Print 69 comment(s) - last by rbuszka.. on Mar 17 at 10:42 PM

GM has provided presidential limos for 30 years

The president of the U.S. rides as a passenger around the county (and the world) in the back of a highly armored limousine called "The Beast." As formidable as this current limo is, the U.S. Secret Service is seeking bids for firms to build a next generation limo to protect future presidents.
Last week a contract proposal was posted on the government contract site announcing that the Secret Service plans to award the contract by August 29 based on "the best value to the government."

President Obama's "Beast"
The project includes four different phases. The first phase of the project is armor development and is already underway. Phase 2 will include the integration of the armor with final automotive components. Phase 2 also requires the selection of chassis, interior, exterior, and test vehicle fabrication and automotive component testing.
The third phase of the project will be the automotive validation with the final phase focused on production of vehicles. The contract proposal is limited to major domestic automakers with headquarters based primarily in the U.S.

The current version of "The Beast" is capable of surving brutal assaults (although it can be tripped up by driveways) [Image Source: The Daily Mail]

General Motors currently has been the primary contractor The Beast and has provided Cadillac presidential limos for 30 years.
“There’s more security around the development of a presidential limo than any of our products,” GM vice president for design Ed Welburn said in a Detroit News interview in September. “It takes a number of years to develop the car. It’s a great project to work on. This particular one, more so than any of them in the past. In the past, they were retrofitting existing vehicles — with this, this is really from the ground up a new vehicle, and we really do it right.”

Sources: Detroit News, Time Magazine,, The Daily Mail

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By dani31 on 3/12/2014 10:58:43 AM , Rating: 1
Obama: make a car that no enemy in the country can destroy

Putin: destroy all enemies in the country so I can jog alone in the park

RE: choices
By martin5000 on 3/12/2014 11:16:31 AM , Rating: 3
Europeans: Don't make enemies.


RE: choices
By FITCamaro on 3/12/2014 11:34:55 AM , Rating: 5
And depend on the US, who's military you criticize, to protect you.

RE: choices
By Spuke on 3/12/2014 11:59:05 AM , Rating: 3
And depend on the US, who's military you criticize, to protect you.

RE: choices
By slunkius on 3/13/2014 2:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
even americans criticize their own government. does that mean that americans must leave for another country?

RE: choices
By rbuszka on 3/17/2014 10:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Of course not! We wouldn't want to lose your estimated average 9.2 million dollar contribution to our country's GDP. Dissent is simply a symptom of exposure to a version of reality that differs from the officially sanctioned version propagated by the media, and can easily be corrected by a brief yet intensive course of re-education and mild coercion. It is in your best interests to cooperate.

RE: choices
By BRB29 on 3/12/2014 12:31:23 PM , Rating: 4
And depend on the US, who's military you criticize, to protect you.

Having been deployed with coalitions forces for many years and actually been in Europe, I can tell you most Europeans are happy with US military. They don't like our culture and they think we're fat pigs but they appreciate our military presence in the world mainly because we'll do the dirty work for them.

The most anti-American Europeans have always resided mainly on the internet. I don't see this anti-American attitude at all when I was Germany, Ireland, UK, Switz, France, and Portugal. I'm sure there were people who hates us, but they are much fewer and nowhere near as vocal.

RE: choices
By Spuke on 3/12/2014 12:58:07 PM , Rating: 3
The most anti-American Europeans have always resided mainly on the internet. I don't see this anti-American attitude at all when I was Germany, Ireland, UK, Switz, France, and Portugal.
This is mostly my experience as well although I hadn't met anyone that didn't like our culture as a whole. There were some specific things we do they didn't like (some were misunderstandings) but overall Europeans were pretty cool. The Aussies and Canadians I've met were totally cool with us.

RE: choices
By martin5000 on 3/12/2014 1:36:45 PM , Rating: 4
They don't like our culture

I think we sometimes don't understand your culture (e.g. gun laws, capital punishment etc.), but on the whole Europeans love American culture (music, films etc.).

Also most Europeans admire the US military, and all would accept that in WW2 - Cold War period it guaranteed their safety.

RE: choices
By Samus on 3/13/2014 12:43:34 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the world loves our culture, especially the Japanese.

It isn't our culture Europe, or anybody else hates. Its our politics. And honestly, who can blame them. Washington is pretty messed up and constantly misuses our military.

RE: choices
By A11 on 3/13/2014 2:33:48 AM , Rating: 3
Those hate spewing internet people are usually a lot tougher on the internet than they are in real life.

Also, not everyone over here is completely stupid. Some of us are aware that for all your idiot/corrupt politicians the US has guaranteed our lifestyle and right to speak our minds for the last 70 odd years.

RE: choices
By martin5000 on 3/12/2014 11:17:01 AM , Rating: 2
Arab leaders: Pray.

By Khenglish on 3/12/2014 11:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
There's no way this only costs 300,000 pounds. I would expect at least 10 times that.

RE: cost
By Spuke on 3/12/2014 12:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
I believe they're using an existing truck chassis. That would save tremendous costs.

RE: cost
By Brandon Hill on 3/12/2014 12:06:04 PM , Rating: 2

Unlike any presidential state car before it, The Beast shares little in common with a standard production car. Its chassis, diesel engine and transmission are based on those used in the Chevrolet Kodiak, a rugged commercial vehicle used as everything from a dump truck to a U-Haul truck.

RE: cost
By Mr Perfect on 3/12/2014 12:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds slightly more impressive as USD. The current exchange rate makes that $498,540.

That's just the bid price though, it'll no doubt go up from there.

RE: cost
By superflex on 3/12/2014 3:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Once they beef up the suspension for Chewbacca, add the choom stash for Barry and extra anal lube for Reggie, the price will double.
Adding the prayer rug was already factored in.

RE: cost
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know how expensive it is to take something that heavy and fit 26" Dubs on it? Come on!


RE: cost
By sorry dog on 3/12/2014 4:15:25 PM , Rating: 4
I wonder if Clinton's model had extra padding on the floorboard for the backseat...ya know, for extra padding for knees.

RE: cost
By Spookster on 3/12/2014 5:22:49 PM , Rating: 3
Naw they saved money by just buying kneepads for the female interns.

RE: cost
By Spookster on 3/12/2014 5:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
and male interns depending upon who is in office.

RE: cost
By inperfectdarkness on 3/13/2014 4:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
Half a million dollars US each? I believe it. I believe that as a per-unit cost--not factoring in all of the R&D costs.

What I want to know is why is Honda/Toyota/Hyundai excluded? They have more factories in the USA than GM/Ford/Chrysler at this point. All "Buy American" means at this point is that I want my goods manufactured overseas and I want the fatcat CEO to reside in the USA making at least 10x what any of his contemporaries in other countries would be making.

RE: cost
By Kazinji on 3/13/2014 6:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
Agree on the "American" part. Lot of "foreign" cars are designed and made in the US. Which creates jobs. Non-union, which they usually pay a decent wage. Most "American" auto have moved to Mexico or even Canada, to get rid of the Union which is basically making it harder to compete in the US market with bloated wages. Back in the day when their wasn't any competition from foreign autos, getting a job at GM would mean you were set for life. Not anymore. Regan was the one to set it up that if they wanted to sell cars in the US they have to make them in the US(BMW makes all SUV's in NC). And that profits of said big companies just goes to the 5%ers, which isn't much of a impact for most of us. I say buy that car that makes the most US jobs, if that car happens to be a Honda/Toyota/BMW than so be it.

RE: cost
By djc208 on 3/13/2014 8:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
Security. The details on many of the design elements of this vehicle will require some sort of classification, building a tank is useless if the weak spots are public knowledge.

The foreign car companies are an unknown security threat. How do you know the plans aren't going to be leaked to their parent government, or the highest bidder? Is Toyota going to let the American Government audit their records to verify nothing has been leaked? Any personnel working with classified information have to have a security clearance, which could be harder if the designers aren't US citizens.

Then there's the espianage aspect. Even if the vehcle were built in the US, where are all the parts manufactured? If parts are built in China/Japan/Korea and just installed in a factory here then those parts would have to be inspected to make sure they are not compromised from a security standpoint. And if you think that's crazy just go research the spy world. Start with the US consolate in Russia.

Same way, GM is probably forbidden from commercializing aspects of or possibly the entire design. Don't want anyone to be able to reverse engineer the protections by purchasing a duplicate.

RE: cost
By rbuszka on 3/17/2014 10:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
Because "Buy American" really always meant "Buy Union". The UAW is as American as apple pie.

By purerice on 3/12/14, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 3:16:43 PM , Rating: 1
I personally want my presidential limo sparing no expenses.


By Spuke on 3/12/2014 3:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why is right. That money should be well spent not just spent. If ~$400k is all that is needed to get the job done then all the better.

By MrBlastman on 3/12/2014 4:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Some of these lunatics have no clue what a "budget" is--or a cash flow statement, for that matter.

By Kazinji on 3/13/2014 6:42:11 AM , Rating: 2
There is always 3 limos in a motor pool, president is in one of them. And needing backup in case of breakdowns. They prob take 4-5 with them to places that would need to drive around. With that they will prob buy 10 or so just so they have enough of them.

By marvdmartian on 3/13/2014 7:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
Why not just convert one of the Army's MRAP vehicles? We'll have plenty left over, after we leave Afghanistan, and they've proven pretty effective. Added bonus, the Prez could hold small parties inside of it!

By rbuszka on 3/17/2014 10:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
^^ This.

Presidential MRAP: The perfect "statement" vehicle for modern American militant imperialism.

why price in pounds?
By ranran on 3/12/2014 11:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
If this is an American-built car for an American president, why is the price in pounds?

RE: why price in pounds?
By Brandon Hill on 3/12/2014 11:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
Because the drawing was made by John Lawson of The Daily Mail.

RE: why price in pounds?
By rbuszka on 3/17/2014 10:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
Because as everybody in the Military-Industrial Complex knows, you don't go to the expense of designing a car like this to only sell them to one country. We're looking at you, David Cameron!

By Gio6518 on 3/12/2014 11:04:29 AM , Rating: 5
I thought they already built him one..

County or Country
By Martlark on 3/13/2014 6:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
The president of the U.S. rides as a passenger around the county (and the world)

I'm fairly certain you meant to say country rather than county, unless the president does not ever travel far from the Whitehouse.

By lagomorpha on 3/12/2014 12:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's not so much the fuel I'm concerned about (it gets better gas mileage than the Presidential helicopter and Presidential 747), it's that they shut down an entire highway whenever his motorcade is on it just so he doesn't have to deal with traffic (while suddenly making traffic much much worse for everyone else in the city he's visiting).

By Rukkian on 3/12/2014 12:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
Just out of curiosity, what "death traps" would those be? My latest car - 2014 forester is one of the safest vehicles out there, and better than pretty much any car from 10 years ago save a volvo (but I would not own one of those).

Are some people buying smaller cars? - Yes
Are they buying them because they are forced to? - no

Better fuel efficiency does not necessarily mean less safety, even if that is what some manufacturers decide to do with it.

By Gondor on 3/12/2014 3:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Just out of curiosity, what "death traps" would those be? My latest car - 2014 forester is one of the safest vehicles out there, and better than pretty much any car from 10 years ago save a volvo (but I would not own one of those).

Because owning a safer car, when discussing safety of owned vehicle(s), is a Bad Thing(TM) ?

I'm genuinely intrigued.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 12:21:05 PM , Rating: 4
While a certain amount of hypocrisy is unavoidable for such an office, Obama has certainly done his best to take advantage of every perk. He's spent billions of our dollars flying his wife and daughters everywhere on exotic shopping trips. He's taken more personal and vacation time than ANY President. I mean, he's just completely out of bounds.

It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't go on TV and chastise us for "living within our means" and accepting his crappy "new normal" economy and job market.

By Brandon Hill on 3/12/2014 12:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, what did you think of this?

You were actually the first person I thought of when I started watching it :)

By espaghetti on 3/13/2014 8:26:53 PM , Rating: 2
You know, even though I disagree with his politics, that was a damn funny episode.

By BRB29 on 3/12/2014 12:39:17 PM , Rating: 3
You do realize it's 2014, not 2008. If he was really just balling then he would've done this in 2008.

If you know anything about the US SS, you would know the President does not have any authority over their decisions on how to protect him. This is to avoid stupid mistakes and conflict of interest.

Basically, he doesn't get a choice on what he rides in, how he gets there and when. They do their best to meet this daily agenda but safety is their primary mission. The stupid scenes in movies where he tells SS to go away and then gets kidnapped or killed is not true.

Besides, this is a vehicle for Presidents, not just Obama.

If you're going to pick on something, then pick on something more legit. He doesn't have to pay rent, food, etc.. for 8 years. Even his entertainment is covered.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 12:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Hey dummy, where in that entire post did I even mention this Limo? I wasn't even talking about the damn car!

I did mention flying though. Hmmm does this Limo have wings? Maybe THEN your post would make sense.

By StevoLincolnite on 3/12/2014 6:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
I did mention flying though. Hmmm does this Limo have wings? Maybe THEN your post would make sense.

Chitty chitty bang bang!

By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 7:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
By hpglow on 3/12/2014 1:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
Don't try and talk common sense with Reclaimer. He gets his accurate, unbiased "news" from talk radio and Fox.

By Flunk on 3/12/2014 2:38:38 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not sure you always comprehend what you're typing.

That statement is impossible. How could he know if he comprehends your posts if he doesn't read them?

By BRB29 on 3/12/2014 1:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yea like how Obama spends more time on vacation when Bush clearly spent over 700 days on vacation lol. It's even documented.

Some people are just to biased to even smell reality.

I don't like Obama or Bush but slandering fools are annoying regardless if they're with or against you.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 1:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
Do you ever get tired of being stupid?

And hey genius! Bush was in office for 8 years. Obama isn't done yet, hello!?

Bush clearly spent over 700 days on vacation lol.

If you believe that you're an idiot. Unbiased source please?

By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 1:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually scratch my vacation complaint off the list. I think we would be far better off if Obama was on vacation EVERY DAY of his term.

Still steamed about his reckless personal spending on our dime though. Inexcusable.

By BRB29 on 3/12/2014 1:55:38 PM , Rating: 3
As of Aug. 13, 2013, Obama is on his 15th vacation trip, covering all or part of 96 days total. He's spending this vacation in Martha's Vineyard with his family.

At the same point in his presidency — Aug. 13, 2005 — George W. Bush had made 51 visits to his ranch in tiny Crawford, Texas, totaling all or part of 335 days. (Note: Bush sometimes used the property to host world leaders.)

Bush took the longest single vacation — 5 weeks — of any President in 36 years.

President Bush spent 32% of his presidency on vacation.

Bush passed Reagan in total vacation days in 2005 with three and a half years left in his presidency. Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his 8 year presidency. Bush spent 487 days at Camp David during his presidency and 490 days at his Crawford, Texas ranch, a total of 977 days.

- See more at:

Basically, you get the picture. Bush spent so many days on vacation that nobody even knows how many days he took. Everyone knows it's a lot.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 2:07:19 PM , Rating: 1
You guys know Bush isn't in office anymore, right? Sheesh how long are you gonna use this tactic, it's embarrassing!

By Flunk on 3/12/2014 2:40:39 PM , Rating: 1
I think their point is that Bush was the worst President ever by nearly every quantitative metric and Obama looks better by comparison.

By retrospooty on 3/12/2014 2:45:39 PM , Rating: 1
Jimmy Carter FTW!!!

By FITCamaro on 3/12/2014 2:48:09 PM , Rating: 4
So Bush being responsible for signing budgets resulting in $5 trillion in new debt over 8 years is worse than Obama being responsible for signing budgets(sorry spending bills other than 2009 and finally in January 2014) resulting in over $7 trillion in debt in under 5 years.

And yes, for the record, Obama, not Bush, signed the 2009 budget. Democrats specifically refused to pass a budget until Obama was in office. So any talk of "2009 and the stimulus was Bush's debt" is crap. Who signed them and approved of them. It sure wasn't Bush.

By BRB29 on 3/13/2014 7:44:03 AM , Rating: 2
Bush started with a surplus and handed over a country with over a trillion in deficit per year. Unemployment was 5% and it was nearly 10% when his term ended. Actually, there wasn't anything that improved.

You can blame Obama for $7T of debt but at least recognize the condition of the country that was handed to him.

This is like asking why an old car keeps breaking down compared to a new car.

By BRB29 on 3/12/2014 1:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
And hey genius! Bush was in office for 8 years. Obama isn't done yet, hello!?


Read these
Says President Barack Obama "has taken 92 days of vacation since he was sworn in," compared to 367 for President George W. Bush at the same point in his presidency.
Al Sharpton, Friday, August 9th, 2013.

Bush took 879 vacation days, which included 77 total trips to his Crawford, Tex., ranch. Nine of those trips were taken in his first year as president.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 1:55:02 PM , Rating: 1
It's not possible for a president to truly be on "vacation" for that many days. Just because he wasn't at the White House, doesn't mean he was on "vacation".

You honestly believe he was just AWOL for what amounts to almost three years of time!? Use your brain!

Washington Post and Al Sharpton, VERY unbiased sources by the way lmao.

By BRB29 on 3/12/2014 1:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's not possible for a president to truly be on "vacation" for that many days. want to say the thousands of sources I saw from a simple google search saying the same thing is wrong? Even the freaking white house said it.

Just because he wasn't at the White House, doesn't mean he was on "vacation".

I guess horse riding and painting pictures in his 6 ranches is considered working?

Please stop with your undying love for Bush.

By FITCamaro on 3/12/2014 2:11:53 PM , Rating: 1
How about all the times when Bush was meeting with foreign dignitaries there? Oh right vacation. Bush also mainly frequented his Texas ranch. The fact that his family had lots of land is irrelevant.

"Undying love for Bush"

I disagreed with Bush on many topics. No Child Left Behind, TARP, first GM "loans", and more. Funny the same kinds of things I disagree with Obama on.... The main difference between the two is Obama advocates for those kinds of things and more. Bush left the details to Congress and then signed them.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2014 2:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. You can tell they are just counting every single day he wasn't physically in the White House as him being "on vacation".

Not saying Bush was the best thing ever, but the reporting on his, especially online, is so amazingly negative and biased.

By room200 on 3/12/2014 3:00:08 PM , Rating: 2

Recalimer is a fool. He actually believe that Obama was able to "spend billions of dollars on travel." LOL

What a f*cking idiot.

By FITCamaro on 3/12/2014 2:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
Except much of that "vacation", Bush was actually working. Just from his ranch instead of the White House. Are you really going to fault a guy for wanting to get out of DC? He did a lot from his ranch including hosting foreign dignitaries and such. Even when on vacation, again most were at his ranch. Which cost the taxpayers nothing extra since Secret Service maintains a constant presence at every Presidential address all the time. It only cost us the trip to Texas and back. Far better than having rent out entire sections of lavish hotels like Obama is requiring of us. No President is truly on vacation. But the difference between the two is stark. Heck the guy just got back from yet another 3 day vacation after his big vacation in January.

Bush also gave up golf after 9/11 and instead spent his time visiting injured troops at Walter Reid. Without the media lapping behind him like a love sick puppy. Obama meanwhile has played over 160 times. 163 to be exact. And counting.

Lastly, Bush didn't make countless late night TV appearances treating the office of president like that of a celebrity as Obama has.

This is after only 5 years as well. He's got 3 more to go.

By Arsynic on 3/12/2014 3:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
And what makes where you get your news any less slanted or biased?

"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki