that comes out of Japan? We’re our own worst enemies in that regard. Very, very well-written, factual statement, Mr. Harris. And know this much: there are still some of us out here who are rooting for you, who don’t get caught up in crazy conspiracy theory, who know the truth about foreign auto makers, their recalls, their own thirst for ever-more truck and SUV sales… and who are impressed by the strides that you are making at GM in quality, fuel efficiency, and improved styling. There are some people for whom a vehicle is nothing more than a means for getting from one place to another. Those people drive Hondas, Toyotas, and ride in yellow taxi cabs. They should once and for all back off those of us for whom a vehicle is not as much about basic transportation needs as it is about the passion that is evoked by cars like the Corvette, the Camaro, the Solstice, and the Silverado.
Bruce
All GM has to do is pop out the EV1 schematics and put the car back into production with lithium-ion batteries like the ones made by valence for a 200 mile range, Then sell it so that they make just as much profit as they would make on any car in that size class. After that, you won’t hear a peep out of anybody. I drive a toyota, but I would much rather drive an EV1 from GM that is made here in the U.S.
Putting the EV1 back into production is a small price to pay for the nations respect. Make an effort for petes sake.
By the way: Using size D batteries, I could make a Nimh pack to propel a small car for 200 miles for 35k. A large company could at least do it for half that. Don’t make excuses that it’s too hard, when people are converting their cars with their spare time and money because GM won’t offer them one. You want people to stop writing defaming articles about GM, Then prove your the best. At this point they have nothing to lose by putting the EV1 program back online until they can make a fuel cell powered sedan for $35,000.
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)