MagicMtnDan

GM Interiors: Changing from Inside

Interior design is a key to the automaker’s revival.
by Paul A. Eisenstein 8/26/2002

At a top-secret briefing in Santa Barbara earlier this month, General Motors officials pulled the wraps off a baker’s dozen of their most important future products. Part of a broader background session on the revolution reshaping the world’s largest automaker, the goal was to show that GM intends to reclaim its historic role as an automotive design trend-setter.


“Design is the soul of a product,” declared Gary Cowger, president of GM’s core North American operations.

But design is more than skin deep. The shape of the exterior sheet metal may be what draws you to take a closer look at a car. But like its competitors, GM has discovered that increasingly, it’s the interior that ultimately wins a potential customer over—and keeps an owner loyal when it’s time to trade in.

But the fact is, GM simply hasn’t had world-class interiors concedes, the automaker’s vice chairman and “car czar,” Bob Lutz. For all the very visible attention GM is placing on upgrading its exterior design, it is working at least as diligently to upgrade its interiors.

The problem is rooted in the basic philosophy of the American Big Three. Traditionally, the interior is the last thing a company like GM finishes up during the design and engineering process. In large part, that’s because it’s been the easiest place to save some money and cover cost overruns elsewhere in a vehicle program.

So there have to be fundamental changes in the way you view and manage product development, insists Martin Smith, who heads the automaker’s interior design studios in Europe. Smith is one who clearly understands the importance of a good looking dashboard and the tight fit of a door panel. Before joining GM, he headed interior design at Audi, the company routinely hailed as having the best cabins.

“You have to have a management that knows that if you do a better interior, it will be better received by customers and you will sell more cars,” says Smith.

Along with Anne Asensio, his counterpart in North America—and given a clear vote of support from Lutz— Smith is trying to craft an interior revolution, declaring it “the attribute that defines the new GM.”

It will require additional spending, of course, for the use of more sophisticated materials, such as leather, real wood, brushed aluminum and slush-molded plastics. The latter is a new method by which key interior components, such as an instrument panel, can be formed. The process is slower, and more challenging than the traditional approach. But it allows a designer to craft complex shapes and fits as precise as any from Audi or Lexus.

The challenge, says Smith, “is to balance vehicle specifications and put money in where people see it every day.” But some of the added cost can be offset by sharing the underlying components between a large number of vehicles. When Audi first introduced a foldaway cupholder on its A6 which stowed away in the instrument panel, the piece cost was nearly $30. By expanding the use to other models in the Audi and broader VW Group, the cost fell by nearly 90%.

Under Smith’s guidance, GM’s European subsidiary, Opel, has adopted the 4-step Audi interior program. Among other things, this moves interior design up in the product development process. And it sets high standards for the final product. “If you don’t get the ratings you need, it is just as serious” as missing key targets for such things as exterior design and powertrain performance, Smith explains.

Smith has been with Opel just five years and so, with the industry’s long lead times, his efforts are just beginning to show up. But the first visible example, the Opel Zafira, has won raves. And Smith promises “the next Astra will be comparable or better than what is being done at the Volkswagen Group.”

He says it will mean more than tight fits-and-finishes. Opel’s goal is to give customers a broad array of choices, so they can customize the interior to reflect their own personal tastes and styles, “an ambience in the car that is right for him.”

The transformation will take a bit longer to reach the U.S., especially in lower-priced segments. Europeans are far more willing to pay for quality and refinement, GM officials note. But they also realize that the competitive nature of the business won’t let them back down.

“Good enough is not the right target,” stresses Asensio, no matter what market segment you’re competing in.

Should the automaker fail to understand, it simply has to look over its shoulder. European and Asian automakers continue to improve their interior designs. And so does GM’s domestic competitors. “We think we have a good two years on them (GM),” asserts Ford Motor Co.’s design chief, J Mays, who like Smith, was part of the design revolution at Audi before migrating to the U.S.

The four-step process is now migrating to this side of the Atlantic, and it will begin bearing fruit over the next several years. The first clear American example of GM’s interior revolution will come with the launch of the Cadillac CTSv early next year.

The base CTS has won raves for its handling and despite some controversy over its edgy “Art & Science” design theme, the look has clicked with customers. But critics have been notably uncharitable in reviewing the car’s lackluster interior. The performance-edition CTSv will attempt to resolve that with a marked upgrade. There’ll be richer materials and such things as sill plates on the door, something in line with such European alternatives as the BMW M3.

GM also hopes that a world-class interior will provide the long-awaited, next-generation Chevrolet Cavalier with a desperately-needed boost.

The simple fact, says Asensio, is that when you design a vehicle, “you are telling a story.” And no matter how good the exterior, no matter how stiff the suspension or powerful the engine, a weak interior is like leaving out the ending. If GM hopes to tell a tale of reversing its 30-year market share slide, it will have to get the chapter on interiors absolutely right.

lampedusa

Great read!!!!! :cheers:

Tom/99

I just hope that the seats in the C6, are a better quality than the ones in the C5's.

SNW Vette

Hi,
Thanks for the info. This is great news for the future. I think this is another example of how hard the Old Ways die. For generations it was: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This philosophy has helped cause the decline of the once great American auto industry.
I’m saving for a C6. I hope it’s good.
Steve
:seeya

yellow01

Thanks for the article.

They couldn't be more right. As much as I love the vette, the interior is not great. The dash and center console don't fit well, the truck stereo is not attractive...

Let's hope they do it up right next time :cheers:

John Shiels

The C5 got good reviews when the interior came out. It is 6-7 years old now. There product has improved greatly. Nice read :seeya

Illini Steve

Thanks for the info.!

Obviously GM still doesn't have a clue. Americans aren't willing to pay for quality and refinement? :confused: How do you explain the increased market shares for Japanese and European brands and "the General's" decline in share over the last couple of decades? Wake up, we don't want crap, and we're willing to pay for better quality. My hard earned dollars aren't going anywhere near any GM car other than a Corvette until they make some big strides. The new GTO sounds great, but I'm worried they're going to throw the standard blobby, gray, red backlit Pontiac dash in and ruin it.

The Example

I must agree with the article that Audi interiors are some of the finest of any vehicle. Sooo refined...

Senna1994

Of course we would pay more for a better interior and further refinements, we are still the largest market in the world. Economies of Scale would bring down the cost of any upgrades that GM would do for their cars. Look at the interior of a base Passat and Audi A4, if the Europeans or Japanese can do it why can't GM? The extra cost of nicer carpet or swithgear would add how much to the price of a Corvette, $500? Stop treating the American Consumer as a Pauper, we make the world's economy what it is. Do you think the German automobiles would be where they are without the U.S. consumer?

GM has to wake up and treat us with the same respect as the other car companies, and than maybe there Market Share will rise. How many of us would buy GM products beside the Corvette if they establish the design and excute the fit and finish equivalent of the world's best, I think a lot of us would buy the product. We did in the 50's through 60's.

With Lutz and car guys back in charge I hope this will change, thank god the Brand Marketing Clowns are gone for the sake of GM, who at one time wanted to kill the Corvette over $250 Million Dollars. Let the C6 represent the best of all technologies (inside, outside, powertrain, etc.), it represents America. :flag

Fox

The interior improvements would be nice, we Corvette owners have put up with substandard seats, etc. for too many years now.

But if GM really wants to create customer loyalty they need to hold their dealers accountable for mistreating customers the way that most do. This of course would mean a change in the way GM pays the dealer for performing warranty repairs, actually allowing them to accurately diagnose a problem.

Personally, I'm not real optimistic.

BuckyThreadkiller

Obviously Bob Lutz must have shut the door in a C4 and had the door panel bust loose.

That'd be a nice thing to have fixed.

69stingray

Interesting read. GM has a long way to go. I agree the money has to be reallocated in the interiors. Inline with that, reasonable financial targets for the interior have to be set also, with clear understanding on how the targets will be meant. Too often very aggressive targets are placed without a plan to meet them. Also, you need to plan craftsmanship at theme selection, not at launch when you are looking at all of the parts in the interior. The best looking interiors are also the best engineered. GM studio is getting very strong, just like the letter indicates. You can design anything in clay, if has to be engineerable in order for it to be executed. This is were the Europeans (Audi, VW, BMW, etc.) are very strong. VW has very high craftsmanship interiors in some "inexpensive" cars. That is do to reasonalbe cost targets, clear definiation up front, clean design and strong engineering support.

Just my 2 cents.


[Modified by 69stingray, 11:30 PM 9/26/2002]

cougarSVT

i guess they traded speed for interior aesthetics on the coug then ;)

jsaunde2

Most people I know with VW's complain about constant rattles and buzzes. They're probably still not as bad as my car but at WOT with no mufflers you can't hear the rattles anyway. :D

Also, VW has the current window falling into the door problem.

Just reminding everyone that a bargain is a bargain for a reason. It's all about making the right compromises for you.

BTW, I also dislike the C% interior and think they should do a better job on a $50k car.

Jason


[Modified by jsaunde2, 10:04 AM 9/27/2002]

Jinx

Wow, what irony.

Would you be willing to give up 100hp to get that better job on the interior and still keep the car under $50K? Because that's what you just complained about -- not that you're willing to spend more (or you wouldn't have said "on a $50K car") but that GM spent too much on performance on not enough on the interior.

CORVETTE IS NOT A FIFTY-THOUSAND DOLLAR CAR. It's a $30,000 car with $15,000 in extra performance.

It's all about making the right compromises.

.Jinx

verskel

Here's a second reason why the interior 'might' be better :

GM won't have to invest $$$ in the chassis design since it'll borrow from the C5 ! :smash: :yesnod:

It's very expensive to do car "re-designs" and that's why compromises are made. Otherwise we'd be shelling out $100k instead of $50k !!! :eek:

jsaunde2

Actually, that was exectly my point, people should not expect an Audi quality interior on their Corvette because it is not the focus of the car. hence my statement that "It's all about making the right compromises for you." If you want a great interior for 50k then you wont get great performance. If you want both it costs 100k, and then you are still not likely to get both.

However, I believe the current corvette interior is not a good performance cockpit, largely due to the shapeless seats. The C5 made a lot of interior compromises in the wrong places. They should make the C6 interior of nicer materials rather than just softer materials.

My complaints of the C5 interior would not be solved by spending more money but by making the right choices on where to put that money that is spent on the interior.

Also, while you're talking about what a great performance bargain the C5 is, go look at a new M3. Compare performance, interior and price and see if you can honestly state that it would take a 100 hp loss to give Corvette a quality interior.


[Modified by jsaunde2, 2:00 PM 9/27/2002]

Mike Mercury

:yesnod:

NVMYC5

Jinx you nailed it. I personaly would pay about 5000.00 more for better guts and keep the performance as is. Wich is just fine by me.

I had a great car weekend ran up Hwy 1 to Laguna Seca raceway put nearly 1000mi. on her and had no problem killing at will my budies 355gts F1 on the straights and on the twisties. :smash: :smash: :smash:

Man I love this car. Now just for a bit more detail in the fit and finish and we got a world beater just like in the early to mid 60's :chevy


[Modified by NVMYC5, 11:27 PM 9/30/2002]

Jinx

You're kidding, right? The M3 interior sucks. Suede is a gimmick. The layout of the controls isn't bad... for a compact sedan. The seats are byzantine and not more comfortable than Corvette. As for M3's bargain status, it costs thousands more than the Corvette, and it's a gas-guzzler. On the plus side it's less powerful and slower than a Corvette. Uglier, too.

The finish of the center console for C5 needs work. The leather on the seats wears too quickly for some. These are simply too-cheap materials. The rest is functional and comfortable, and the controls are well-placed and have good feedback. I won't swallow "it could have been better for the same price." Exactly what corners do you suggest they could cut to make "better choices" elsewhere?


[Modified by Jinx, 1:33 AM 10/1/2002]