June 10, 200916 yr It would have helped. GM slowly starteed loosing their focus in with the 1973 model year lineup. It's been 36 years of decline ever since, when you think about it. Halting the decline in a big way at any one point or in a myriad of small ways all along would have saved them. Alas, for some reason it wasn't worth turning the ship around for whatever odd reason. Had they ever at any one point decided to just be GM and not tried to be everything to everybody..we'd be okay. Or, had they decided that they were a car company run by people passionate about cars...we'd be okay. Chris
June 10, 200916 yr Well if there were no Wagoner, there would be no Bob Lutz either. I think Bob Lutz came to GM for the challenge of trying to turn it around. Lutz is his own person and his arrival was not 100% because of Wagoner.
June 10, 200916 yr I think Bob Lutz came to GM for the challenge of trying to turn it around. Lutz is his own person and his arrival was not 100% because of Wagoner. I believe i read somewhere that Wagoner was directly responsible for bringing Lutz on board. Edited June 10, 200916 yr by CaddyXLR-V
June 10, 200916 yr I believe i read somewhere that Wagoner was directly responsible for bringing Lutz on board. Ok, but do you think it would have been impossible for Lutz to end up at GM without Wagoner?
June 10, 200916 yr Author Not much, unless Wagoner went with them. Going back a bit farther and axing Roger Smith would have been far more effective. He's the one who blew the cash stash. But personnel isn't the topic here.
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.