[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Very valid position. Much more thought out than “DEI hire” ranting. :/. .

Do YOU think she was more qualified than Reuss?

[SomeGeoffGuy]

It doesnt' really matter who is in charge, to be honest. Until the day after election day, the EV mandate put in by the Biden EPA was all but a sure thing. By 2032, you had to have a pretty good % EV. Technically, that is still the law. You can't fault the CEO of a company for following the law, or think a different one will not follow the law.

-Geoff

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

Do YOU think she was more qualified than Reuss?

Not my place to say which one was MOST qualified. That’s the job of the Board of Directors. I do know that they are both qualified. Which one is MOST qualified depends on what the long term strategy of the company is and which one is better placed to execute it. Apparently the Board of Directors decided it was her. And 10 years later she’s still there. Makes me think it was a good call.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

It doesnt' really matter who is in charge, to be honest. Until the day after election day, the EV mandate put in by the Biden EPA was all but a sure thing. By 2032, you had to have a pretty good % EV. Technically, that is still the law. You can't fault the CEO of a company for following the law, or think a different one will not follow the law.

-Geoff

First off, there is not now and never was a federal EV mandate. California mandate? Yes, but that’s Newsome, not Biden. Canadian mandate? Yes, but that’s Trudeau not Biden.

Now this is the part where I piss off the EV crowd… the California mandate would not be attainable at a federal level. Probably not attainable at a state level either, but that’s another discussion. Manufacturers can’t get there by then. Period. They can’t add capacity fast enough.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not my place to say which one was MOST qualified. That’s the job of the Board of Directors. I do know that they are both qualified. Which one is MOST qualified depends on what the long term strategy of the company is and which one is better placed to execute it. Apparently the Board of Directors decided it was her. And 10 years later she’s still there. Makes me think it was a good call.

For once in your life will you just answer a simple question with a simple answer??!!

Do YOU think she was more qualified than Reuss?

I’ll keep on this broken record until you answer the question.

It ain’t difficult! You worked there for however long….. man up and just answer the question!

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

For once in your life will you just answer a simple question with a simple answer??!!

Do YOU think she was more qualified than Reuss?

I’ll keep on this broken record until you answer the question.

It ain’t difficult! You worked there for however long….. man up and just answer the question!

God, you make me laugh.

You have my answer. Both are very well qualified.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Now this is the part where I piss off the EV crowd… the California mandate would not be attainable at a federal level. Probably not attainable at a state level either, but that’s another discussion. Manufacturers can’t get there by then. Period. They can’t add capacity fast enough.

Any reasonable person even Pro-EV person would or at least should realize any EV deadline would slide to the right.

Back in the 60's, a certain president set an ambitious goal to land people on the moon by the end of the decade. While work that made it possible was already well under way before that president set that goal( Saturn V was in design in the 50's), it still gave the country something to strive for.

Now depending on political view, any ambitious goals are viewed as shoving things down our throats.

[olrocker]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

God, you make me laugh.

You have my answer. Both are very well qualified.

No, I do not have your answer.

No one has your answer.

Again, who do YOU think was more qualified?

I know you have an opinion one way or the other. What are you afraid of?

[NovaSS4spdFan]

Back in July, GM Authority reported that the Biden Administration had ear marked 1.7 B to the auto industry to build or convert assembly plants to EV production. The Lansing Plant is in line to receive 500 mil from that pot. Whether the new administration continues or withdraws that offer remains to be seen. An ICE Gen 7 Camaro is, at this point, a fond wish.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by olrocker

For once in your life will you just answer a simple question with a simple answer??!!

Do YOU think she was more qualified than Reuss?

I’ll keep on this broken record until you answer the question.

It ain’t difficult! You worked there for however long….. man up and just answer the question!

Well let's at least agree/admit Mary had a manufacturing background and GM is a manufacturing company with a high percentage of staff associated with manufacturing. Reuss? Worked on a project under him. Absolutely one my most respected individuals in the industry I've known. I'd probably put him number 1 in a very short list. But pretty sure his background is product development. So, if you are the board who do you pick? One that knows the business of how you make stuff or one who has experience in how you develop stuff. All I know about Mary is a) she graduated the year after I did at GMI and b) she has made GM WILDLY profitable in the same period of EV development and c) as pointed out, she has lasted 10 years so the board approves of both the profitability and stock price (but probably not so much stock price).

So, I know one better than the other or should say I know one and not the other. But she has done great IMO. Could Mark have done better? Did his father's history with the company hold him back? Who knows.

And maybe people can quit calling GM Government Motors. This is Rivian AFTER they got just $5.5 Billion from VW. https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...8795efef&ei=94

[Alan47717]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Well let's at least agree/admit Mary had a manufacturing background and GM is a manufacturing company with a high percentage of staff associated with manufacturing. Reuss? Worked on a project under him. Absolutely one my most respected individuals in the industry I've known. I'd probably put him number 1 in a very short list. But pretty sure his background is product development. So, if you are the board who do you pick? One that knows the business of how you make stuff or one who has experience in how you develop stuff. All I know about Mary is a) she graduated the year after I did at GMI and b) she has made GM WILDLY profitable in the same period of EV development and c) as pointed out, she has lasted 10 years so the board approves of both the profitability and stock price (but probably not so much stock price).

So, I know one better than the other or should say I know one and not the other. But she has done great IMO. Could Mark have done better? Did his father's history with the company hold him back? Who knows.

And maybe people can quit calling GM Government Motors. This is Rivian AFTER they got just $5.5 Billion from VW. https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...8795efef&ei=94

"Manufacturing makes the product and Sales sells the product to our customers. The rest of us are just overhead."

A quote from a power train manager nearing retirement in a meeting in response to repeated complaints about "other" departments. I was a young engineer in the lab at the time.

Arguing about which brilliant engineer should be CEO is a moot point. The broader issue is that car companies need to be run by engineers with business training/experience, not financial types w/o engineering training. Barra appears to have demonstrated the ability to balance both constituencies.

I interviewed Reuss when he graduated (I was a lab general supervisor at the time) and wasn't impressed. I was (and still am) a firm believer in experience in development at the lab level was crucial to young engineer development. Mark wasn't interested at the time. I am more than happy to acknowledge that whatever path he ended up taking has resulted in a very successful career.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by olrocker

And MartinJim continues to deny Mary Bara is a shill with the democrats.

The proof was right there.

Then I guess the CEOs of FCA (Stellantis), ZF, Blue Bird Bus, Harley-Davidson, Cummins, and everyone else on this list that were recipients of the same grant must also be shills of the Democrats.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Alan47717

"Manufacturing makes the product and Sales sells the product to our customers. The rest of us are just overhead."

A quote from a power train manager nearing retirement in a meeting in response to repeated complaints about "other" departments. I was a young engineer in the lab at the time.

Arguing about which brilliant engineer should be CEO is a moot point. The broader issue is that car companies need to be run by engineers with business training/experience, not financial types w/o engineering training. Barra appears to have demonstrated the ability to balance both constituencies.

I interviewed Reuss when he graduated (I was a lab general supervisor at the time) and wasn't impressed. I was (and still am) a firm believer in experience in development at the lab level was crucial to young engineer development. Mark wasn't interested at the time. I am more than happy to acknowledge that whatever path he ended up taking has resulted in a very successful career.

And all I did was steal his dad’s car when I was a freshman at GMI.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by m6-lt1

Prior to the all ev announcement from GM she had actually joined Trump and other car companies in their lawsuit against California setting its own standards…

The all EV announcement was 2017……