(first posted 12/4/2014. An excerpt from an excerpt at Business Insider of Icons and Idiots: Straight Talk on Leadership by Bob Lutz)
Lee Iacocca had been trying to get me to join him at Chrysler for several years when, in 1986, disappointed with what appeared to be a bleak career future at Ford, I became interested, and we began talking in earnest.
A deal was soon struck, and I politely exited Ford, conscious as always in my career of the value of a gracious departure with no hard feelings.
I arrived at Chrysler eager to set about my tasks as Executive Vice President, Trucks (which at that point were almost nonexistent at Chrysler), International Operations (likewise), and Diversified Products (typical of the era, the company’s own in-house suppliers and component plants).
In my inaugural meeting in Lee’s office, his performance was, in many ways, typical. He was effusive, enthusiastic, expressing his opinions with a firmness that left no doubt in the listener’s mind that these were facts that could not be questioned.
“You picked a good time to leave Ford, lemme tell ya! Those potato cars (Taurus and Sable) they’re coming out with are gonna bomb”.
Iacocca continued: “We put a couple in a product clinic against our own upcoming Dodge Dynasty and Chrysler Fifth Avenue (elongated versions of the K-car, equally boxy, with “Greek temple” grilles, stand-up hood ornaments, padded vinyl roofs, and every dated styling cliche that was driving American buyers to imports), and we killed ’em. Our average score was 7.5 on a 10-point scale. Theirs was a 5.0. It’s gonna be the flop of the century. I hope you didn’t have anything to do with it.”
I knew the story behind the averages. The new Chrysler products were scored around 7.5 by the vast majority of respondents. In words, that means, “Okay, not awful, but not my first choice, most likely.” That kind of score, in the modern world, is the kiss of death, because nobody settles for the second choice unless it is made into a deal you can’t refuse through costly rebates.
Average incentives of $3,000/ car is what it took to move the ugly monsters off the lots. The Taurus, on the other hand, was sharply polarizing. Like the first new Dodge Ram pickup in 1994, it triggered a love/hate dichotomy: half the respondents hated it with a passion and assigned it a score of 1 or 2. The other half was stunned in a positive sense and couldn’t believe that a U.S. company was launching a car of such modern, import-like appearance.
They overwhelmingly voted 9 and 10. The misleading average, of course, was 5. But in today’s highly competitive market, “blending in” with 7.5 doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter how many 1s and 2s you have: the success of the product comes from the enthusiasts who can’t wait to buy it. Thus, Taurus/Sable went on to become America’s best-selling car, free of incentives, selling for years at a cadence of over 400,000 annually. Chrysler’s Dynasty, Fifth Avenue, and, later, Imperial, despite massive rebates (one of Iacocca’s earlier marketing inventions: “Buy a car. Get a check!”), never really broached the 200,000 level.
But in my inaugural meeting, Lee was expounding upon Ford’s colossal error.
He was, figuratively, rubbing his hands with glee. I wondered: Should I burst his bubble? Should I tell him the bad news the research portended? Would I alienate my new CEO by giving him a market research education he didn’t ask for? Wouldn’t it just be wiser to shut up and move on?
My failure to do just that was typical of the almost teacher/pupil, father/son, love/hate climate that was to mark our rocky relationship. He clearly didn’t like the news, didn’t like my smart-ass attitude, and, not having had much practice, didn’t like an underling telling him he was wrong. There would be many instances in our relationship when the same situation was repeated, sometimes very unwisely on my part, in meetings.
No two men are perfect. But, over a career, these two got a lot right.
Indeed.
I have been in that position and kept my mouth shut as well. Now I kinda wish I had embarrassed the guy but from what I can understand he didn’t need my help to do that.
And I think Lutz was a little sharper.
This was a fun and brisk read.
+1
To Lee’s credit, he saw the sales figures and (finally) greenlighted the LH cars. But up through the Plymouth Acclaim (1989), the cars were decent but not really appealing.
Lutz should also get some credit, as he became pretty proficient at pushing product in a new and exciting direction. I have often wondered what could have happened if both of them had been 10 years younger. Chrysler’s mid 90s products with continued product quality improvements that are probably Lee’s greatest legacy would have been really something. Or if Lutz had taken over upon Iacocca’s retirement. The Eaton thing was an unmitigated disaster.
Absolutely agreed on Eaton.
And by “finally” that was probably after they tied his hands up and dangled him over a tank full of sharks. Even after greenlighting them, Iacocca openly criticized the LH cars as something that would be a catastrophic flop.
I’m sure it was no coincidence that the production versions of the LH sedans were unveiled at Iacocca’s farewell gala in Vegas as a final “F* You” to the chairman who’d been a big pain in the ass to many inside Chrysler.
That’s terribly inaccurate, even though an old comment. I like your writeups over the years on Chryslers and other subjects, but I take issue with some of the misleading gaffes put forward as fact, as it means other people will wrongly believe it to be true.
Iacocca championed these cars at press briefs, in 1992 interviews, and in notable ads on TV much of 1992. Plus they were revealed in January 1992, well before his farewell nearly 1 year later and in dealers by early November 1992. What you claimed in this comment back in 2014, isn’t correct at all.
He retired 8 weeks after the LHs hit dealers, as well as 3 months before the 1994 LHS and New Yorker went on sale in spring 1993.
Lutz pushed these products via allies in the late 1980s, but Iacocca compromised almost every time and gave in, to what made sense in the long run. Whether LH, Cloud Cars/adjacent Mitsu-based coupes over LeBaron, Neon, NS minivans going smoother than boxy, and Viper.
There’s no press piece out there, which reflects anything you stated in this 2014 post, that he derided them publicly. It’s a fictitious narrative, being that they were in planning since 1987, signed off in 1989 with styling, and in ads of his, before November 1992 launch.
Dealers even began getting the first units in late July 1992, before they were allowed to be sold. Iacocca retired December 31, 1992 and effectively transitioned to Eaton, January 1, 1993. Even if an old comment, it’s just misleading.
Iaccoca later publicly regretted that decision. Regarding Lutz and Eaton, he said “Lutz could eat his lunch”.
In Iaccoca’s eyes, Lutz was somewhat exotic, speaking multiple languages. Somewhat unstable, having been with multiple car companies. Somewhat of a risk that Lutz could luck into outshining Iaccoca. Eaton is the opposite of all that.
The mid-90s products were Lutz’s vehicles, not Iaccoca’s.
Shows how much you DON’T know. All cars leading up to the 1997 TJ Wrangler, were designed under Iacocca’s tenure and got his executive approval through December 31, 1992. I wish people would do research on what they’re talking about and not just make empty guesses, with no proof to go off of.
And I stated this because, it’s unfair to give Lutz all the credit, when he definitely championed these products and forced them on Iacocca. However, Iacocca at the end of the day had to give approval. The Neon wouldn’t have gotten its iconic look, if not for Iacocca forcing a change in September 1991.
You know a lot, but oddly omitted that Iacocca might have put up a fuss for the LH cars, pre-1989. By 1990 he started trying to leave things up to Lutz more and attempted to take a more background role. The Neon would have been DOA if this went into production, if not for Iacocca.
Lutz initially in 1990-91, favored the connection to the production Viper, Intrepid and also the Stratus design bucks with the horizontal lamps. He understood that Iacocca’s 11th hour demand was sensible and worked hard to make it happen, with the teams working under them.
On an unrelated note, I’ve never noticed how a circa-1986 Bob Lutz looked like George Clooney.
Hehehe
Wow, you’re right.
funny you should mention. I just saw a trailer on youtube for “The Bob Lutz Story” and guess who is the leading man.
There’s going to be a movie with Clooney playing Lutz?
I’m all for that, he deserves it, but they better have someone like Pacino playing Iacocca. Or maybe a real pissed off Ed Anser. Either of those guys would work, with a bad comb-over and forehead creases.
It won’t have credibility if they cast an out-of-touch Uncle Junior type playing Lee.
It seems Lido didn’t choose to learn anything after the success of the Mark III, hence his insistence that luxury cred came from mini-me Mark styling cues.
When the aero-Bird was controversial but sold well, I learned the lesson that it’s better to have a car that some people love and others detest than a car that’s pretty much “meh” to everyone.
As long as there’s a core group that loves your car and has to have it, you shouldn’t try to please everyone.
Great example of how misleading customer polls can be. Statistics are simply an arbitrary way of cooking empirical data to get the results you want.
I would have pointed out to Mr. Iaccoca that the Edsel was designed with customer input as well.
And the 49 Chrysler line.
Less than is often supposed, really. The Edsel was conceived as a response to Ford’s obvious weakness in the mid-price realm and the large, self-evident price gap between Mercury and Lincoln, although the end product didn’t really fix the latter problem and was dictated more by internal politics than anything else.
There were consumer marketing studies, but they were done after the major decisions had been made. It’s like asking your spouse which shirt you should buy after you’ve already paid for one of them.
It’s a matter of interpreting the data properly; that’s what this example is all about.
But what’s “proper,” that’s the question. What implies how data should be reduced? Mean? Minimum? Maximum? Mode? The choice is arbitrary, up to the taste of the researcher & the majority of his auditors.
The choice is NOT arbitrary. It depends on the objective in a specific circumstance. Understanding the relevance of a given set of data vs. defending a predetirmined conclusion. Those who understand statististics, AND know the business being studied, AND don’t have an axe to grind may know the difference.
Uh, that’s a lot of ‘and’s. Plus, how do you know whether respondents are being deceptive, or won’t change their minds tomorrow? Real estate proverb: Buyers are Liars.
To be fair with Lido, nobody really saw the success of the Taurus/Sable coming, heck it even surprised Ford that they sold so well that first and second year so he could not be truly blamed for being broad sided when they arrived. The car style in favor at the time was boxy.
However that being said he should have been more interested and paid more attention to the goings on in Ford regarding this car as he himself only a few short years earlier came out with the Dodge minivan which made folks line up to dump station wagons for this new kind of vehicle. Who would have thought that would happen? I mean back at that time most folks that bought vans were those needing to transport loads of people, goods or had a large family etc and not something that would ride like a car.
“To be fair with Lido, nobody really saw the success of the Taurus/Sable coming,…The car style in favor at the time was boxy…”
But that is the true test of the successful designer. You aim three, four, five years into the future and hope you hit the target. Ford did. Iacocca was aiming to the past.
RU saying Ford din’t know what it was doing when it cribbed Audi’s design?
Ford was willing to go with the FWD design of the Taurus only after GM had committed their entire fleet to it. At least Ford got its design ‘right’, unlike GM.
But, had GM gone RWD, Ford would have had a very different product.
(I also have to put in that Lutz, just like Iaccoca, would never tell a story where he wasn’t in the right. Don’t have much regard for either of these Detroit dinosaurs.)
I am sure Ford thought it was a great idea at the time they first decided to crib the Audi design in 1981 BUT while the Taurus development was advancing, Audi started having unintended acceleration issues in 1983 (which was later attributed to user error due to not being used to smaller pedals then what came on American cars.) which freaked out car buyers enough to send Audi sales plummeting so i would imagine that Ford might have thought its Taurus in trouble due to looking like the Audi. They did plan to keep the LTD in production just in case.
I doubt Ford decided to crib the Audi design in 1981, because the C3 5000 didn’t hit the market until 1983. The ’81 was rather squared-off. Also did the “unintended acceleration” business start as early as ’83? I guess that would make sense to coincide with the release of the new model, but the firestorm really started with the 60 Minutes piece in ’86.
http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1981_audi_auto_2000/
The design concept for the Audi C3 5000 was shown publicly at the 1981 Frankfurt Auto Show as the Audi Auto 2000.
Seems like Lee just couldn’t pull his head out of the 70’s in some regards. if they’d let him run just the Chrysler division, with an older, conservative buyer, it might have worked somewhat better. (Witness the large dichotomy in sales between the original Concorde and the Dodge Intrepid, though the Concorde’s somewhat incongruous grille treatment didn’t help).
Dodge and Plymouth, on the other hand, suffered when all the consumers were served was an endless parade of K-car variants well past their expiration dates.
What I find interesting is that, during his years at Ford, Iacocca chafed under the rule of the Finance Department. The head of this department was Ed Lundy, who had the ear of Henry Ford II.
Iacocca accused Ford of skimping on product development to save money in the short-term and prop up the stock price. Lundy and his crew constantly picked apart proposed product plans because they would cost too much money. Iacocca also felt that Henry Ford II let his ego get in the way of sound business judgment.
When Iacocca ran Chrysler, he committed both of those cardinal sins, but to an even greater degree.
On the other hand, the T-115 minivans, which were the real success story of Iacocca’s Chrysler tenure, were quite innovative — certainly for the U.S. market.
Thanks for the link, Paul. After having read the Lacey book and Iacocca’s own, i’d have never figured HF II possessed noblesse oblige in his interactions with others that Lutz speaks of. That book should be a good read.
Another good read .
-Nate
An anonomous Chrysler executive in the early `30 addressing a board meeting.. “Wow guys we`ve really got a hit with this one. This Airflow is gonna sell like hotcakes. Hope we can keep up the production This really is the car that America wants”.
The difference was is that nobody had seen or built a car like the Airflow before. The Audi 5000 (which the Taurus was a crib of) had been out for three years, and was doing much better than expected. It showed that Americans were ready to embrace the aero look. And Ford’s aero T-Bird was also very successful. The analogy of Airflow to the Taurus doesn’t really work.
So GM derided the Taurus as a jelly mold, & Iacocca called it a potato. We have the benefit of hindsight, but I’m curious: did any industry experts back then foresee the success of the Taurus/Sable besides diehard Ford optimists? Or was it another case of “Dewey Defeats Truman?”
I did! 🙂
The success of the Taurus was not just because of its styling alone. Dynamically, as a complete package, it was head and shoulders above what either GM or Chrysler had at the time.
The Taurus had the kind of dynamic/handling balance that was much closer to the imports from Germany, yet without being harsh. There was no optional sport suspension for the Taurus; every Taurus handled quite well; not in an overt “sporty” sense, but in a capable road-car sense. It was a complete car that set a new standard for domestic cars.
It never occurred to me before, but the Taurus did somewhat the same thing the Lexus LS400 did: it took the best qualities of the German luxury imports, and “Americanized” it to be palatable to the typical buyer.
From the first review I read of it to the first drive, I knew Ford had a winner. When you build a clearly superior car than the competition, folks will notice.
Also there was the powertrain. The 86 Taurus/Sable (at least with the V6) was the first decent sized American car I had driven in years that did not remind you every second that it was engineered around a maximum CAFE mpg rating. The car was geared in a way that gave you the kind of unobtrusive torque that Americans have always loved. I drove one within months after my mother bought an 85 Crown Vic with the 5.0/AOD and recall thinking that Mom bought the wrong car.
@ JPC, an older neighbor and longtime Chevy (former Studebaker!) guy traded his ’75 Caprice coupe for the four cylinder Taurus. The result was predictable, he was in a 1st gen Lumina V-6 in fairly short order. The V-6 Taurus was clearly the way to go.
Yes, I rented a four cylinder Taurus early in their run. I vividly recall thinking that Ford would not sell many of them. I was right. Later a co-worker bought an MT-5. The five speed helped, but that Ford four was just miserable to live with from a NVH standpoint.
I’ll ask THE question, then; would you have bought one if you hadn’t been able to stretch to the Benz?
nlpnt: That’s pretty hypothetical. I did recommend one to my Dad, who was very happy with it.
I was looking for more performance at the time, and did look at two cheaper alternatives to the 300E: the Merkur XR4Ti, and a Volvo 740 Turbo. Possibly a Saab turbo. Since the 300E was paid for by the company, I decided to go for what I thought was the best car, and the one I really wanted.
But for someone looking for a mainstream car, I recommended the Taurus heartily. And I would not have been unhappy with one. It sure would have beat the Reliant I had for a while just before the 300E.
I remember reading an interview with Jack Telnack where he emphasized how much everyone at Ford knew the Taurus wasn’t the kind of car that would clinic well – they got Lutz’s point about the danger of the middle-of-the-road designs, as well as Henry Ford’s quip that if he’d asked his customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse.
The handling was a revelation, especially coming from Ford, the home of frighteningly disconnected steering. I still remember a long and wandering drive alongside the Erie canal in a rented ’87 T-Bird.
The industry experts at Ford certainly did. Chrysler’s European operations were gone at the time the Taurus was developed. GM was a weaker European player. Ford Europe had a lot of product and sales as a percentage of total Ford worldwide sales. Ford was simply the most European U.S. car company at the time.
Ford was saw two things clearly: Their boxy downsized North American cars were mostly doing poorly, and Americans had developed a respect for European cars over the prior 15 years.
So, drawing a lot of inspiration from their European operations, they developed and manufactured true North American cars using the European design language. And it worked! Not just another attempt to import a European operations car, but a true North American car with a North American name, and modern looks at a popular price point.
Iacocca was right in one respect. The Taurus ushered in a lot of blobby look alike jellybean cars and people tired of the look rather quickly. The first update (2nd Gen if you count it that way) of the Taurus actually made it a bit more conventional – and it sold well until the disastrous ’95 3rd generation.
(Paul you beat me to it. Your fourth paragraph was what I was trying to convey.)
The thing people often forget is that the lead times for new car development were much longer in the early ’80s when the Taurus was conceived. Much of the look of the Taurus was locked in before the Audi 5000 hit the streets.
The Taurus arrived exactly 3 years after the C3 Audi. No one has ever suggested it took more than three years to develop a new car back then.
Anyway, I’m not suggesting that Ford wasn’t likely planning a car along the lines of the Taurus even before the 5000 arrived. In Europe, Ford’s own aero-Sierra also had arrived in 1982.
But I do suspect that the final Taurus styling was influenced by the Audi, especially since it was so well received. Let’s just say the Taurus looked a lot more like the Audi than Ford’s European Sierra. And that was a good thing.
Changes could and were made late in the game though. I’ve a book which includes a photo from the Taurus’s unveiling in 1985 at the Chicago auto show, and the Taurus up there on the stand has a slatted grille instead of the production car’s blank-but-for-blue-oval panel. Good late change since the “grille-less” nose became a Taurus trademark.
Granted, hardpoints and major sheetmetal changes did get locked in earlier back then.
There is some very early sales literature that shows a grilled Taurus, also.
Looks airbrushed or stencilled. The shadow line at the edge of the hood looks a bit forced. Just a guess though, the blacks are pretty crushed in this pic.
Can’t find my photo online and my scanner isn’t working quite right currently, but google found me this, which is apparently from another CC article, small world…:
(The photo I have shows the same style grille, but body color)
Motorweek’s preview of the ’86 Taurus/Sable has a few shots of the prototype ‘grilled’ Taurus:
It’s amazing how much tamer the overall design looks with the dark, slatted grille.
Ford had the Sierra in late 82 so had form in the aero/jellymold area
edit: just noticed point already made
I bet the seeds of the ABL Tree were planted that day.
Very interesting piece Paul, thanks! Also, I did not realize you ran in such high circles, no wonder you make sense.
IMO, the two “L”s are the most significant US auto execs of the last 50 years.
Sometimes big egos clash. Both of these guys have huge egos.
The reality is, after selling the K-car to America, old Lee began to slip. On the other hand, Lutz remained sharp even as an elderly VP at GM.
Lee saved Chrysler 1979. His willingness to adopt the minivan (a Ford idea that Henry Ford II was unwilling to purse) gave Chrysler a huge boost in the 1980s. His ablilty to buy Jeep (and let’s be honest, the US Govt would probably NOT have permitted Ford, let alone GM, to buy it) also gave ChryCorp a boost.
That was not enough, however. Lee emulated his old boss, who fired him, by being cheap and using the K-Car. Chryslers cars began to seriously suck.
It was Lutz who championed the LH, the cloud cars, the Neon, the new truck luck. THat’s what rounded at Chrysler and made it profitable.
Iacocca proved, for the nth time, that power corrupts. Instead of handing the reins to his more able 2nd in command, he gave the company to an GM exec, because he didn’t like Lutz, resented his superior intellect, and because…he could!
Too bad for Chrysler.
On the other hand, had Lutz not surfaced at GM, by 2009, it probably would have had fewer (in any) bright spots besides trucks (which were not selling particularly well in 2009), and perhaps it might have been beyond bailing out.
Also, Lutz, by always being 2nd or 3rd in charge, didn’t have to deal with things he considered tedious, so he focused on what he liked and did well.
I thought about making Bob Lutz a Contributor, so that his name would show as author. Maybe at least “Guest Writer”.
Lutz would be a huge coup for this site. His recollections would be worthy of 100 of his books, which as previously mentioned are fun and brisk reads but kind of light.
Not likely. My son Ed tried to get him set up with his own blog at Vertical Scope, owners of TTAC, but it fell through. Someone else set him up to blog, but from what I hear, he’s not very active on it. I suspect he can make more money putting it into books.
Yeah, he’s not gonna live forever, he probably has an eye on his memoirs.
He also does the corporate speaking circuit which I’m sure helps with the upkeep on the ol’ homestead in Ann Arbor.
I don’t think Lutz would be a very good guest writer right now. He would be trying to promote his book and just repeat all of the soundbites he said everywhere else, like a film actor who is on the late-night circuit to promote a new movie. Big deal.
What would be cool, if he’s doing OK, would be to have Iacocca on. Why not say to him Lutz has this new book, he said these things, do you have any comment? Now that would be interesting. Just think Paul he might bury the hatched with Lutz right on your site.
That was a great post I didn’t have time to read it yesterday. I feel the same way but don’t think Lutz was a superior intellect, he was at most tied. I keep thinking about that movie someone mentioned and what that’s all about. Clooney really playing Lutz? As more of a pretty boy type or deep thinker? Is Iacocca’s character in the movie much?
If I were casting it Clooney as Lutz and Alec Baldwin as Iacocca.
I appreciate hearing this story as I’ve long admired and respected both gentlemen. And, of course, they both have some significant accomplishments to be proud of. The auto industry and our country as a whole are better as a result of them. Yes, even acknowledging that there were some mistakes or things that could have been done better. As a Mopar guy, would certainly have rather seen Lutz take the reins after Iacocca than Eaton.
Interesting story, and a good example of the need to be careful when interpreting market research.
Lutz mentions that his career future at Ford appeared to be “bleak” by the mid-1980s. If I recall correctly, a big part of that was because the European Ford Sierra, which he had championed, got off to a very rough start in the market. It replaced the Ford Cortina (known as the Taunus on the continent) and it, too, featured a very modern, “aero” look.
Unlike the Taurus, however, the Sierra was not a rousing success. It wasn’t immediately available in sedan form, which cost Ford sales in the critical fleet market, particularly in Great Britain. But, even more importantly, Ford wasn’t coming from behind, particularly in Great Britain. The Cortina had ruled its segment in Great Britain for years. With the conventional Cortina, Ford had effectively relegated Austin to also-ran status in this segment.
The situation facing Ford of Europe was the exact opposite of the one facing Ford’s North American operations in the late 1970s and early 1980s. (Ford’s European operations basically kept the company afloat during these years as the North American operations gushed red ink.)
It was a case of getting too far ahead of the market. The contrast between the European Sierra and the American Taurus is really quite interesting, and shows that what works in one market may not work in another.
I do wonder how the Sierra would’ve been received if it had been rolled out at first only in XR three-door hatch form as a replacement for the Capri, with the 5-door, wagon, sedan and base model replacements for the Cortina/Taunus coming along a couple years later after people had gotten used to the shape.
I think Cortina sales might have collapsed in those two years. The J car Cavalier was already taking over with the fleets.
” (one of lacocca’s earlier marketing inventions: “Buy a car. Get a check!”), ”
Actually, this was coined in 1975, a few years before Lido got fired by Hank II. Lynn Townsend, father of the “sales bank” invented rebates. [citation needed]
Quite true.
That mistake caught my eye as well.
Rebates were nothing new at Chrysler when Iaccoca arrived. But, he may own the phrase “Buy a car. Get a Check.”
Hard to say. Here is an article attributing the phrase to Joe Garagiola and Chrysler.
http://25yearplan.blogspot.com/2009/09/buy-car-get-check.html
But, he never quite says it that I can find:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWzfk1kUzX4&w=420&h=315
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWzfk1kUzX4&w=420&h=315
Can’t seem to get the embed Youtube feature to work.
I believe I’m correct in saying that Ford in 1980 had 50% of car sales in the UK. GM products were doing very poorly at that time but in 1982-3 with the introduction of the Cavalier mk2, Astra mk1 and Nova GM began a price war with Ford and gave them a beating.
The Sierra came in for major flak from the UK press when launched, it was referred to as a ‘jelly mould’ and there were stories that the passenger compartment concertina’d in a head on crash.
Read somewhere that the stylists at MOPAR had intentionally designed the LH roof to have so much curvature, Lido could never glue a vinyl roof to it. They knew their boss.
Lutz has had a really interesting career; kind of like the automotive equivalent of Forrest Gump.
+1 on the Gump comment, that thought hit me as I read his book (which this excerpt came from). Not implying he was simple, but as indicated, he left his mark where he wanted as a second level command guy.
My fall reading has gone from Lutz to De Lorean, and now onto the De Lorean Grand Delusions books.
I remember reading some gushing magazine profile of Iacocca right after he got famous, and while in makeup for yet another TV commercial he was reviewing styling mockups for future products and ordering changes to this or that line, headlight, etc.
Right then I knew he would be bad news for Chrysler in the long run, an overblown ego sticking his nose in where he had no expertise, which leads to crappy product and demoralized staff.
You don’t let the CEO style the cars unless his name is Guigiaro.
Or Battista.
“…that left no doubt in the listener’s mind that these were facts that could not be questioned.” Obviously Lido didn’t want his decisions questioned by the underlings and didn’t want to hear anything contrary to his held beliefs. Bob Lutz got passed over because he didn’t kiss Iacocca’s ass enough. Iacocca had an overblown ego; he took credit for everything he was associated with…I’m sure there were a lot of people besides him responsible for the Mustang, but Iacocca mad sure you never heard about them. If he wanted to take all the credit for the turnaround at Chrysler he needed to take a lot of the blame for the condition of Ford when HF II canned him. Eaton’s tenure at Chrysler was an absolute disaster.
First off these gentlemen are American treasures and should be treated with respect here and on all car blogs.
Second Bob Lutz, a hero of mine, is a great storyteller. I’ve seen him on YouTube speaking off the cuff about the time he explained to GM brass that you can make more money using incentive dollars to fund better product, he has that down cold.
Third there is no way that Lee Iacocca would think that a mean appearance rating from a clinic would be a good way to judge a car’s appeal. He may have said that to Bob but he could not have actually thought that was true.
The guys working on the next gen product, Bob-type guys who want enough budget to make a great car, are going to be saying to Lee in other meetings “look the ‘top box’ score (the percent rating it a 10) is horrible for our car and off the charts for the Taurus. That’s what counts not the mean”. That’s exactly how LH cars come about, by believing that side of the argument.
The designers of the Dynasty may have told Lee “look we got a 7.5” but not the guys working on the next one. Lee would have heard the exact opposite story from them and would never in a million years think you go by the mean.
Lee was probably hoping Bob would have been in on the joke and said something like “yeah that Taurus is one of those cars that will probably do better than the clinic suggests but you know what we got a lot to work with too”. But no Bob thought Lee was serious which no doubt signaled to Lee that Bob wasn’t too sharp and then when Bob tried to “give it too him straight” well that just showed disrespect.
If we are going to bottom line this Lee Iacocca with those vinyl tops and K-Cars saved Chrysler. He worked with what he had and knocked it out of the park. The last time Lutz worked for a Big 3 the company went bankrupt. Don’t take this the wrong way because I love Lutz but Lee Iacocca is grossly underrated among car guys and probably will be until he dies.
There was a great post either here or BaT about a Mustang car show that someone attended. He was hanging out over by a tree admiring the cars from a distance. “I like them too” the old man said sitting next to him and they had a polite chat about the cars. Later that day he saw the old guy again this time presenting the award for Best in Show and yes that quiet, modest guy was Lee Iacocca.
American treasures? Lutz, definitely. Iacocca, I’m not so sure. From his mired-in-the-seventies sense of aesthetics and his opinions and decisions resulting from this, I suspect he stayed on well past his use-by date, and should have retired from the industry some ten or fifteen years earlier. If he had done that, and maybe moved sideways into some other industry his reputation would have been untarnished, and he would be worthy of ‘treasure’ status.
Just the view from an outsider looking in. YMMV.
Of course you’re not so sure how could you be with all of the Iacocca bashing? Look at the first few lines of Paul’s article. I’m not saying he did it intentionally but the combination of the photos and title of the book sorta leads one to believe that Lee was one of the idiots mentioned in the book. He was not that was someone else.
Bob’s main gripe about Lee was that he was insecure. Now, imagine the pressure on Iacocca to perform, not just from the Board but from the President of the Untied Sates and Frank Sinatra! His ass was on the line like no other in history (except Musk’s) and he was getting old. Of course he’s going to feel insecure.
A guy like that knows he needs, like it or not, a product hot shot. He knew he had that in Francois Castaing but he was from AMC. He wanted someone like Lutz in the middle, to be HIS guy.
Iacocca wanted Jeep and got much more than that almost by accident when Chrysler acquired AMC. He would have gone for the platform teams with or without Lutz. Note it was Lee who wanted Jeep at that personal, golden-gut level that he was so famous for. He no doubt knew everything he needed to know about Castaing long before Lutz came to Chryco.
As for this potato story that had to be an exaggeration. How convenient the book comes out now when Lee is 90 and probably unable to speak.
Also it doesn’t make sense that Iacocca never saw a case, in his long career, where a car did great in the clinic but bombed in the marketplace. He must have seen that dozens of times at Ford and would not think what Bob said he did about the Dynasty result.
With regard to his thoughts about the Taurus it is inconceivable he would not have heard praise about the car from insiders long before there were any clinic or sales results. All of you liked it when you first saw it, didn’t you?
He no doubt heard that countless times and could not have dismissed it, not when he wanted to end his career on top. That would be more important to anyone than getting one last call on the product. Think about it.
Lutz did have one more gripe about Iacocca and that was that he felt threatened by subordinates. Gee I wonder why :-/
I remember when I first saw a picture of a Taurus, on the cover of Car and Driver. I couldn’t believe it was an American car – it looked so rest-of-the-world mainstream! They could have exported that model, without any embarrassment or apologies.
As for Iacocca feeling threatened by subordinates, with his reputation as a product man it would never do to look like he was losing his touch. Those last years at Chrysler must have been very hard on him psychologically.
“Those last years at Chrysler must have been very hard on him psychologically.”
Yes indeed and made all the worse with Lutz nipping at his heels.
First off these gentlemen are American treasures and should be treated with respect here and on all car blogs
You must be kidding, right? Absolutely nobody is above examination, evaluation and criticism. If you had even a clue, you’d know that’s what history is all about.
If you think we’re going to dish out pablum and endless praise for the god-titans of Detroit, you’ve come to the wrong place. These guys are responsible to varying degrees for the decline of the American car industry, thanks to their massive egos getting in the way of seeing things for what they really are.
Anyway, this is what we do here. So why are you even here then?
I think what we do here Paul is share in memories of old cars and debate the issues we don’t agree on.
It’s your site and you can view it how you wish but I certainly hope the goal isn’t to tear down a few select institutions and expect to do so without some counterpunch.
…Or, we could accept them as fellow humans and neither idolize nor demonize them.
You are right of course. My over-reaction I guess was in response to Paul’s in the other direction.
What I was going to say about examination / evaluation / criticism but ran out of time is that’s fine but it would be nice to do it with more respect for these two men — they both deserve it. The Imperial piece was over-the-top in a bad way.
Calibrick: Let me ask you, just how old were you during Lee’s years at Chrysler? And when he balked and stalled about his retirement date, repeatedly, out of sheer egomania. It was a very ugly fiasco at the time, and well documented in the press if one was old enough to see what was really going on.
But if you were very young, perhaps you’re forming your opinions of the man based on historical accounts, not living through it as an adult. Or maybe you’ve been an ardent fan of his books? Or are you older than you appear to be?
That might explain why you see him as a legendary figure, whereas I see him as a very real and flawed human. And one who indulged his ego more than average.
I am old enough that my first favorite car was a Mustang and young enough that I didn’t know it was Lee’s doing until I read it in a book at the library. He became an instant hero.
I got heavily into European cars after that and paid little attention to the Big 3. Plus that management stuff was boring to a kid.
While the Mustang II wasn’t my cup of tea (I was into Capri V6s) I recognized it as a sale winner from the get go. Being right on that made me cocky at a young age.
Then while a teenager I saw Lee pitching cars on TV. Never saw an exec do that before. Then he was in the news getting those loans and paying them back early.
This was around the time that another personal hero of mine was busy turning the country around, in much the same way. No one has come close to giving me that sense of American-pride that those two did. I used to wear an Aries K T-shirt with the flag on it. All of my friends made fun of me but I didn’t care. I hated K-cars by the way.
Next comes the minivan and of course I knew right away that Lee made it happen (I know I know it was Sperlich’s idea).
Soon after that I started following Chrysler management more carefully, the way any adult car-guy would. It became obvious to me that Lee wasn’t going anywhere until he could launch the LH cars and I thought that was fine and well deserved. The truth is I was in no hurry for him to retire. i was sad to see Reagan and Johnny go too. It was time for Seinfeld.
It wasn’t until fairly recently (thanks CC!) that I learned Lee was behind the Mark III, one of my all time favorite cars. That put him over the top for eternity.
Going back to the MII for a sec, Keith Martin made a crack about it once and I shot something back. After he passed and I read those great articles you ran I felt bad (they ran originally before my time at CC). I wish I could have disagreed with him with a little more respect because he sure as heck knows what he’s talking about on most things. I think Iacocca did too. No one is perfect.
Comparing these two titans of the American auto industry is a study in contrasts, and really explains why they didn’t like each much. Iaccoca was American through-and-through, but that meant he loved all that brougham-tastic crap that went out of style in the seventies. He was the epitome of ‘sell the sizzle, not the steak’.
Lutz, OTOH, was a whole lot more European in his auto taste. While enthusiasts love the taut handling and firmer ride of Euro cars, it doesn’t exactly go over well with many (mostly older) Americans who will always love the overstuffed seat cushions and nice, cushy, floaty ride that eats up hundreds of (straight and smooth) interstate miles. IOW, the types of people who like exactly the kinds of cars Iacocca championed.
I can only imagine the kinds of discussions that took place about future Chrysler car design between these two guys.
Though hind sight is always 20/20, I will point out that the some of the best selling cars in America in 1984-1985 and 1986, the year of the Taurus, were the fairly square GM A- body Celebrity and Ciera, numbers 4 and 5 for 1985 with the Cavalier in 3rd place and the Celebrity was number the number 1 selling passenger car in the US in 1986.
True that the Celebrity dropped out of the top 10 in 1987 and the Taurus moved up to number 4 in 1987, which is why the Celebrity should have been replaced in 1988, instead of waiting an eternity for the Lumina in 1990. But It does reinforce Lido’s position somewhat, GM was still doing lots of square cars, and most people still looked to GM for direction, not to mention some of the fairly square rigged stuff from Europe like the Volvo 740.
I remember getting a V6 Taurus rental for the first time in ’86 and was very pleasantly surprised at the handling and power. I much preferred it to the ho-hum V6 Mustang rental contemporaries or the (forgettable) GM offerings…
Potato? I always thought the Taurus looked liked this:
Thanks for the read! I really like Bob Lutz, and enjoy seeing his interviews on YouTube. He just says the things as he saw them. This post reminds me to get “Icons and Idiots”. I read “Car guys vs bean counters” and really enjoyed it.
IF Iacocca had done the right thing, and let Lutz take over…
Chrysler would been incredibly profitable in the late 90s, and today would be the American equivalent of Subaru–a smaller, nimbler version GM/Ford with a loyal following.
The only reason I don’t really like the Dodge Dynasty and Chrysler Fifth Avenue is because they are 4 doors. Other than that, they have real style. The Taurus/Sable were the progenitors or today’ bland, boring and ugly jellybean transportation appliances. I would love to see cars with style again.
Interesting you say this as the Taurus is the first car I remember really disliking for this ‘ jelly bean ‘ appearance .
Seems everyone else likes them tho’ ~ they’re the default design now .
Yuk .
-Nate
My first brand new car was a 1988 Ford Taurus LX with the 3.8L V-6 and dark blue exterior/grey interior. Had most of the options except the electronic instrument cluster.
At the time I was also looking at the Oldsmobile Ciera and Buick Century. Thought the Taurus was a modern looking car and liked the European-influenced, streamlined aerodynamic look compared to the boxy and dated GM cars. Was also impressed with little things like the power window buttons were thoughtfully designed with a tactile feel. Interior controls and buttons felt more positive. Under hood maintenance items like oil filler cap, dipstick, power steering reservoir, brake fluid reservoir were clearly marked in yellow (as I recall) for clear visibility. Handling was firm and didn’t wallow about like the Buick Century.
So I bought the Taurus. The Taurus was generally a good car but it had its problems. Early on there was a noticeable “creaking noise” in the front suspension whenever the steering was turned. The dealer eventually replaced the power steering rack and both front struts before the problem was resolved. (Noticed the components were made in Germany.) Routine engine maintenance was difficult because of the 90 degree V-block made accessibility difficult. Replacing the rear spark plugs was particularly difficult. Twice the power steering hoses burst due to close proximity to the exhaust manifold burning a hole into the hoses. Eventually Ford came out with a TSB fix that incorporated a heat shield protected the hose, but it was a difficult job installing that shield and replacing the hoses.
Had the car for 9 years /~117,000 miles before I eventually traded it in. Overall felt it was a good car and had no regrets. Didn’t like the 1997 Ford Taurus as it had a more extreme oval “jellybean” look that struck me as odd looking. Instead I bought the more conservatively designed 1997 Toyota Camry.
I remember driving my sister’s new ’86 Taurus down to Atlantic City and commenting on how much it drove like my Audi. Alas, new systems and components and designs add up to a few years of reconfiguring….her Taurus ate/warped brake parts, just like my mom’s later ’91 Sable.
I’ve never been a Lutz fan (too cocky and opinionated), but he sure would have been better for Chrysler than Eaton.
Lido…we could talk hours about him. Certainly human, but regardless of who took credit, he knew how to put a decent team around him and coax great work out of them.
I was a teen when the Taurus and Sable appeared. I thought it was an odd looking faddish-thing that wouldnt be around long.
I was wrong.
I was in my late twenties when the 1996 Taurus and Sable appeared. I thought they would be very popular now that the aero look was big.
Nope.
I thought when SUVs started getting the Gremlin-style rear side windows they’d be laughed out of the market.
Nope. Still doing the upswingng tiny window thing.
Toyota said no more boring cars and started putting giant angry suckerfish faces on everything, and I thought there’s no way that’ll go over well.
My bad.
Hummers, yep, wrong on those.
Slit windows=for sure would be rejected but no, they’re on everything still.
Touch screens attached ABOVE the dash has to be too far, right? I mean, they’re ABOVE the dash level.
All good in the hood/everyone loves them.
So I am about 100% wrong on everything almost 100% of the time.
I feel Hyundai/Kia will decline in popularity soon.
So buy stock now!
I was blown away the first time I spent a week with a new Sable. It was a remarkable experience. Up to that time, I expected some good and bad things about the cars I got for business. The Mercury Sable was the first one I experienced that I couldn’t complain about beyond the oddly shaped instrument binnacle. Everything else was perfect.
It was the first time I drove a car where everything I needed to use while driving was readily available, easy to use, the switches were solid, and there wasn’t any written English labeling necessary to know what it was. The door switches and mirror control knob was ingenious. The stove knob light switch was a simple solid design. The materials used in the interior was good quality. The instrument presentation was clean, modern and not gimmicky.
The driving position was excellent. I flatly didn’t want to return the car and extended the time I had it because I enjoyed it that much.
Up to that time, with the exception of the Fox body Mercury Cougar sedan I used for a year, most of the cars I drove were compact, or subcompact. It was just the times when small was attractive. Space efficient small FWD vehicles were seen as modern. Larger cars weren’t enjoyable with their disconnected floaty rides, heavy sound deadening morgue silence, and challenging lack of outward visibility. In Colorado, it was no fun to drive around the Rockies in a gutless road barge commonly sold during the 1960s and 1970s. The Taurus was revolutionary for a lot of folks – including me.
In a world where sharp edged rectangular isolation chambers with massive overhang, opera lights, padded vinyl truck deck humps, and park bench sized front and rear bumpers – the Taurus was a revelation.
Seems to me Chrysler had already released it’s own “potato” car a year earlier in the form of the LeBaron GTS/Lancer, which was supposed to appeal to import oriented younger buyers. So it’s not that Lido misread the desire for such a car among the buying public. Therefore, I find it hard to believe he would have told Lutz the Taurus/Sable was going to bomb. But it is believable that he misjudged that the mainstream sedan buyer was ready to buy what younger import oriented buyers wanted. So he tried to appeal to the market with 2 cars where Ford fielded only one.
Ford actually fielded two also. The Fox body LTD stayed in production after the Taurus introduction because the Taurus was considered such a risk. Once the success of the Taurus was assured, the LTD faded away.
I wouldn’t call the LeBaron GTS a potato car. It is a derivative of the K Car and while it has a smoother appearance, it is still very much a straight-edge compact car like the K Car. It is literally the K Car body with a more modern front end. The interior was also a K Car. You can still see the K Car roots from the A pillar to the C pillar. I always saw the GTS as a good looking K Car, but not nearly as shaped like the Taurus Sable.
K car derived, but not K car. It had the extended wheelbase of the E body with shorter overhangs. So the proportions are actually rather different. The windshield, raked at 58 degrees was advertised by Chrysler as “aerowrapped”. Like the Taurus it had aircraft style doorframes. Chrysler delayed production to bring the side glass closer to flush. I agree the body pressings have a bit less curvature than the Taurus, particularly around the decklid, it was stuck with sealed beam headlights and the CD was closer to the Tempo than the Taurus, but the GTS was clearly intended as an aero design. Much more like the Taurus than anything GM was building.
I’m stunned at Paul’s attack on commenter “calibrick” and Paul’s disclosure of his anti Detroit 3 bias. It’s his forum, but it is shameful to use it as revisionist history. Why do so many media outlets seek to tear down institutions and role models for the almighty revenue-generating “click”? Just unprofessional. Shameful. I’m done with this forum.
So the fact that The Big Three lost market share steadily for decades due to their inability to compete effectively with the imports, and the fact that two of them thus went bankrupt and one almost did is now “revisionist history.”? And means I have a “anti Detroit bias”?
If you can’t accept history as it really was, then you’re probably better off elsewhere.
I really enjoy the car industry analysis by Paul and other contributors on this site, and somehow the failures are more interesting to read about than the successes. May the debates – informed by well-researched and reasoned articles – continue!
>It’s his forum, but it is shameful to use it as revisionist history.
How is it “revisionist history” to say that Detroit made some real turds in its time?
>Why do so many media outlets seek to tear down institutions and role models for the almighty revenue-generating “click”?
Could you elaborate on this?
>Just unprofessional. Shameful. I’m done with this forum.
OK. Bye, Felicia. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
After re-reading this, I wonder if Calibrick was the pen name of the “great one” one himself—Lee Iacocca.
After all, who else but Lee himself would know that he didn’t take “mean clinic scores” too seriously, or that he “figured Lutz would get it”.
Yes, Paul N has his opinions. But he typically relies on facts, usually to question some, occasionally to refute them when they are way out there. There is no “attack” here.
As for “anti-big three bias”, as someone who has always supported “buy American”, the fact remains that consumers, right or wrong, have over the past 40 years convincingly demonstrated their “anti-big three bias” by driving the big three’s market share from nearly 80% to less than half.
The reality is, the Americans put the sizzle before the bacon, used gimmickry in place of real innovation, and knowingly peddled shoddy cars one time too many (the imports are also guilty of these, especially the shoddy, but to a lesser degree).
Iaccicca’s signature success, which happens to be my favorite childhood car, the original Mustang, was clever eye candy.
The success of that car taught Detroit that styling is tops, everything else is secondary. It also reinforced the already strong idea to reuse as much as you can to save money. That’s true, to a point. THAT was Henry Ford II mentality, and Iacocca took it to the next level. Bad lessons that would cost Detroit dearly.
Don’t get me wrong. Iacocca was a brilliant executive—he had to be to become President of Ford. For anyone in corporate America to make it that high, they must be good. For one of them to hit a home run, that is to stand out.
But greatness means being the best, or among the best, most of the time while you are in the game. And Iacocca was not. ( Lutz, on the other hand, as a number two or number three, he was usually at the top.). Iacocca was good at promoting his brand—great actually!
That enabled him to be given the floundering Chrysler Corporation, where he applied the Mustang lesson in a brilliant way—using former Ford engineers to develop an idea Ford had rejected, turned the modest K-car (plebeian Falcon) to create the INNOVATIVE minivan (stylish Mustang). He also leveraged his brand to go on TV and tell Americans, “if you can find a better car, buy it”. (as a matter of fact, as a 15 year old I could—several other better cars), and quite a few Americans were persuaded by the father of the Mustang.
Besides selling lots of minivans, which like today’s CUVs, are more profitable than the cars they share their underpinnings with, the minivan conferred upon Chrysler a certain level of credibility which only helped sales of K-cars and their derivatives (which fell behind their competition from Japan ever passing year), their primitive leaf-sprung Volare/Aspen “large cars” and ancient pickups.
Is that the product offering of an exceptional CEO? And then he gave it to Bob—Eaton, not Lutz. Eaton who hit the lottery and sold out to Daimler. He made a lot of money on the deal. Perhaps more than Iacocca earned his entire life.
. And Daimler ran it into the ground, and one generation after a bankrupt Chrysler gave itself to Iacocca, another bankrupt Cerberus/Chrysler was given to another ambitious successful auto exec, Sergio Marchionne.
I hate that term, “modern, import-like”. Especially when I just got done looking at that review of that Grand Prix. America got robbed of a brilliant future over a long period of time, and the socially engineered reverence for things “foreign” and associating them with feeling snobbily superior was a large part of the robbery.
Agreed. Influence is one thing, US automakers used bits of foreign styling and bits of foreign engineering here and there in otherwise distinctly American designs forever, a reflection of the melting pot the country is supposed to be really. When they succumbed to outright tribute designs like the Taurus or lazy badges to sex them up like “Eurosport” they lost identity. I like the gen 1 and 2 Taurus (and Sable) for the record, but it created a major “where do we go from here?” dilemma, not dissimilar to what happens with a followup to a retro design. You more or less copy a design like the Audi, so how do you follow it up? Submissively copy their next design? Or in try to out design it? We saw the result of the latter with the gen III.
The irony to it all is ask your average new car buyer what they think of a 86 Taurus and they’d probably call it boring and say the interior looks stark and cheap, and they’d probably say the exact thing about an Audi 5000 as well. Foreign manufacturers didn’t change their designs as frequently as American manufacturers then but the reality is they evolved and followed fashions too, and never stopped, and now the interiors of all those vaunted german cars is a hell of a lot closer to a mid 70s brougham, complete with wood ornamentation and bright accents and questionable upholstery patterns, than their stark functional analog gauged 70s ancestors, with outside styling that certainly isn’t subtle.
That’s not to vindicate Lido or Lutz, as his products at Chrysler were far from American design capabilities, and for all Lutz talk there aren’t many cars under his various helms I find compelling either. Ford had it right, I think the 83 Thunderbird was the perfect American car design in the 80s, it had many touches of foreign trends, but in an otherwise distinctly American package, like the 1955 Chevrolet. Lidomobiles seemed to hold an outright rejection of outside influence that was actually quite visible in many American designs prior to the mid 70s, where somehow poofy vinyl tops formal grilles and random bits of chrome inexplicably came to define American car design to them.