backtop

Print 252 comment(s) - last by dani31.. on Dec 11 at 8:39 AM

GM CEO Rick Wagoner getting out of the driver's seat of a Volt test vehicle wrapped in Chevrolet Cruze bodywork.  (Source: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Chevrolet Volt
GM's Rick Wagoner to showcase Volt technology in his trip to Washington

The Big Three are looking for $25 billion USD from the federal government in order to keep afloat for the foreseeable future. The Detroit auto giants were chastised for coming before Congress without a well thought out plan for recovery and arriving in three separate private jets. The Big Three are now doing their best to placate lawmakers who seem to be turning a deaf ear.

GM [DOC], Ford [PDF], and Chrysler [PDF] have all submitted their plans to Congress which detail the steps that will be taken to eliminate unprofitable brands and produce efficient cars the people actually want to purchase. After being smacked around for arriving in private jets a few weeks ago, Ford CEO Alan Mulally is said to be making the trek to Washington in an Escape Hybrid. Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli is reported to be making the same trip via a commercial air flight. However, GM CEO Rick Wagoner is looking to make the most commotion by arriving in Washington via a prototype Chevrolet Volt.

According to Autoblog, Wagoner was originally expected to make the complete trip from Detroit to Washington in a Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid. While the Malibu Hybrid definitely plays up GM's commitment to hybrid vehicles, it is not exactly a mileage-competitive offering compared to its Japanese rivals. The Malibu Hybrid is rated at 24/32 MPG city/highway while the Nissan Altima Hybrid and Toyota Camry Hybrid are rated at 35/32 MPG city/highway and 33/34 MPG city/highway respectively.

Wagoner will still use the Malibu Hybrid for at least part of the trip to Washington, but he will switch to a prototype Volt once he gets closer to Washington (and the cameras). The Detroit Free Press reports that the prototype Volt and its running gear will be covered with the bodywork of another upcoming GM model:  the Chevrolet Cruze. The Volt and the Cruze are both built on GM's next generation Delta platform.

GM is also said to be trucking in a non-functioning Volt display model to show off as well.

The Chevrolet Volt can travel 40 miles on a single charge thanks to its onboard lithium-ion battery pack. This battery pack in turn powers a 150 HP, 273 lb-ft electric motor to provide forward momentum. Once the battery pack has reached a preset minimum charge level, a 1.4-liter gasoline engine kicks in to recharge the battery pack and provide an additional range of about 320 miles.

Customers who purchase a Volt will be eligible for a $7,500 tax credit thanks to a provision in the $700 billion USD Wall Street bailout package. The $7,500 should make a sizeable dent in the estimated $40,000 price tag of the Volt.

GM is asking for $18 billion USD in emergency loans from the government -- $4 billion USD of which the company direly needs before 2009 arrives and at least another $12 billion by April of next year.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By SpaceJumper on 12/4/2008 7:24:30 AM , Rating: 5
GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry to prove his point. If the US government does not bailout the US automakers then the American will be driving the Japanese vehicles.




RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By wideout on 12/4/2008 8:32:10 AM , Rating: 5
Can I have an American made PlayStation then? At what point do we draw the line between what has to be American made?

I'm personally in the mind set that if it can improve our lives, lets do it. So if it means the domestic automakers are reduced in size and scope, so be it. There will be some new industry to take its place. 20 or 30 years ago, nobody anticipated the computer industry would be as robust as it is today. Maybe some new industry will finally revitalize the rust belt of the US. But that may only happen if we all our economy to move on to bigger and better things.


By NullSubroutine on 12/4/2008 11:33:44 AM , Rating: 4
Can you fight a war with a Playstation?


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 11:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
If you drop a ton of them from a B2 at 30,000 feet, I'm sure you could. I like my plan, fill bombers with pennies and feces, drop it on the offending country. Cheaper than bombs and the reconstruction money is already there when we are done.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By MrBlastman on 12/4/2008 12:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
Mythbusters already proved a falling penny would reach terminal velocity and not be harmful in most cases.

The poop though - that would create quite a mess. :)


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Darkefire on 12/4/2008 5:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
A single penny would lack the mass to do significant damage. A roll of pennies would do a fair bit more. A cruise missile-sized chunk of cow shit riddled with rolls of pennies would do a whole lot of damage and definitely ruin someone's day. And as people have said, when you go to clean up you've got the cash and the crop fertilizer just waiting for you.

Biological warfare for the eco-weenies. I like it.


By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 5:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I also have been bouncing the idea of using dead animals/people to drop on them as well. We could wipe out countries pretty quickly/cheaply that way.


By cokbun on 12/5/2008 12:53:01 AM , Rating: 3
WOMD ( Weapons Off Mass Defecation )


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By oab on 12/4/2008 4:49:53 PM , Rating: 3
Maddox came up with the idea of dropping pennies from bombers instead of bombs back in 2003.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=pe...

(unless he stole it from you/you two thought of it independently and have no idea who this Maddox guy is)


By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 5:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Oddly enough, I had the thought a long time ago as crap and pennies separately, then I saw Maddox's post on it and realized we think alike, ha.


By bighairycamel on 12/4/2008 11:41:10 AM , Rating: 4
Can you fight a war with a mid size sedan?


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 12:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
They hurt pretty bad when you run someone over with it. And you can always mount an M60 to the sunroof and replace the headlights with grenade launchers.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By BZDTemp on 12/4/2008 1:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
Common knowledge will have the Toyota pick-ups are much better for make shift army use. Just look what every self respecting war lord drives :-)


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By oab on 12/4/2008 4:57:24 PM , Rating: 4
Toyota Hilux, the completely indestructible pickup as proven by Top Gear.

Crashed into a tree, set on fire, drowned in the ocean, hit with a wrecking ball, crushed with a caravan, driven through a garden shed and then eventually strapped to the top of a building while it was being demolished with explosives and subsequently falling 240 feet.

And it still worked.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Raidin on 12/8/2008 12:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget it was scraped in the rear driver's side or so against a brick corner as it was exiting a narrow alley at low speed...

...and it still worked.


By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2008 7:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
lol I just Googled the Top Gear Helux video and I can't believe it. If they are being honest and not using ANY parts to repair it and only basic tools... well.. hell.

Toughest truck ever made by mankind lol. Period !

The clincher was it being blown up with a building and still running and driving. Even IF a vehicle survived the fall, you would think the massive explosion and vibration would have shook something, anything, loose and cause it to not function.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Bender 123 on 12/4/2008 2:38:08 PM , Rating: 5
In a sense yes...Read your history books. GM, Ford, etc...became the factories of the war machine during World War 2. They were responsible for building tanks, armored vehicles, jeeps, etc.

Without the auto industry, the US would not have been able to mobilize the force it did in the Pacific and Europe.


By clovell on 12/4/2008 3:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
As Ferdinand Porsche did when Hitler approached him to do the same for the Germans - they called it Volkswagen.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By teldar on 12/4/2008 8:34:46 PM , Rating: 4
The Ford Trimotor was a phenomenally useful airplane during the war effort.
Absolutely the manufacturing capacity of the U.S. saved us.

However......
new and streamlined manufacturing should be implemented. This does eliminate a significant number of jobs. This should mean the end of the UAW as that dinosaur has no place in modern manufacturing as shown by Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai....

T


By NullSubroutine on 12/6/2008 5:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
UAW was in Toyota now, last I read.


By NullSubroutine on 12/6/2008 5:11:51 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I was alluring to. Without a manufacturing base in our country and fighting another World War would result in huge infastructure issues. Even if you simply take the big three, trim it down to one company and produce vehicles like Car, Truck, SUV, Van - at least you have the infastructure in place to build any type of vehicle needed.

It is a national security issue directly and indirectly with the loss of jobs and probable despression.


By CloudFire on 12/4/2008 12:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
didn't the playstation 3's ability to control a cruise missile (or some sort of tactical projectile) make headlines a few years back? if that's the case, then yes!


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By ebakke on 12/4/2008 12:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see the point you're attempting to make. Please elaborate.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 1:26:14 PM , Rating: 5
During WWII our ability to win the war was widely acknowledged to be due to the ability for us to churn out fighter aircraft, tanks, boats, ships etc. faster than the Germans and Japs could destroy them. In short, it was our manufacturing power that won the war.

During the height of WWII, the American automotive factories where shutdown and retooled to build these weapons... starting to see the point?

-Suntan


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 1:44:24 PM , Rating: 1
These days we'd be f*cked even if the automakers survive.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 2:06:45 PM , Rating: 3
I don’t know about that. Even with no manufacturing changeover our military has the ability to totally annihilate any other country or even most groups of countries if they really wanted to take the gloves off and not worry about collateral damage of the enemy’s citizens (which would become very unimportant very quickly if American citizens were actually endangered by the enemy country.)

Even in a world war scenario, that Rouge plant of Ford’s, although a sliver of its prior capabilities, probably still has the required capitol equipment to start building armored Humvees or even conventionally armored M1A1 tanks from raw materials in a matter of a month or so if true war time need necessitated it.

-Suntan


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Ringold on 12/4/2008 2:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
I somehow doubt a Chevy Malibu production line can be converted to modern battle tanks. WW II was a special war at a special time in the development of the western world; raw materials went in one side of a complex and out popped B-52 bombers out the other side.

Today, that vertical integration doesn't exist. Ore may be mined in Australia, sent to China, and turned in to some basic good. Then it might be shipped to America, where its further manipulated in to a higher value good. Then sent to Mexico for assembly in to a final good. Then shipped who knows where for final sale.

The national defense argument fails, IMHO, because the big three wont disappear if they go in to bankruptcy. Even if they did, Toyota and others have the same facilities here. It's unimaginable we'd go to war with Japan, but lets say we did, and Toyota didn't play ball with our military. Fine. We could wave our magic wand, and confiscate their US operations. Now it's an American company. Russia does it, and in war, I think libertarians would even look the other way. National security problem solved.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 2:54:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I somehow doubt a Chevy Malibu production line can be converted to modern battle tanks.


What part of Ford’s Rouge plant makes you think I was talking about a Chevy Malibu? I commented as such because the Rouge plant was notable for being one of the first plants to be completely vertically integrated, and although the F150s and SUVs that are built there today are not built that way, a short amount of very concerted effort could make it available for military manufacturing once again. With raw materials, namely steel from the iron range of Northern Minnesota shipped directly from the Duluth harbor to the back door of the plant without ever needing to be unloaded from the super liner.

-Suntan


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Ringold on 12/4/2008 3:39:20 PM , Rating: 1
Sure, we could do a great number of things if we tried hard enough. That doesn't mean we should strive for vertical integration; there are reasons we moved away from it. I mentioned the Chevy Malibu assembly lines because that is what we have now. You're talking about something that no longer exists.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Suntan on 12/5/2008 10:02:33 AM , Rating: 4
I toured the Rouge plant a month ago. Those foundries could have been an illusion, but they looked pretty real to me.

-Suntan


By jtemplin on 12/7/2008 3:20:28 AM , Rating: 2
Lol Suntan. You totally owned Ringold.
BTW: Thanks for the interesting facts too.


By croc on 12/4/2008 4:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think your b52 example was a bit out of scope for WW II... B24 PARTS (wing assemblies, fuselage frame, rudder assemblies, etc.) rolled in one door, were mated, skinned, engines mounted, etc.


By NullSubroutine on 12/6/2008 5:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
It's not about tanks, they are expensive and not always going to be your main fighting force. Think like this.

Think of the entire manufacturing base that supports the auto industry. Think of those who make the equipment to build the cars, think of the people who make the parts for the engines, the cars, the fluids and oils - think of all the things that are required to make a vehicle.

Now imagine it is World War III, we are fighting for survival. Imagine using not only the factories used to make vehicles, but using the entire industry. Using the parts suppliers, the liquid suppliers, everything - they can make different kinds of parts they do it every year or when new models come out.

Now imagine you are a country without this industry base of support. Where are the parts going to come from? Who is going to make the equipment that can produce the weapons of war? That's right no one. You relied on a few plants that are designed to produce peace time levels of vehicles, not war time. Now you have to spend X amount of time building the entire supply chain from the ground up. You think time is free in war?


By foolsgambit11 on 12/4/2008 7:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
We don't need Ford, GM, or Chevy to win a war if we 'really want to.' We've got the firepower right now to destroy continents from afar, without building a single M1A1 or M998 (HMMWV). H-bomb FTW. Literally.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By BigPeen on 12/4/2008 2:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
A modern war would be less about churning out massive amounts of fighters and tanks luckily. More about having the most advanced equipment and weapons, which we luckily have.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Bender 123 on 12/4/2008 2:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
After technology is used to start a fight, it always ends on conventional terms. Iraq/Afghanistan should prove that.

All the air power and technology of the US was held at bay by a group of fanatics with bombs made from spare parts of equipment out of use since the 60s.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 3:04:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
After technology is used to start a fight, it always ends on conventional terms. Iraq/Afghanistan should prove that.


What they proved is that it is exceedingly difficult to defeat an enemy that has no qualms with hiding amongst its own citizens, if you desire minimal collateral damage over expediency.

If it were a true world war fight for survival ala WWII, the desire to minimize enemy civilian collateral damage would get thrown out the window very quickly. At which time, tactics would change to the more traditional method of beating the piss out of them until nobody is left to fight back. This is a tactical method that the American military is much more capable of doing than any of its adversaries.

quote:
All the air power and technology of the US was held at bay by a group of fanatics with bombs made from spare parts of equipment out of use since the 60s.


Once again, IEDs are very effective against ground troops that are required to intermingle amongst the civilian population where they are particularly venerable to these attacks (and are required to be when the mission is policing and protecting these civilians.)

IEDs lose a lot of effectiveness when tactics are changed to simply eradicate the enemies with little to no appreciation for the collateral damage caused. (An IED isn’t going to do didly against a carpet of dropped bombs from 50,000 feet.)

-Suntan


By AssBall on 12/5/2008 2:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
particularly venerable to these attacks


*vulnerable* hehe that was funny.

But your post is absolutely right. The *war*s we have fought since Korea have nothing to do with obliterating the opposition anymore. If they were, we'd be over and done with all of them, and be hated and feared even more by the rest of the world.


By Suntan on 12/4/2008 2:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
I was answering his question, not posing a theoretical situation of my own.

-Suntan


By Aikouka on 12/4/2008 4:04:07 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing this up. I mean, I can see the historical significance of their support during World War II, which people should remember. However, do you truly believe that they could do the same thing now? I think they could probably assist in manufacturing. I'm also not big on the manufacturing and even some of the prowess of the old war machines, but the machines today are quite complex and also (depending on the machine) can be expensive to produce.

Also, I don't think I'd want to be the pilot stuck flying the Ford F22 Raptor :o. How about the Chrysler C130 :P.


By TechIsGr8 on 12/5/2008 11:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
Um, we can't make a fighter jet without parts from China...


By Samus on 12/6/2008 10:19:57 PM , Rating: 1
They gave 700 BILLION to the banks without any provisions or even a plan on how they are going to spend it.

But at the same time won't give 25 billion to the auto industry, which is only failing because gas has been over $3/gallon for 5 years, and now the economy is so bad nobody is buying new cars and is rather just fixing their old ones.

Being more stereotype than racist, allow me to say...

BANKS=Jews
AUTOS=Blues

These asshole congressmen, be in red or blue, don't give a shit about those that work their ass off building our vehicles. If America loses its manufacturing industry, what the hell do we have left. 1 in 11 American jobs are tied to the auto industry. That means 10,000,000 people will be affected.

If you're going to bail the fucking banks without any strings attached...why the hell are you playing hardball with these people. I don't have a lot of respect for these CEO's, but it's Jaques Nasser that did the damage to Ford, and the unions that are destroying all three. From top to bottom, American vehicles have never been better than they are today. Hell, they've been competitive for years!


By eye smite on 12/5/2008 4:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I don't see any reasons why american auto makers who lead the industry for so long can't compete or take the lead in this market again at least in this country. The only problem I see are the people at the reigns of the company controlling them. Money hungry exploiters that don't listen to their customers needs or wants. That historically has been the reason many companies have gone from leaders to has beens. Iomega, Gateway, Maytag washers and dryers and the list goes on. This has been coming for decades and the big 3 have ignored it. The Malibu hybrid gets the same mileage as my Mother's 1986 Olds Delta 88 from 2 decades ago when she bought it new. Because they haven't improved gas mileage she switched to Honda 12 yrs ago. It's really rather simple.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Spivonious on 12/4/2008 8:42:09 AM , Rating: 4
You mean the Toyota Camry that's made in Ohio by American workers?


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By callmeroy on 12/4/2008 9:29:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You mean the Toyota Camry that's made in Ohio by American workers?


Yes I think he means that one made in Ohio by American workers that still get many parts imported from over seas....

BUT my point to state that was just to correct the sentiment that its 100% American made, in reality -- I don't see the point at all in bickering if something is American made or not anymore.

Back when America was an industrial and/or manufacturing economy -- yes, then I could see the cries for "Buy American...and American Made Baby!!!" now that's just a day late and dollar short folks.

We (USA) are no longer a manufacturing based economy, and we haven't been for some time now...we are a service based economy. Get used to it -- other countries are manufacturing cheaper thus they will continue to do so. The cold reality is business is all about money, and CEO's want money more than serving some American ideal.

Do I agree with this? Not really, but I at least understand it.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By spread on 12/4/2008 9:45:46 AM , Rating: 3
Here in Canada we're also considered a service economy, but our manufacturing sector still makes up a significant amount of the GDP. If it were to crash suddenly, we would feel the effects immediately.

The United States still has a big manufacturing sector and it needs to be managed properly.


By Tsuwamono on 12/4/2008 10:15:45 AM , Rating: 3
Canada's manufacturing makes up something like 20% i believe. I think we are more then 70% service.


By oab on 12/4/2008 5:00:56 PM , Rating: 3
The manufacturing sector has already crashed. Just look at Oshawa, #1 gm plant in North America (in terms of quality) shut down because the trucks it makes are no longer being purchased. Magna is laying off hundreds of workers and closing two plants.

It is only a question now of if it can be saved.


By oab on 12/4/2008 5:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
The manufacturing sector has already crashed. Just look at Oshawa, #1 gm plant in North America (in terms of quality) shut down because the trucks it makes are no longer being purchased. Magna is laying off hundreds of workers and closing two plants.

It is only a question now of if it can be saved.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By InsaneGain on 12/4/2008 1:10:56 PM , Rating: 5
So you claim America is no longer a manufacturing economy. Americans still desire many manufactured goods though. So you say 'let foreign countries manufacture goods for America, and then we can focus on services.' Well what exactly are Americans trading to the foreign nations for all their manufactured goods? The Chinese for example, simply take all your US dollars and lend them back to the U.S. to finance the massive U.S. deficits. This cannot go on indefinitely. As soon as the Chinese stop this practice, the value of the US dollar will collapse like you have never seen, and Americans will no longer be able to afford anything produced in other countries, even the unassembled Toyota auto parts. Then you will learn why you either need to manufacture you own goods, or create something that is in demand overseas to trade for them. Your understanding of how economics works is flawed and will lead to failure in the long run.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 1:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
And what do you think is the resulting effect that China will experience when they have no one to buy the stuff they make?

America is not the only one with something to lose if that economic model goes tits up overnight.

Your understanding of economics doesn't seem to be all that stellar either.

-Suntan


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By InsaneGain on 12/4/2008 3:06:13 PM , Rating: 4
Well Suntan, yes you are right at this moment in time. That is not what I am talking about however. Long term, this model will not work. What do you think will happen when China inevitably creates its own consumer society? It is getting closer every single day, much quicker than anyone would have guessed.


By Ringold on 12/4/2008 3:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
China creating a consumer economy would be a net boon for the world. Their great donation to the world, disinflationary pressure, would be gone, to be replaced by a more balanced picture of global trade; they'd export less as their wages went up (which has been happening) and import more luxury goods from Japan, America, and Europe. Fine Italian designer sunglasses, for example, or more American General Electric MRI's for hospitals, etc, etc.

To fear the rise of a wealthy Chinese people who spend their money is like saying Canada should be a third world country because America prospered so much over the last century, some strange idea where we suck wealth from neighbors. Not how it works.

Why or what are the mechanics? Well, I'm not going to repeat the basics of trade, etc., that information is widely available.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By callmeroy on 12/4/2008 1:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
I claim?

No "I" don't claim it, "I" am just reporting the FACTS.

Most of the money in this country is generated by SERVICES not manufactured goods. And don't be a moron, of course there is SOME manufacturing in the country still...that's NOT what the phrase "we are no longer a manufacturing economy" means -- it means its no longer the lion share of our production like it was in the hey day of say the steel and textile industries.

This isn't me bub..this is the fact based on our GNP , so what we export stuff -- WTF is your point? Of course some stuff is still made here, but more service dollars drive the economy on a national scale than a manufacturing does -- on a national scale (of course some regions around the country will have stronger manufacturing than services, etc.).


By callmeroy on 12/4/2008 1:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
oh yeah forget to add...

YAY NAFTA!

/end sarcasm


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By InsaneGain on 12/4/2008 3:01:18 PM , Rating: 3
Actually maybe I wasn't clear with my point. Yes the U.S. has transitioned to a predominately service based economy and import a lot of the manufactured goods that everyone wants. My point is that this development is not viable in the long term if Americans don't create something else that foreign coutries demand, and the average person shouldn't just sit there and think that it is a desirable and natural progression for a prosperous nation.
The situation for US manufacturing, including the auto industry, is not a good one, and I think people should be concerned.


By Spuke on 12/5/2008 12:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The situation for US manufacturing, including the auto industry, is not a good one, and I think people should be concerned.
It's called change dude. We've changed the way we make money many times. All the while becoming even more of an economic powerhouse as time progresses. Although I'm somewhat of an isolationist, those days are long gone and will not return. Get used to it.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By gregpet on 12/4/2008 2:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
China will overtake us (one coat hanger at a time) at some point but the USA is still the largest manufacture in the world...
Why don't you people think Americans can envision, design, manufacture and sale the best cars in the world? If the American car manufacturers didn't have the legacy costs and unions to deal with they would not be in the dire straights that they find themselves in today...The foreigners have the advantage of starting their manufacturing in America by building in non-union states...


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 2:29:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
China will overtake us (one coat hanger at a time) at some point but the USA is still the largest manufacture in the world...


Of that I do not agree, based on my direct experience working with both American and Chinese manufacturing. It’s awfully hard to “pull ahead” of someone when all you are good at is blatantly copying them.

Don’t underestimate America’s ability to redefine itself. Even in the midst of these tumultuous times, the systematic changes that will result from it will allow America to move forward faster than most other nations that were slow to react to financially deteriorating forces, and they will most likely only implement completely reactionary safeguards moving forward (which may shield them from something like this in the future, but won’t allow them to prosper from it.)

American history has shown a very good track record of dealing with setbacks in a way that other countries/empires historically have not.

-Suntan


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By InsaneGain on 12/4/2008 3:41:22 PM , Rating: 3
A friend of mine works at a photonics engineering firm in California, and he said almost all the engineers that work there are from China or Eastern Europe. There are just a few Americans. For some reason, the United States is putting out too many lawyers and not enough engineers.
Yeah, I work with Chinese manufacturers every day. They are learning quickly, and are willing to do what it takes to earn business. I read an article recently about an American research firm that developed a new battery technology that could revolutionize the industry. They tried a number of American battery manufacturers to develop the technology, and only one company was interested. They wanted millions of dollars to develop a prototype. So this research firm went to China where a stampede of companies competed for the right to develop the new technology. They all gave extensive presentations on their facilities and capabilities hoping the American research firm would choose them. No upfront money would be required.


By Suntan on 12/5/2008 10:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
That’s great, really is. Sounds like what *you’ve read* and what *others have told you* paint a very rosy picture of things.

What I have *directly experienced myself* is not the same. Namely, that Chinese companies are willing to bend over backwards to get work, then do a shite of it afterwards with no real understanding of why the Western world looks down on practices like:

Signing contractual agreements about developing new tech only to go off the next day and develop a complete copy of it for a competing company.

Or committing to certain quality control requirements for parts, obtain the required tooling to meet those requirements, then subcontracting those parts to the guy down the street (who employs manual labor with ball peen hammers) because a new Western company wants them to sign a contract for a new run of parts, all the while maintaining falsified records as if to suggest they were making them in house.

Not to mention that on any given day half of their assembly line workers may not show up for work because a new factory has opened up down the road and are willing to pay 10 cents more. Therefore your parts, which they have promised to supply on an agreed upon delivery schedule just don’t show up with no advanced warning from the Chinese supplier.

While I do acknowledge that a lot of good changes are going on for China, and a lot of it is beneficial for the people there, they have a *long* way to go; technically, socially and ethically if they want to sync up with the Western style of commerce.

-Suntan


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By fflintstone on 12/4/2008 3:16:34 PM , Rating: 3
Well, the real problem is that Americans employed as "labor" are accustomed to an American standard of living. Now they are being asked to compete with laborers in other countries who have MUCH lower expectations. That is a BIG problem with no good solutions. In order for our economy to be viable in the long term, we really have very few options. Basically, either our labor force has to have its standard of living reduced to somewhere near parity with the international competition or we have to resort to tariffs and such to operate outside of the world labor market.
And don't delude yourself into thinking that our unskilled laborers can simply be retrained for higher-value jobs. If they were capable of that, most of them would already by there. It's really not practical to say that we will be the "service" providers and other countries will be the "labor" providers. We as a nation need to provide viable options for all of our citizens, regardless of their capabilities. Failure to do so will lead to disaster.


By gregpet on 12/4/2008 4:36:24 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not talking about competing with China...They will make the best coat hangers in the world and good on 'em...We need to build airplanes, power generation, water purification, etc AND cars!
American labor works in Japanese car plants all over the southern US. The problem isn't how much a US worker gets paid. The problem is the unions getting job banks and gold-plated benefits packages...Disband the unions, save OUR auto industry...


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By bbomb on 12/4/2008 10:32:36 AM , Rating: 5
Whose profits ALL go to Japan. Whats happening in this country is like that commercial said..the largest transfer of wealth in world history. What good is a service economy if Americans refuse to purchase anything that benefits American companies.

People base their buying decision on cars that were made 20 years ago saying that everything coming out of Detroit is just as trashy and bad as what came out then. The big three have gotten the point and actually make some very good cars nowadays.

They cant compete on prices due to the cost of labor. Japanese companies pay almost nothing compared to what the big three have to pay in labor.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By nosfe on 12/4/2008 11:16:52 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Whose profits ALL go to Japan


tell me, do you know what stocks are?


By Smilin on 12/4/2008 11:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
Touche sir! +1 for you.

Some of Toyota's profits come to ME in fact.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By SuperFly03 on 12/4/2008 12:41:42 PM , Rating: 1
the only share of profits stockholders ever see directly from the company is dividends.


By Suntan on 12/4/2008 1:34:14 PM , Rating: 4
That is not true. Dividends are one method, but corporate stock buybacks have the direct effect of making the stock price go up (as there is now fewer stocks available on the market.)

Feel free to get truely anal about the meaning of "directly" if you want though.

-Suntan


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Spivonious on 12/4/2008 11:20:44 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Whose profits ALL go to Japan. Whats happening in this country is like that commercial said..the largest transfer of wealth in world history. What good is a service economy if Americans refuse to purchase anything that benefits American companies.


The profits may go to Japan, but in today's economy it doesn't really matter where the profits go if the company is as global as Toyota is. It will get reinvested throughout the world. "Buying American" means very little today, as most "Made in USA" products are actually manufactured overseas and then assembled in the US.

Thanks for using the proper "whose" too. It's rare to see here on the Web.

quote:
People base their buying decision on cars that were made 20 years ago saying that everything coming out of Detroit is just as trashy and bad as what came out then. The big three have gotten the point and actually make some very good cars nowadays.


I agree that GM/Chrysler/Ford have been making quality cars for at least five years now. I have a 2003 Focus that is coming up on 80k miles and the only problems have been cosmetic (trim falling off, etc.). The reason they're hurting is that the "SUV bubble" has burst and they had all their eggs in one basket.

quote:
They cant compete on prices due to the cost of labor. Japanese companies pay almost nothing compared to what the big three have to pay in labor.


Which is solely the fault of the UAW. I can't believe that assembly line workers are making more than I do. Unions have no place in today's economy. If GM could convince their workers to ditch the UAW and have their salaries adjusted to more reasonable levels, I have no doubt that GM could make a cheaper, better quality car than Toyota or Honda.


By MadMan007 on 12/4/2008 11:47:39 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah I was shocked when I saw assembly line workers making $100k+. I mean, maybe there are some that deserve that much or it's an inflated number but if it wasn't for the trouble the companies are having and the job insecurity (actually I don't know, that applies anywhere nowadays, I don't just mean the economic downturn) I'd be applying for a UAW job asap.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By whirabomber on 12/4/2008 12:32:42 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The profits may go to Japan, but in today's economy it doesn't really matter where the profits go if the company is as global as Toyota is. It will get reinvested throughout the world. "Buying American" means very little today, as most "Made in USA" products are actually manufactured overseas and then assembled in the US.


Globalization is such a croc. I haven't seen any benefit to me of globalization. I've seen the huge downside which is I can't plan to start at and retire from a company 30 years later anymore. I've seen the huge downside where companies like Wal Mart coerce other companies to go over seas or Wal-Mart won't sell the other companies products. I've seen the huge downside of American's enemies get richer from companies like Wal-Mart forcing other countries overseas.

I think the big point being missed here is that I would rather have Americans controlling its own interest rather than some foreign country. When profits go to a "globalized" company like Toyota it is a Japanese getting more power to pull the strings of domestic America. Money = power.

There are too many Americans out there who just don't get that relationship and believe a few dollars won't ruin America. That thinking is paralleled in the current credit crisis - borrowing a few dollars here and there won't hurt my bottom line. So here we sit in a world made of our own doo doo and are blaming our government for the stinky situation we are currently in.

Opps, did I blame our current economical mess on ourselves instead of some suit in Washington - my bad.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Spuke on 12/4/2008 1:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
So, GM and Ford aren't "globalized" but Toyota is?


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Penti on 12/5/2008 5:22:15 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, I'd say Opel, Vauxhall, Ford Europe, Volvo, Saab, GM Daewoo plus the other brands that is manufactured abroad for non-us markets. In Europe you have a long history, nazi collaboration and all that shit.

You get the picture.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Spuke on 12/5/2008 1:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's called sarcasm and mine was REALLY obvious.


By Penti on 12/7/2008 10:06:20 AM , Rating: 2
It was, the post was directed to the post you answered too sorry.


By aapocketz on 12/4/2008 1:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
actually, what we should be concerned about is where the IP is going.

I am seeing high tech companies dropping like flies and their intellectual property and R&D just gets dumped down a drain. If you don't care now, you will when the latest and greatest tech (aerospace, military, information) stops flowing from the US, its the last thing we really got left...


By Hakuryu on 12/4/2008 1:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People base their buying decision on cars that were made 20 years ago saying that everything coming out of Detroit is just as trashy and bad as what came out then. The big three have gotten the point and actually make some very good cars nowadays.


My 90 year old great aunt is legally blind and I drive her everywhere. When she wanted to replace her old Chevrolet, we stopped at just about every car maker out there and test drove alot of cars.

What did she end up buying? A Toyota Camry. Why? Not because of preconceived notions of quality, but for two main reasons - she thought it was a more comfortable ride and the easiest car for her to get into and out of. Most of her friends purchase imports for the same reasons also.


By foolsgambit11 on 12/4/2008 7:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
So what if most of their profits go to Japan. Those profits in America go to a bunch of fat cats who are so out of touch they fly their private jets to ask for billions in hand-outs.

I personally don't care who the millionaires are in a corporation's structure. I do like the fact that the American car companies give their employees better wages (hooray unions) - which is better for America, assuming the companies survive. It would be nice if more of those profits the Japanese car companies make turned into wage or benefit hikes for their workers rather than bonuses for their executives, but they wouldn't be the first execs to screw over the American worker.


By bribud on 12/5/2008 9:36:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They cant compete on prices due to the cost of labor. Japanese companies pay almost nothing compared to what the big three have to pay in labor.


That is the whole problem here. You pay your employees too much for doing too little, and you will not survive. The unions totally destroyed the American auto industry and they would disagree immediately. Enough coddling for the UAW, get paid according to the level of work you do and quit getting babied throughout your entire life.


By vailr on 12/4/2008 12:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
The Toyota Camry is made in Georgetown, Kentucky. Although: I believe some Toyota Camry assembly is also being done in Lafayette, Indiana.
There's Toyota Tundra truck factory in Petersburg, Indiana. AFAIK, there are no Toyota factories located in Ohio. Honda has their main Accord factory in Marysville, Ohio. A new Honda Civic factory very recently started up in Greensburg, Indiana.
Saturn and Nissan have factories in Tennessee.


By omnicronx on 12/4/2008 1:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
You mean those same plants that on average use 25% less American made parts than their American big 3 counterparts?


By superflex on 12/5/2008 9:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
The Camry is made in Georgetown, KY. The Honda Accord is made in Marysville, OH.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Hiawa23 on 12/4/2008 8:55:38 AM , Rating: 5
Most of us are already driving these. I have a Honda C
Civic & Mitsubish Lancer. The American vehicles just never appealed to me, so I am not buying any new cars anytime soon. The Honda Civic is paid off, over 220,000miles, 1997 & runs fine, & the Lancer Ralliart is an 2006, so I owe quite a bit on it, & don't plan on buying anything else, so I think something needs to be done for the car makers, but it's pretty much their own fault. Pushing these gas munching SUVs & Hummers all these years, what did they think would happen when the economy went sour, & gas prices went through the roof?

What I find so funny is these guys get on TV & bash Americans for their debt, credit cards, & stuff then in the next breath say we need to bailout banks, Auto industry. How about help bailout many Americans who are hurting? They gave the money to the banks & all they did was horde it, they bailed out AIG, & they took a retreat. Many Americans have lost their jobs, had their hours cut back, & just trying to get by, genrally your debt gets worst when you have no money as you use the credit cards more. They called the American tax payer irresponsible, yet we must help Wallstreet, hell even many states are begging now.

All I am saying is how hypocritical they are. How about some bailout, or tax holiday for the American taxpayer, who really need it. The CEOs said they would work for $1. Is this a joke, cause they probably have banked millions, so they won't be affected like average Joe who just lost his job, savings, gone, 401k, is now a 201k.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 9:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
With what, their good looks? The government is selling friggin' bonds to China to get the money for this bailout. On top of that, they have to pay it back with interest. Do you plan on paying the government back the money with interest? I highly doubt you existing is a money making endeavor. Morons got themselves into debt and while I don't support the bailouts, the last thing they need to do is give money back to moron consumers who screwed up in the first place.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Hiawa23 on 12/4/2008 9:51:48 AM , Rating: 3
Morons got themselves into debt and while I don't support the bailouts, the last thing they need to do is give money back to moron consumers who screwed up in the first place.

Seems like we gave a bunch of morons huge bailouts is my point. Pass the word to whom you like. Don't the auto industry fall into this also, or the banks, etc. I just think it's hypocritical to call individuals morons, & leave out the govt & many companies. There are alot of people responsible here & unfortunately, many good law abiding tax paying citizens are going to get hurt in the crossfire.


By joemoedee on 12/4/2008 10:53:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Seems like we gave a bunch of morons huge bailouts is my point. Pass the word to whom you like.


It all goes to baseball.

Say a starting pitcher makes 2 million dollars per year.

Pitcher goes 0-20 with an ERA of 7.42 on the season.

Pitcher goes to front office, says he needs an additional 8 million dollars per year and he'll be good next season.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 10:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
Right, but the point is it is a LOAN. The government doesn't have 700 billion dollars, they sold bonds to get it, then LOANED the money to the financial institutions. The same thing will be done for Detroit if they decide to do so. You can't just give non-existent money to tax payers, cause it is loaned money that is being used to loan to someone else.

A business will ideally produce jobs and money, so they can pay back the loan. A debt ridden individual will do neither of these things.


By clovell on 12/4/2008 11:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
Except that the money has already been appropriated for the last 4 months.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/4/2008 10:05:47 AM , Rating: 1
That argument might fly if they were giving the money directly to consumers


By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
So my argument that the LAST thing they should do is give money to debt ridden idiots is only valid if they give the money to debt ridden idiots? WTF are you talking about?


By jimbojimbo on 12/4/2008 12:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Morons got themselves into debt and while I don't support the bailouts, the last thing they need to do is give money back to moron consumers who screwed up in the first place.
But you see in this country, as witnessed recently, those same morons get to vote for people that'll do what they want. So yes, they'll be getting bailouts as well soon enough. Those of us in the minority who were responsible with their money will now be responsible for helping those same morons out.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By mmntech on 12/4/08, Rating: -1
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 9:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can drive the thing at 60mph into a brick wall and it will still run.


Yeah let me know how that works out for you. Assuming you survive.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Hiawa23 on 12/4/2008 10:15:30 AM , Rating: 1
I too love the Civic. It was the first car I bought after I graduated from college back in 1997, 220,000 miles later, I have not replaced anything. The alternator, all major parts, the car rolled off the assembly line with are still on it. I am sold on Honda, & it was my dream to buy a Mitsu Lancer Evo, but that was out of my price range so I settled for the 06 Ralliart, & love it. The American companies have huge issues, the biggest is image, & I am not sure how it can be solved any time soon. I just don't like when some holier than thou people sit on their perch just brushing everyone with that broad stroke saying they are morons, cause I bet if most lost their jobs, they would lose their houses & other possessions. All I am saying is maybe the focus should be placed back on the American tax payer, who did not get into to much financial trouble but is the breaad winner & lost his/her job, & also took ahuge hit in his/her 401k plan.


By Hiawa23 on 12/4/2008 10:21:07 AM , Rating: 1
I thought in a capitalistic economy, market decides who fail, not govt, & if individuals can fail due to bad decisions, shouldn't this also go for businesses, whom some claim are too big to fail?


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/4/08, Rating: -1
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/4/2008 9:11:42 AM , Rating: 2
you bet your butt*, damn notebook keyboard.


By SuperFly03 on 12/4/2008 12:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Don't compare history.

Compare current cars and currently Ford has made incredible strides in quality along with a slip in quality from Toyota. GM has made significant improvements but not as much as Ford. Chrysler? Who knows what's up their bum.


By Suntan on 12/4/2008 1:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
Of the 4 new cars I've bought in my adult life (1 American, 2 Japanese and 1 German) my Honda Odyessy mini-van was the only one that had to go back to the dealer for warranty service within the first 15,000 miles.

It has gone in twice and needs to go in again for something else.

The idea that Japan=Good, America=Bad is silly.

-Suntan


By Penti on 12/5/2008 4:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
It's not like those big SUVs and trucks you always see on TV are cheap cars. The Japanese-brands american made cars starts on 15k USD and what does those XC90s we (Sweden) tried to sell to you cost? 37k USD or what about those V8s they even cost 50k USD and I can tell you that they hardly sold any of them here, you see much more S80s around or even C70s.

They just hold much more value. Not many can afford a 50k car without virtually free loans. It's not much more then V70s but swedes have never been interested in buying a XC90. Or well let's be honest 17k USD is a lot for swedes, that's the difference. So you could buy a extra car instead. Not to mention that gas costs almost $5 USD a gallon here now when it's cheap. Normal people just going to work and shopping would drive around in those cars here. Most sold brands here are Volvo, Volkswagen, Saab, Toyota, Audi, Ford, Peugeot and BMW. They sell more KIAs here then Chrysler and Chevrolet put tougher.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By spread on 12/4/2008 9:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
The automaker's bailout is not really a bailout.

Its just a loan . It is part of the bailout package, but its not free money since it has to be paid back to the government.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By TheSpaniard on 12/4/2008 10:08:26 AM , Rating: 2
they are all just loans


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Smilin on 12/4/2008 11:44:00 AM , Rating: 1
To companies that will go under and never pay them back.


By TheSpaniard on 12/4/2008 4:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
true...

but didnt the goverment already say that banks have to have sub-prime loans... oh yea CitiBank proved that one


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By BigPeen on 12/4/2008 2:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
A below market rate loan =bailout. If it's "just a loan" then they should go to some investment bank and issue bonds....


By clovell on 12/4/2008 3:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody is lending that amount of money besides the Gov't. right now.


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 3:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
That’s the problem. Investment banks are not issuing loans to businesses because they are in a hunker-down-and-protect-what-liquidity-we-have-left -in-case-our-depositors-make-a-run-on-the-bank-and- we-become-insolvent mentality right now.

Have you not been watching the whole government-paying-the-banks stuff on the news lately? Do you not understand how this is connected?

-Suntan


By Dwayno on 12/4/2008 4:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
That would require thinking before opening mouth...some find this hard!


RE: GM CEO shall be driving a Toyota Camry....
By Griswold on 12/4/2008 11:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
Its called capitalism. Free market and such. You know, the stuff these people are praising when everything seemed fine less than 2 years ago. Its survival of the fittest. If american automakers are too weak, let them fail. Why shouldnt that true anymore when it hits american industry icons that failed miserably?


By clovell on 12/4/2008 3:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
Because American legislation put them in this position. If they fold, the aftershocks that ripple through the larger American economy will hurt just as bad. We've already approved the money they want, we just don't want to give it to them when they need it. It's time to grow up; You sleep in the bed you make.


By CommodoreVic20 on 12/4/2008 12:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
Last I looked American companies were manufacturing a lot of American vehicles outside America, including parts. There is a pretty good documentary titled The Corporation. I highly recommend this film as it will hopefully make you realize why having any kind of loyalty or patriotism to a corporation is probably not a good idea.


By Hiawa23 on 12/4/2008 1:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Its called capitalism. Free market and such. You know, the stuff these people are praising when everything seemed fine less than 2 years ago. Its survival of the fittest. If american automakers are too weak, let them fail. Why shouldnt that true anymore when it hits american industry icons that failed miserably?

Capitalism only applies when you don't have companies, states, begging for money. There are a bunch of states now begging for money. Where does it stop & how much more is it going to take. I thought electing Barack Obama was a great move for our country, but I actually feel sorry for the sap & all he faces. I just watched an interview with George Bush & he says he is not at fault with what has taken place & blamed previous administrations. So he seems relieved, as life will be fine for him, but not for alot of Americans. I have nothing against G Bush, as I think he did a great job keeping us safe from another attack after September 11, but he kinds of reminds me of some of these CEOs who run theses companies into the ground, & gets out with their golden parachute.


By Fanon on 12/4/2008 2:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
For a while, maybe. But the Big 3 won't go anywhere. Yes, they'd file bankruptcy, but they'd restructure and rebuild their companies. Now that's change I can believe in.

Giving them money does nothing but prolong their inevitable demise in their current form.


By wannabemedontu on 12/5/2008 1:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
Fine by me, better product for my hard earned money by far.


Nice try...
By wideout on 12/4/2008 7:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
I find it funny that the Big 3 CEO's were ridiculed for spending tons of money on private jets. So what does the CEO of GM do? He drives to Washington on a prototype car that likely cost $100,000 to make since it is a pre-production model.

I would have been more impressed of them taking a commercial coach flight to Washington. Taking a commercial flight would show that they are serious about saving money and it would show they are serious about new vehicles by not wasting the time of GM's engineers by having to throw together a pre-production vehicle for a stupid publicity stunt.

These car manufacturers don't get it. Token symbols don't mean anything. I'm hoping Congress wants to see real change in the domestic automakers. Yes, GM has made improvements by releasing the Chevy Malibu, but for every GM vehicle like the Chevy Malibu there is a vehicle like the Chevy Cobalt. Improving one car in your lineup every year or two is much to slow to adapt in the current business environment.




RE: Nice try...
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 8:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
What was wrong with the Cobalt? It is a great, reliable little car that gets good gas mileage? The Ecotec motor in them is nearly bullet proof in terms of reliability. Was it exciting? No. But neither is a Civic. And the performance version of the Cobalt (both the supercharged and turbo charged) is a hell of a lot faster than the Civic Si. The new Cobalt SS with the 2.0L turbo is one quick little car.


RE: Nice try...
By wideout on 12/4/2008 8:28:09 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/vehicleReport...

http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/cobalt/2008/revie...

An economy car doesn't have to be exciting. It just has to do its job well (i.e commuting to and from work). That means reliable mechanical parts and an interior that doesn't fall apart after two years. I've recently driven a Chevy Cobalt. My 4 and half year old civic has better fit and finish in the interior than the Cobalt.

Frankly, who cares about performance on an economy car? The average person doesn't care about drag racing, they care about a car that does its job well. A Civic Si and a Cobalt SS should be considered separate cars imo as they don't really embrace the heritage of what the car was really designed to do.


RE: Nice try...
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 8:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
Mine was flawless the 3 years I had it. The interior held up fine as well. Just a little bit of paint came off around the window switches. My interior still looked new when I sold it(and I received comments as such) save the areas on the floor mat where my feet rested and a slight wrinkle in the leather from sitting in the car for 48,000 miles. The dash was a hard plastic that to me seemed of very high quality and looked fine. It was simple. Nor were there any areas of the dash that didn't fit together well. Was it as nice as my GTOs interior? No. But it also cost $10-12,000 less new. About the only cheap part of the interior to me was the plastic handholds on the door which included the window switches. As I said the paint on it came off a bit around the edges.

The only thing I ever had to replace was the front pads and rotors. And those lasted 45,000 miles.


RE: Nice try...
By icrf on 12/4/2008 8:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
The average person doesn't drag race, but the average person does appreciate being able to accelerate on onramps. In fact, fellow drivers appreciate that, too. That's why things like hybrids and turbo chargers are so good. They are very efficient when driven normally, and if power is needed, it's there.


RE: Nice try...
By jimbojimbo on 12/4/2008 12:48:33 PM , Rating: 3
nd
quote:
but the average person does appreciate being able to accelerate on onramps
False. The average person cruises slowly into the onramp screwing up the whole system because they got licenses to drive when they shouldn't have a license to live.


RE: Nice try...
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 1:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL. Amen to that. Pisses me off to no end when people do 45 down the on ramp. I nearly got crushed by a semi because I was doing 45 due to the @sshat in front of me and had no where to go with a semi next to me.


RE: Nice try...
By StevoLincolnite on 12/4/2008 11:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
I have a Holden Commodore VN which is 20 years old with a "Buick" which actually had a crap-load of power down low in the rev range, Holden actually had to slow down the amount of air flow with a Bell Housing to reduce the amount of power low in the rev range when they released the next revision the "VP".

I also have a 2001 model Holden Commodore VX Series 2 with an Ecotec Motor, might only get 12 - 14 liters per 100 kilometers of efficiency but it's on LPG Gas anyway, so it's cheaper AND cleaner than Petrol, Half the Price of Petrol and the millage is very similar to Petrol with a properly tuned car.

I have done nearly 400 thousand kilometers in the VN Commodore and 280 thousand kilometers in the VX Commodore, both only had very minor issues, in the VX the only thing that has failed was when I was accelerating hard to over-take a truck, resulting in a bent push-rod (I was waaay over the speed limit though). - Cost me only 5 bucks for a brand spankin' new one, whacked it in myself and it's been good ever since.

Not sure if a Cobolt is using the same "Ecotec" engine as the Commodore though, the Commodore was a 3.6 Liter V6 motor, but because I rarely if-ever look at American Vehicles I wouldn't know if any similarities existed.


RE: Nice try...
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 12:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
The Ecotec is an inline-4.


RE: Nice try...
By brshoemak on 12/4/2008 8:09:49 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that he will most likely have an entourage following him in gas guzzling Chevy Tahoes that have enough room to carry all the parts the Volt may need if it breaks down. He would need that to make sure he makes it to Washington on time.

What would he tell Congress if he's late? "We've got car trouble"

/zing


RE: Nice try...
By PogoThePrez on 12/4/2008 9:11:38 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say its more of a way of showing the gov what the companies can offer in terms of products. If Gm can prove that the volt is ready for the road and can be successful it might help the chances of getting a bailout. And how do you know that the pre-production model wasn't already built before hand. I have no doubts that its not partly a media gathering stunt, but not necessarily a bad one.


RE: Nice try...
By jimbojimbo on 12/4/2008 12:53:09 PM , Rating: 1
Not much proof if they're only driving the Volt once they're "close" to Washington. And what's with that Malibu hybrid? I get the same mileage out of my 97 Nissan and it's freaking 11 years old! Hybrid my ass.


RE: Nice try...
By Spuke on 12/4/2008 1:53:44 PM , Rating: 3
Your car gets 24/36 mpg? BTW, the Malibu Hybrid is a "mild" hybrid. Meant to give you a little extra mileage over the same car but at a far less cost than a full hybrid.


RE: Nice try...
By Dwayno on 12/4/2008 9:42:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
These car manufacturers don't get it. Token symbols don't mean anything. I'm hoping Congress wants to see real change in the domestic automakers. Yes, GM has made improvements by releasing the Chevy Malibu, but for every GM vehicle like the Chevy Malibu there is a vehicle like the Chevy Cobalt. Improving one car in your lineup every year or two is much to slow to adapt in the current business environment.

Actually, you don't get it. In the past, the Big 3 used to change their front grill/headlights and rear tailights every year to show yearly model distinctions. They were criticized for not making enough changes and charging for the few changes that were made.

Later on, they were criticized for being like VW and a number of imports that didn't make visible changes (called "evolutionary" changes).

Today, changes to body, engine, chassis, even lights are all heavily regulated by the government. Adding a single piece of steel to the chassis of a vehicle will mean that that vehicle must be recertified for crash safety. Changing an engine component, such as spark plugs/wires, means that the entire engine has to recertified for exhaust emissions and fuel economy. Changing tire size and manufacturer required recertifing the ride height and fuel economy. Redesigning the dashboard means that the airbag placement must be recertifed to show that safety hasn't been compromised. Even changing the paint can require weeks of testing to ensure durability. Each of these can well in excess $100K+ to just to recertify. This applies to all cars manufacturers, but this is what is required.

Some people will argue that the car manufactures should eliminate brands to save money. They've tried, but because of deals negotiated dozens of years ago with their dealerships, they can't...GM lost millions of dollars to dealers when they closed Oldsmobile. Ford tried unsuccessfully to rid itself of Mercury. Part of the deals dealt with brand identification. A Mercury can't be sold in a Ford dealership (there are probably a few exceptions, but these were determined by population). And this is not a Big 3 only deal. VW, who owns Audi and Porsche, must keep the Porsche brand seperate. Lexus are sold in seperate of Toyota is another example.

Add to that, you have to stay current to what trends are driving a market. Actually, since changes can take a year or more to implement, you must anticipate what trends will be driving the market. And if you are wrong...


RE: Nice try...
By DemolitionInc on 12/4/2008 10:09:40 AM , Rating: 4
Well just for your information, VW does not own Porsche, but Porsche owns VW. Its like the tail waiving with the dog, but all Porsche stock is still with the family.

Furthermore I must agree with Bob Lutz statement a couple weeks ago, if the US-government would allow the European crash standards in the US (which produce the same level of safety) then GM and Ford could immediatly start producing these cars in the US. The Opel Insigna just won the prize for European car of the year ahead of any Japanese made. This would also save money on development.


RE: Nice try...
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 2:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
Very true, but by and large, Japanese cars are not nearly as popular in Europe as they are here. So to say that a traditional European marquee (which the Opel is, regardless of its American owners) won an award in Europe is not an automatic that it will do well against Japanese cars in America.

-Suntan


RE: Nice try...
By jimbojimbo on 12/4/2008 12:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
I woulnd't have been impressed unless they WERE taking commercial coach flights as soon as they found out they were in trouble. If you find out that you're broke you don't continue to live your lifestyle until you run out of money... that is unless you know you've got a rich uncle Sam out there you can probably beg for money from.


RE: Nice try...
By cigar3tte on 12/4/2008 1:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
That $100k has already been spent as part of R&D. It's not an extra $100k to use it for the trip to Washington. In fact, since he's driving something already made, it probably cost less than what a commercial flight would've been.


RE: Nice try...
By clovell on 12/4/2008 3:19:35 PM , Rating: 3
Why? He just turned bad PR around into good PR. As another poster mentioned - the prototype was a sunk cost- the money to build it was already spend. This way, Chevy not only complies with Congress's ridiculous request, but gets a free commercial out of the deal. Stockholders would be thrilled.

And for the last damned time - having CEOs drive isn't saving anyone money - it's a waste of time, which equates to a waste of money. These guys' time is worth the cost of a private jet.


This is wrong
By dani31 on 12/4/2008 7:07:43 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sure that flying their own jets was cheaper than flying commercial, and 200% that it was cheaper than driving a prototype volt.

Because those jets were bought in the past and depreciation is non-cash, all they cost today is fuel and a pilot.

The tuxedo beggar joke illustrates this quite well: it is cheaper to wear an old tuxedo than buy a new t-shirt.

I see a real issue that at the government level discussions revolve around bling-bling yada-yada and all they can to do to get the cash is PR stunts like accepting a 1$/year salary and driving an electric car.




RE: This is wrong
By GreenEnvt on 12/4/2008 9:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
What? Are you crazy man?
Even for the minute ignoring the maintenance on a private jet, lets look at fuel cost.
I don't know what jet they are using so I'll use a common Lear jet as a comparison.
Lear Jet 31A uses over 600 liters of fuel per hour.
It's about a 1.5 hour flight from Detroit to Washington, so it uses say 900 liters each way.
This means 1800 liters of jet fuel, 468 gallons.
at the current going price of 1.72/gallon thats over $800 in fuel alone.

A coach ticket to Washington and back is a quarter of that.
Now add in maintenance, the pilot and crews pay, airport fees, depreciation, and half a dozen things I am missing.


RE: This is wrong
By Staples on 12/4/2008 9:44:13 AM , Rating: 1
Um, the fuel costs and the airport costs of flying a private jet to and from Washington probably exceed $15k. He and 50 friends could have flown commercial for that price.

My recommendation is that these guys just be fired and the next CEO needs to be someone who isn't a pawn to big oil.


RE: This is wrong
By theapparition on 12/4/2008 10:34:27 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to break it to you, but the OP is right. Corporate jets may seem like extravagances to you, but can actually be more cost effective than commercial travel.

For example, if an assembly line is shut down, it costs GM around ~$1000/min. What makes more sense, sending out a team of engineers at a moments notice, or risk hoping to find something available? Makes even more sense when you consider the car manufactures are global and make these sorts of trips daily. You think these are just for executive perks, and that is completely wrong.

Even smaller automotive suppliers like Borg Warner have thier own jets. Only ignorant fools like yourself don't see the forest from the trees.

We all know that PR is more about perception than reality. And in this case, the automakers, for as right as they are for having private jets, have a PR nightmare.


RE: This is wrong
By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 10:45:50 AM , Rating: 1
Since when did engineers use private jets? I have yet to see them be used for anyone but top level management.


RE: This is wrong
By theapparition on 12/4/2008 12:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
And I suppose you work for an airport questioning all those who board private jets on their job descriptions.....???

Where do people make this stuff up?

The example I illustrated was just that, an example. One that happens all the time at GM. Yes, they are also used to ferry executives, but the point still stands that for that reason alone, it can be cost effective.

I've personally seen parts loaded on a plane with a few engineers, and flown to remote factories to resolve immediate problems. I myself have even been flown on GM's corporate jets when there was an immediate business need. (I did business with GM years ago).

What is the price of time, that's the real issue. Your local 7-eleven sells diapers for much more than the wholesale brand club does. But at 11:00 at night when you need to get some for a screaming baby, you are willing to accept the higher price.
Maybe a flawed analogy, but the concept is the same. Time is potentially more critical than any other factor, and the convenience of corporate jets makes it money well spent.

You may see it as a perk or an unnecessary extravagance, but you are wrong. Bad PR is the only reason they are going.


RE: This is wrong
By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 12:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747

According to what they stated in the defense of their jet, they have to be able to fly engineers to other countries quickly. That mid size Learjet has about a 2000 mile range, the commercial jet has about an 8000 mile range. To do what they seem to want it to do, they would have to land and refuel once most of the time. This consumes the time you say they somehow don't have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_60

Lets say they have the bigger one, now they can go slightly further, but they are cruising slower, which wastes time as well. The 1-2 hours they MIGHT have to spend on the commercial flight to check in is pretty much thrown out of the equation either way. Hell, if it was that big of an emergency, have the engineers fly without bags and buy what they need for staying there after they get there, would still be considerably cheaper.


RE: This is wrong
By clovell on 12/4/2008 3:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Time to book, traffic at commercial airports, customs, connections, faster refueling times - are you getting the idea?


RE: This is wrong
By Gzus666 on 12/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is wrong
By Ringold on 12/4/2008 3:35:27 PM , Rating: 4
As a pilot, I can safely say that for domestic flights, there is no comparing the time savings of private aircraft vs. commercial flights.

Not only is check in and check out time reduced to just a few minutes, availability is on your schedule instead of whenever a commercial route is scheduled and pending seat availability. Further, say you have a factory in Leesburg, Florida. A commercial flight, probably, would require one to fly in to Orlando (possibly Sanford), and then drive 2+ hours to Leesburg, possibly in heavy traffic. A private jet can land at KLEE. A rental, loaner, or local employee can be waiting with a car, reducing local ground travel time to a handful of minutes. Also, weather delays? ATC delays going in to and out of major hubs? Snow can close any airport down, but the rest of the time, such delays rarely ever exist.

I recently read an interview with the inventor of the Segway; he says he couldn't do business (and charity) the way he does without his jet. He can eat breakfast at home, fly to one meeting, then fly to a second for a business deal, eat lunch, fly a third place, then be home in time for dinner.

Even piston single-engines are known to be nice time savers vs. commercial flights less than 3 or 400 miles. International flights may be a different matter, but I can see advantages stack up again if they, say, flew to Europe and then flew several different places once there.

As someone else said, it comes down to the value associated with time. Time is money though, as they say.


RE: This is wrong
By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 5:54:32 PM , Rating: 1
GOD DAMNIT READ! Where did I say domestic flights anywhere in there? Their point from the mouths of the CEOs themselves was for international flights of their engineers. Christ.


RE: This is wrong
By Spuke on 12/5/2008 1:07:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
International flights may be a different matter, but I can see advantages stack up again if they, say, flew to Europe and then flew several different places once there.
You need to read too.


RE: This is wrong
By theapparition on 12/4/2008 4:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
You took time to type that?

See Ringold's post for a much more eloquent explanation than I could muster.

You are completely wrong. Private jets make business sense, plain and simple.


RE: This is wrong
By Suntan on 12/4/2008 2:46:00 PM , Rating: 3
Although I do not, I have former colleagues (fellow engineers that got different jobs) that do routinely use corporate jets.

If a group of people need to travel somewhere (couple engineers and a sourcing person to visit a supplier, or a couple of engineers to visit a test unit in field testing) and it makes financial sense to use the corporate jet instead of pay for 4 or 5 airline tickets and wait 2 or 3 days for the scheduled flight, plus hotel rooms for each because the return flight does not occur until the next day, they take the corporate jet.

Amazingly, counter to what everyone wants to believe and the news agencies enjoy pumping out every evening, corporations are made up of more than just “fat cats” that sit smoking illegal Cuban cigars and counting the money they bilk you out of.

-Suntan


RE: This is wrong
By roastmules on 12/4/2008 1:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
In the coal fields of VA, WV, KY, etc. it is common for executives, management, engineers, and mechanics to fly in either corporate jets, or private helicopters.
A simple 15 minute flight in a helicopter for a mechanic to get from the city to a truck out in a coal field is far better than the hour on a highway, hour on a road, hour on a back road, then another hour walking/4-wheeling to the broken truck.

Moral of the story: look at the entire economic situation of an event. I've noticed lately that if I have a family of 5+, it may be cheaper to fly charter than commercial.


RE: This is wrong
By JosefTor on 12/4/2008 2:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
The Chrysler guy wanted to drive a hybrid but realized he didn't make any.


RE: This is wrong
By Griswold on 12/4/2008 12:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
So, you think a couple tons of kerosene (i have no idea what amount the business jet burned during that flight) is cheaper than a ticket on a commercial flight? "Stop smoking crack" has never been more appropriate.


RE: This is wrong
By dani31 on 12/11/2008 8:39:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, you think a couple tons of kerosene (i have no idea what amount the business jet burned during that flight) is cheaper than a ticket on a commercial flight? "Stop smoking crack" has never been more appropriate.


It surely isn't cheaper than one ticket, but it is probably cheaper than 20 tickets + 20 rooms for 1 or 2 extra hotel days.

If you think GM's boss went there without a small army of financial experts and lawyers, you should pass over your stuff, it's stronger than mine.


and...
By nah on 12/4/2008 6:56:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM [DOC], Ford [PDF], and Chrysler [PDF] have all submitted their plans to Congress which detail the steps that will be taken to eliminate unprofitable brands and produce efficient cars the people actually want to purchase.


Why couldn't this be done before ?




RE: and...
By mdogs444 on 12/4/2008 7:01:56 AM , Rating: 2
Because the scare tactics of depression and thousands of union job losses were supposed to be enough to garnish enough support. Fortunately, they've only garnered support of the Democrats in Congress (and a few Republicans from the auto states) who believe money is the resolution to every problem.


RE: and...
By Lord 666 on 12/4/2008 8:02:27 AM , Rating: 1
Look back to the secret energy meeting Dick Cheney had with the oil companies. It also set the stage for the past three years of negotiations between Detroit and GWB.

The big three simply have poor product, backed a loosing E85 product, and slow to adopt fuel efficient powertrains.


RE: and...
By Lord 666 on 12/4/2008 8:05:03 AM , Rating: 1
I got rated down because a short way of saying Richard is Dick.

Great content filter!


RE: and...
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 8:05:50 AM , Rating: 2
Last I checked E85 was shoved down our throats and the throats of the US auto industry by the government. It is them who are MANDATING that so much ethanol be produced each year.


RE: and...
By callmeroy on 12/4/2008 9:33:40 AM , Rating: 2
E85 = biggest joke every in this "alternative fuel" craze.

(and my car can run on it too -- that's what caused me to research it -- what a joke, what incentive do I have to use E85 ....unless I'm a tree hugger)


RE: and...
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 9:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
The only good thing about E85 is that it is cheap race gas.


RE: and...
By TheSpaniard on 12/4/2008 10:15:30 AM , Rating: 2
and the fact that it raises food prices for other countries and help offset our purchase of their goods (eg China and Saudi Arabia)


RE: and...
By Spuke on 12/5/2008 1:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
...what happened to "global warming", "climate change", alternative energy and the other "green" buzzwords? I thought this stuff was critical to the survival of mankind and life as we know it?


RE: and...
By Penti on 12/5/2008 5:44:54 AM , Rating: 2
In most countries the ethanol produce domestically is for mixing in the gasoline.

Our 95 Octane (RON) gasoline here in Sweden has 5% ethanol mixed in to it. Which means we do use more wheat to produce ethanol then what we eat basically. (Most goes to feed anyway though.)


Bunch of idiots complaining...
By MadMan007 on 12/4/2008 9:43:36 AM , Rating: 5
Bunch of idiots complaining about CEOs taking private jets. The whole point of it is that it uses as little of their time as possible and when you're in a position like that time is extremely valuable.

It's also a waste of time for the media to cover a minor point like that. They cover sensationalist simplistic headlines to make the average idiot angry instead of covering the failure of the auto makers in a serious way or doing some real reporting.




RE: Bunch of idiots complaining...
By jimbojimbo on 12/4/2008 1:02:22 PM , Rating: 5
The media doesn't report news. They report things that will get viewership numbers. The only thing they truly care about is money. Anybody that thinks the media is reporting actual news is an idiot.


By rudolphna on 12/4/2008 9:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
exactly. Thats why they arent front page reporting that the Big 3 CEOs are driving this time, instead of flying jets... Unlike when the jets were used, it was front-page news.


CEO spending
By Dreifort on 12/4/2008 12:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, they endured the 10-20 hr drive to Washington in a cramped American made vehicle.

But I'm almost certain they didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express - so they are ill prepared for their congressional meeting.

I am certain too they didn't eat at McDonalds.

I wonder were they are staying while in DC? Waldorf?




RE: CEO spending
By rudolphna on 12/4/2008 9:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
cramped? Are American made cars suddenly smaller and have a poorer interior design than Honda/Toyota? I drive a Ford Expedition (03 model), and a Ford Fusion (2009 Model. Im 6 foot. I am not cramped at all, Quite the contrary, I have plenty of room. So why dont you actually drive one, instead of making assumptions because you love your honda/toyota so much that you are narrow minded to everything else.


RE: CEO spending
By Dreifort on 12/5/2008 10:27:59 AM , Rating: 1
I don't love Honda or Toyota..I actually can't stand Toyotas... but it's been proven in studies that Honda in several of their vehicles has more leg room.

But it's quite obvious in the photo attached to this story that the car is a bit crammped (the new volt). But then again, with congress putting pressure on the car companies to make a more energy efficent car - the cars get smaller.

And outside of hybrid or not, the CRV has more leg room than the Escape.


RE: CEO spending
By Spuke on 12/5/2008 3:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, how do you know when you haven't even sat in the cars you're speaking of? Good God, how ignorant!!


RE: CEO spending
By Dreifort on 12/8/2008 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Quote from Ed Welburn:

quote:
I am thrilled with what the team is doing with the development of the interior – it’s creative, spacious… far better than the original concept vehicle.


There is a reason for his quote. Energy efficent cars need less weight. A spacious interior would require a larger car frame...which adds weight. I'm not ignorant - just pointing out the obvious that energy efficent cars will struggle with interior sizes.

The success of these cars is NOT simply saying it doesn't run on gas. Have you seen the SUV hybrids? There is reason they started with the CRV and Escape...size (damn, there is that word again).

They have made large end Hybrids..but these giants require TWO electric motors. Not as efficent as the smaller SUVs.

It's quite obvious that the Volt is NOT a mercedes or lexus....its a border line compact car.

When is the last time a group of business men chose (for non financial reasons) to drive to a meeting in a Honda Civic? or for that reason a Honda Accord?

There is a reason they chose not to - interior room. While the volt may have decent interior room for being a smaller car - it's still will not be a roomy car 4 business ppl would choose to ride 20 or 200 miles to a meeting in.


Correction + Question
By mdogs444 on 12/4/2008 6:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
The article should be corrected: The big 3 automakers are now requesting as much as $34B, a large increase over the original $25.

I see there is a comparison of the Malibu to the Camry and Altima hybrids. What are the price comparisons though, as well as the tax incentives on each model?




RE: Correction + Question
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/4/2008 7:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
1) Thanks, I've updated the story.

2)
Malibu Hybrid: $23,640
Altima Hybrid: $25,480
Camry Hybrid: $26,150

Someone else can look up the tax incentives ;)


RE: Correction + Question
By Dwayno on 12/4/2008 8:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone keeps complaining about American cars not being competitive in cost because the UAW worker makes $77/hr. vs. the non-union workers making $44/hr. How then is the Chevy Malibu $1800 and $2500 LESS than the Altima and Camry?

Yeah, yeah...I know. The Chevy is a "mild" hybrid and doesn't get the same city gas mileage. But it does match their highway mileage. And repair/maintanence cost has to be lower than the other cars.


RE: Correction + Question
By retrospooty on 12/4/2008 9:01:13 AM , Rating: 2
Because... Fast forward 5 years.

Altima Hybrid: $14,000
Camry Hybrid: $16,000
Malibu Hybrid: $5,000 - if its running at all.


Hybrid Tech
By wwwebsurfer on 12/4/2008 7:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
This stuff looks great on paper, but where are you supposed to get it fixed? Very few mechanics around where I live have a clue what a hybrid is, and definitely have no idea how to fix one. I even pride myself on fixing the car as much as possible and I wouldn't want to fool with a hybrid. Even something simple like a starter is probably buried in a mile of wires so that you have to bring it into a certified shop, costing you tons more money.

Therefore, I'll stick to my combustion only engines for basically ever.




RE: Hybrid Tech
By glennpratt on 12/4/2008 12:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
A mechanic from 1970 would probably have quite a few issues working on todays cars as well. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be driving a carburated, leaf spring, non-ABS car on bias ply tires with lap belts and no airbags today! Things change, get used to it.

Besides, most of the components on the car are just like others, you know suspension, steering, brakes, etc.


RE: Hybrid Tech
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 12:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
I would sans bias ply tires.


RE: Hybrid Tech
By JediJeb on 12/4/2008 5:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ditto!

I know people around me still driving trucks from the late 40's early 50's that are stock. I want to see how well a new vehicle has held up after 50+ years on them, Imagine how much harder it would be to find a 50 year old computer that works than a 50 year old carberator.


SORRY BRANDON BUT....
By rudolphna on 12/4/2008 12:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Your wrong on a few key details. First of all, Chryslers CEO is driving. GM CEO is driving a hybrid to washington, and driving to capitol hill in a Prototype Volt.
Ford CEO Alan Mullaly is driving a 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid.
Fuel Mileage- 31HWY 34CITY
Estimated Fuel cost- $30

Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli is driving a Chrysler Aspen Hybrid
Fuel Mileage- 22HWY 20 City
Estimated Fuel cost- $45

GM CEO Rick Wagoner is driving a Chevy Malibu Hybrid TO washington, and then changing to a volt prototype.
Malibu Fuel Mileage- 34HWY 26CITY
Estimated Fuel Cost- $33

Source- http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0812/gal...

Check out the other pages that repeat what I just said.




RE: SORRY BRANDON BUT....
By MadMan007 on 12/5/2008 4:33:50 AM , Rating: 1
What lack of progress on the fuel efficiency front. My 93 Ford Probe GT gets 28-30+ MPG mixed from real measurements and I know it's not in the greatest shape for fuel efficiency. It's obviously smaller than even the 4 door passenger car in that group but you'd think in 15 years they'd have made adavances in fuel efficiency....but maybe that's why they're having problems.


RE: SORRY BRANDON BUT....
By Spuke on 12/5/2008 3:43:16 PM , Rating: 4
They have made advances in fuel efficiency. In 1993, you could NOT have a car that has the comfort, safety and emissions standards with the accommodating weight increases as today cars and get today's mpg figures. If you want to compare apples to apples, find a car from 1993 that's the same size, weight, hp, and safety (I'll spot you on the emissions standards) as today's typical sedan that gets the same gas mileage.


CEO
By 2bdetermine on 12/4/2008 9:08:54 PM , Rating: 1
Stop picking on the CEO. After all, they're living the American Dream. Get greed and live large.




RE: CEO
By Suntan on 12/5/2008 10:34:59 AM , Rating: 4
The CEO at the company I work for (who seems to be a pretty nice and down to earth guy) routinely works 10 to 12 hour days when in the office, and is also traveling around the globe for work many days out of the year (and no global business travel is not fun. Being expected to go to sleep, so you are ready for the meeting the next morning, when your body is telling you it is 2 in the afternoon is not pleasant even if you did get there on a private jet.)

I think a lot of people tend to view CEOs and the like as just like them, but get paid a lot better. I can tell you; very few of them are sitting in their offices trawling through web forums all day between taking an extended lunch and knocking off 30 minutes before the end of the day.

-Suntan


RE: CEO
By Spuke on 12/5/2008 3:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. These people spend WAY too much time working. I would not want their schedules at all. Sure, you get paid a ton of money but you don't get to enjoy it too much. At least not as much as I would prefer if in their position.


When will the Big 3 get a clue
By edogwv on 12/4/2008 8:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
And release an ECONOMICAL car.. That doesn't cost a fortune!!!




By rudolphna on 12/4/2008 9:52:36 PM , Rating: 4
Uhhh... Ford Focus, Chevy Cobalt, Chevy Malibu, Chevy Impala. Chrysler Sebring..... Am I missing any?


Change the title
By Jacerie on 12/4/2008 8:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
The title says the CEO will drive a Volt to DC, but the article clearly states that he will be driving a Malibu Hybrid while bringing a Volt for show and tell.

It's a good thing he won't be driving the Volt as they'd need to spend as much as their private jet just to get a long enough extension cord to make the trip.




RE: Change the title
By callmeroy on 12/4/2008 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually unless I misundertood the specs for the volt if you have a full charge AND a full take -- the volt will get about 360 miles before you run out of gas AND the charge..that's longer range than most mid-size ICE powered cars get on a full tank.

(How I arrived at 360 = 40 miles on one charge, then the engine kicks in for another 320 miles, while it charges the batteries)


RE: Change the title
By Spuke on 12/5/2008 3:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that's longer range than most mid-size ICE powered cars get on a full tank.
How do you figure? Do you have any evidence at all to back this up?

Is this "I am right even when I have NO facts" attitude typical? Or this a DT thing? Please, God, I hope it's just a DT thing.


Brilliant Money-Saving Scheme
By heulenwolf on 12/4/2008 9:53:31 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, lets have a CEO waste 8-10 hours in a car each way. That's a brilliant way to save a buck. I think the auto industry needs a kick in the pants, but having a bunch of members of congress lecture them about wasting money is a bit ironic. Do they have any idea how much 16-20 hours of a CEO's time costs to the company they're running, regardless of whether they're paid $1 or $1 billion per year? That's why they fly private jets, btw, because it actually makes business sense to minimize the downtime of your corporate leader. I'd love to see one of the other CEO's walk into the hearing late and say that its because the TSA held him up at the airport.




All form over function
By fishbits on 12/4/2008 10:02:33 AM , Rating: 3
The font of largesse, DC, expects the CEOs of zillion-dollar companies to make a show of donning hairshirts before talking to them? To grovel to the same lawmakers who've hobbled the carmakers with arbitrary restrictions and mandates? Now granted, these particular CEOs are clearly pathetic, but I'd rather they be fired for better leadership rather than kept for their, ahem, ring-kissing skills.

Hauling out a Volt is just a symptom of what's wrong with Detroit, but for style-over-substance politicians and journalists, it's a winning move. Really? A $40,000 compact?! One that requires a massive taxpayer subsidy of Other People's Money to make it suck less? This is part of the insanity.

When they are being grilled, we just need one congressman to say repeatedly "You spend $70+/hr for manual labor. How does this make good business sense to you?"

To start helping the companies, quote the president-elect in his many statements that he would provide health care for everyone. Offer to take the man at his word (bald-faced lie that it was), and let this coverage that is coming to all replace car company's health-care obligations. Ask that the politicians who were beneficiaries of UAW efforts and money give back its value in cash to the car companies. Clearly the system of union/politicial kickbacks siphons away much-needed funds to keep the industry in business. Then ask Congress to get off the auto companies backs and let them make the better value cars purchasers actually want. If the Sierra Club wants to get into auto manufacturing, let them.




Let them die
By Screwballl on 12/4/2008 11:50:58 AM , Rating: 2
Remember the Kaiser? or the Hudson? or Studebaker, Nash, AMC, Willys, or any of the other 100+ companies that have made a car of some sort since 1900... each of them died off for whatever reason and other companies either bought them out or let them die.

I say let the big 3 fend for themselves.

Sure a lot of people may be out of a job but this will allow the American business model let smaller startups take over and possibly produce something worthwhile, safe and cheap without worrying about big oil or the big 3 buying them out and burying the technology that could make a 200mpg engine or whatever else has previously been done.




RE: Let them die
By Griswold on 12/4/2008 12:01:45 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. After all, this is capitalism, the system we all love, isnt it? Its what they praise in good times. But in bad times, the strained tax payers must rescue them? Fuck, no!


Want vs Cant
By clovell on 12/4/2008 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
... to eliminate unprofitable brands and produce efficient cars the people actually want to purchase.


The problem right now isn't that people don't want to buy their cars, it's that people can't buy their cars, or really anyone else's. Sales have dropped across the board.




Supply and Demand
By callmeroy on 12/4/2008 1:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
Enough speculation folks -- the big three admitted it them selves....and *NO* it was not just the high gas prices that led to "today". Check history the car industry's been slumping for the last few years before we hit record gas prices.

they produced and produced and produced.....way outpacing the rate they were selling. Now I also don't (and never liked - for the record) how the auto worker unions drove up costs for years on them as well....and then, YES, you can factor in CAFE and such as hindrances to their selling ability...but far and away anyone is an idiot if they are going "um it wasn't their fault"...oh really -- so if you own a business you keep producing goods even when you aren't moving your prior stock of said goods? Wow sound business strategy there...




Nonsense
By FPP on 12/4/2008 6:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
brit vehicles are not one bit more efficent. They may be smaller, I mean the one's you actually still build there, nationalization destroying your car industry years ago, but they are not even AS efficent as american-built cars. Get your facts, and come back.




By Kahnivorous on 12/5/2008 1:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
That's essentially all I've heard and seen on the news. They're asking for money because they, just like AIG's many doctorate and master's degree owners, can't manage money. When we can't manage money, we pay the late fees, penalties, and end up with horrible credit. When these "esteemed" and "honored" intellects, it affects millions. Now that they've proven they can't manage and intentionally trashed their bottom line, we're just going to roll over and let the government give them money without a penalty or punishment? Hell, no! All of these clowns deserve to be fired, fined, imprisoned, and have ruined credit. Try that on for size...




Chevy Volt?`
By anonymous2 on 12/8/2008 8:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well done guys.
writing an article about the Chevrolet Volt.
The great American answer to Japanese hybrid cars.

So why don't you mention that this was designed in Europe?
Payed by the German GM sub Opel.
Which also have $2B open to be paid from GM for research and development like this one.

And why is there no word that Saab incomes have been balanced as global GM income while the brands expanses have been balanced in Europe and therefore been hitting Opel's (and Vauxhall's) profit over quarters?

No one outside the USA will wine a tear if GM would go out of business!
We only fear that the years of bleeding out Opel (that also done most of Vauxhall and Holden models), Saab and Daewoo will crash these companies as well.




LET THEM GO UNDER!
By AlexWade on 12/4/2008 9:05:45 AM , Rating: 1
Or at least file Chapter 11. I have no pity for the Big 3. When gas prices started to rise many years ago, what did the Big 3 do? They charged less. Brilliant. Instead of seeing the writing on the wall like everyone else, they stuck with their deprecated outmoded thinking and kept making SUV's and selling them cheaper. A monkey could have made a better decision. Everyone knew $4/gallon gas was coming. Why didn't the Big 3 start design smaller more efficient cars when gas topped $3/gallon? Stupidity, that is why.

Now because of their myopic leadership, they are hurting. So what do they do when they need help? Fly to Congress in private jets and bribe congress. That is right. I just saw on CNN Headline News that two members of Congress received about $1.5 million dollars combined from the Big 3. Glad to see they have their priorities in order. And what other sin do they do? Scare tactics by talking about they cannot be allowed to fail else there will be a depression.

Any money they get should have a qualification: complete overhaul of management. The Big 3 CEO's are most concerned about losing their cushy jobs, so of course they won't agree to that.

Let them go under. This is capitalism not socialism. When a big company fails it is like ripping a bandage off in that it will hurt a lot early on but is much better in the long run.




Heavy hybrid nonsense
By piroroadkill on 12/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: Heavy hybrid nonsense
By DarkElfa on 12/5/2008 4:38:13 PM , Rating: 1
You're mom is too fat, STFU and stop being a hater.


Not a good option
By jithvk on 12/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not a good option
By mdogs444 on 12/4/2008 6:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
Oil estimates for most investment firms are targeting the $50-60 range for 2009.

But I'll agree, the added costs out of pocket for a hybrid are not worth the extra money to me either. Not to mention, that all the added technology they put into cars only boils down to one thing: more to go wrong with the car.


RE: Not a good option
By inperfectdarkness on 12/4/2008 8:17:41 AM , Rating: 1
in the interest of national security--we should drive the most fuel efficient vehicles possible (or not use petroleum at all). iran has already publicly stated it is suffering from falling crude-oil prices. the best way to keep them in check is to help the demand stay lower--which will keep prices lower.


RE: Not a good option
By retrospooty on 12/4/2008 8:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
You are totally right. Sometimes Mdogs can be so unamerican. =(


RE: Not a good option
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 8:38:08 AM , Rating: 4
Or maybe actually start taking advantage of our massive oil reserves.


RE: Not a good option
By angryandroid on 12/4/2008 7:06:55 AM , Rating: 4
Yup, now the price of oil is dropping again - far less people are going to be thinking about any "eco-friendly" options in the near future.

Anyone in the UK who watched Top Gear last Sunday will already know why American cars are failing on "almost" all fronts. The little VW Polo getting over 70mpgs on the trip, that nice diesel (Subaru was it?) getting well over 50mpg and the astonishing supercharged Jag getting about 1000 miles from a tank (while Clarkson drove it like an idiot with AC on, heated seats on for no passangers etc).

On top of that I dont know a single person who has bought a "green" car. These American giants are struggling like mad to find their place in the changing world of cars. Going green wont save them, going soft wont save them, staying as they are wont save them. I may not know what WILL save them, but I have a feeling it will be leading the way rather than following the pack. Innovate and survive or copy poorly and die.

Thats my view, many may (and will) disagree.


RE: Not a good option
By TSS on 12/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not a good option
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 8:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah and you can kiss my @$$. We shouldn't be taxed on gas more just to push an environmental agenda and get everyone to buy hybrids. If the cost of gas is low and people want to drive SUVs, they should be able to. It's their responsibility to plan for the future and consider that gas prices won't always be low. If they chose not to do that, then that's their problem to solve.

When buying my GTO I figured my gas costs at $4/gallon. It's currently $1.95 for premium. So obviously I'm enjoying things. But when gas does go back up, I've already budgeted for the higher price.


RE: Not a good option
By Lord 666 on 12/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not a good option
By Lord 666 on 12/4/2008 8:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'm hoping that if there is a gas tax, then the existing tax on diesel stays the same. This would then make the price point of gas and diesel about the same.

It also then would make sense on why the stricter diesel emissions were mandated... The US government knew there would be a large increase of diesels and wanted to prepare for the emissions.


RE: Not a good option
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 8:28:52 AM , Rating: 5
Or we could get rid of things like Social Security and Medicare. And NOT institute socialized medicine as the Democrats want to do. You know let that whole capitalism thing work.

All a VAT would do is give politicians more of our money to waste on socialist programs. I'm sorry but $2-3 TRILLION dollars is enough. If they can't run the government and its programs in that (barring any added expenses from wars), then the government needs to cut programs. Same as a corporation would have to.

Get rid of massive government pensions (especially those for House and Senate members). Get rid of Social Security. Get rid of Medicare. Let people take responsibility for their own retirement and well being. If they chose not to, then that's THEIR problem. It should not be the problem of the country that you chose not to save for retirement.

Furthermore, secure our borders and undertake a massive effort to kick illegal immigrants out of our country. They are draining us dry and giving nothing back.


RE: Not a good option
By retrospooty on 12/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not a good option
By Kenenniah on 12/4/2008 9:00:55 AM , Rating: 3
Artificially raising the cost of living by adding taxes to gas is a brilliant idea during hard economic times. I'm sure that further weaking the economy will be a great boon for national security. Great idea!


RE: Not a good option
By retrospooty on 12/4/2008 9:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
huh ? Where did I say that?

I am talking about everyone conserving and NOT buying gas guzzling cars. Everyone does a little to conserve and we no longer need the middle east, they need us.


RE: Not a good option
By Kenenniah on 12/4/2008 10:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry. I guess I assumed you were with TSS in thinking that taxes were the way to coerce people into conservation.


RE: Not a good option
By Spuke on 12/5/2008 4:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
It would take more than just a "little" conserving to get off of Middle East Oil. Using a little ME oil is the same as using a lot. You're STILL using it. I don't know about you, but it's STILL an a$$ f$%kin whether the d^&k is halfway or all of the way in.


RE: Not a good option
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 9:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
*America starts drilling its own oil and allows companies to build new refineries thus expanding the countries ability to produce gas*

Get off foreign oil. Check.

I'm not against conservation. I'm against the government telling people what products to buy.

And the fact is that we now have the technology to produce all the diesel we could ever want in a carbon neutral manner (not that I think CO2 does anything). Instead of pushing to switch to electric vehicles which use deadly, toxic batteries which wear out in 7-10 years, why don't we push to create massive algae farms producing diesel grade fuel and jet fuel? Oh right because then we're still producing evil CO2 regardless of the fact that the same CO2 was used to produce the fuel.

The only thing it would take is space but last I checked you "green" people want to use millions of acres to build solar farms.


RE: Not a good option
By Lord 666 on 12/4/2008 9:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
Correct... a single acre of algae farm can produce 100,000 gallons of diesel grade fuel per year. Even on a small scale, that can provide home made fuel for a school district or municpality.


RE: Not a good option
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 9:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
So we'd need what? 10,000 acres to satisfy our fuel needs?


RE: Not a good option
By Lord 666 on 12/4/2008 10:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
How many acres are wasted now for corn that is processed from ethanol? 15 square miles (10,000 acres) is manageable... especially if it provides almost all of the diesel grade fuel for the US.

One upside with the increased diesel motor useage would be the 30-40 increased fuel efficiency over petrol motors.

Why not make that Camaro a twin-turbo six... take a look at the BMW 335d. that gets 36mpg with 265hp and 425lb torque.

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/20...


RE: Not a good option
By Lord 666 on 12/4/2008 10:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
Oops, I meant "How many acres are wasted now for corn that is processed INTO ethanol"


RE: Not a good option
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 11:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
I hope you're not implying I support ethanol. Because I hate it. I wish I could find a gas station that didn't have it mixed into my gas.

Twin turbo would be fine but it adds even more cost. And you can make more power with a single turbo. Diesel's make enough torque at the low end. More just means more wheel spin.


RE: Not a good option
By Lord 666 on 12/4/2008 11:26:14 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, not implying it at all. You have been consistently against E85. However, as a filler, ethanol is better than MTBE. E85 always has been a ridiculious idea for the US.

In order to argue for algae farming to produce diesel grade, would need to compare against E85 corn farming per acre. From there, the fuel efficiency of diesel motor using algae versus motor using E85 is an easy argument.


RE: Not a good option
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 1:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
And that BMW costs $45,000+ too.


RE: Not a good option
By Lord 666 on 12/4/2008 3:55:36 PM , Rating: 1
You can pick up a 2006 E320 CDI between $27,000 and 35,000. They run a 0-60 in 6.7 and have cruising range of 780 miles getting somewhere in the mid-30's mpg.

For cheaper but slightly slower is a new Jetta TDI that costs about $24,000 and does 0-60 in 8.1 getting about 40mpg combined. You would also get $1300 back from Uncle Sam.


RE: Not a good option
By retrospooty on 12/4/2008 9:12:09 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I am FAR from "green". My point is we need to get OFF of oil, not start drilling more here, and use up what little we have left BEFORE a better solution is found. If we do that, shortsighted people like you will keep buying your gas guzzling cars and the next tech gets relegated to the back burner.... then BOOM... when we are out again, its panic time, and we have to buy more foreign oil. We need off of oil NOW, at least start now.

My main point wasnt really that the govt. should mandate what cars we buy, but that we need to all conserve... GM, Ford and Chry. have done zero to help that, they only see their own short term profits. Now here we are, in 2008 and they are all 3 looking for bailouts because no-one is buying thier cars... If they has been made to match mileage milestones years ago- they would have models on the market to compete.


RE: Not a good option
By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 9:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
Did you not read his post? He clearly had a way to get off foreign oil and satisfy the global warming nutjobs. A killing of two birds with one stone if you will.


RE: Not a good option
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
And what's more is that the cars would still be fun to drive. Turbo diesels have gobs of torque and are easily modified to get more power out of them. Sure it might break from traditional convention but if I had to chose between a Hybrid Camaro and a turbo diesel V6 Camaro, I'd take the turbo diesel V6.

Sure hybrids have lots of torque, but then your batteries are dead rather quickly. I'd love to see how long a Tesla lasts on a road course before the batteries die.

People assume I just want to keep the old days of the 60s with leaded fuel burning big V8s getting 5 mpg. I am all for improving things. But I want REAL solutions. Not half baked ideas brought up by global warming idiots who would rather us return to the horse and buggy. Or those who scream we need to get off foreign oil while refusing to let us drill for our own. There is no reason to get off gas and diesel if we have the ability to bio-engineer an infinite supply of our own.


RE: Not a good option
By retrospooty on 12/4/2008 3:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
OK, in your ideal scenario, who is building all of these Bio Diesel cars, and who is forcing us to buy them ? It would HAVE to be mandated by the govt.

The other issue is practicality... Its easy for you to say biodeisel is the way to go, but can it be done from A to Z, from production, to distribution and factor in car manufacturures...where is there proof (or at least strong evidence from a thorough study) that it will be remotely economical?


RE: Not a good option
By retrospooty on 12/4/2008 3:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
I meant to add .... How can you say "I'm not against conservation. I'm against the government telling people what products to buy"

Who is forcing Biodeisel on us? IT would have to be the same poeple that would force conservation on us. The Govt. People wont do it themselves, and the free market has not been able to respond. The free market has us depeendant on foreign oil, and mass producing cars and SUV's with horrible mileage.


RE: Not a good option
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2008 3:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
Uh no. If diesel produced from algae was extremely cheap (of course the government would probably tax the hell out of it) people would buy diesels. No mandate needed. I don't see why this fuel wouldn't be cheap either since the costs of making it wouldn't be that high. The upfront costs are but that could be recovered fairly quickly. Diesels have never really caught on here because manufacturers haven't produced them. I think if people started clamoring for diesels to use this cheap fuel, they would deliver. It would even be good for their truck and SUV sales. And I think many people are getting over the stigma of diesels as being loud, dirty engines. Lately they've just been more turned off to them because diesel costs more than regular by quite a bit.

Yes diesels would have to become far more prevalent. And yes they are more expensive. But if someone offers me an attractive, fun to drive diesel at the same price as a retarded looking hybrid, I'm gonna get the diesel.

I'm sure environmentalists would fight something like this tooth and nail anyway (thus once again proving their hypocrisy) since it doesn't meet their idea of a "fossil fuel" free world. Never mind the fact that the fuel was produced through organic means that drew CO2 out of the air and turned it into something useful.


RE: Not a good option
By retrospooty on 12/4/2008 6:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
"If diesel produced from algae was extremely cheap "

So in other words, no there has been no thourough study. You assume it is cheap. You have to grow or buy the algae and extract it and do whatever it takes to turn it into fuel. Where is the proof, or at least quantitive study that really gets into the details to show it will work? It might even be more expensive to produce on a mass scale (as in multiple billions of barrels per month) then Oil is now, maybe even more than Oil was 3 months ago at the peak price.

Now lets just assume it will be a viable option... NO, it WONT happen unless the govt mandates it.

You think Exxon is going to just drop thier record profit business model and gamble on bio-fuel? Or some other rediculously rich investor is going to come along and risk it?

I am not saying its a bad idea, I am just saying it hasnt been fully though through, and if it turns out to be a good option, the govt will have to mandate it, or it will ever come to be.


RE: Not a good option
By Ringold on 12/4/2008 4:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and the free market has not been able to respond. The free market has us depeendant on foreign oil, and mass producing cars and SUV's with horrible mileage.


Misinformed on every point; no surprise, retro.

As for free market response, read one of these recent articles by our resident DT left wing reporter. Venture capitalists have maintained and in some cases even boosted investment in energy firms. If you've read regularly over the past couple years some of the same financial/business oriented news papers, most have carried articles from solar and wind power related manufacturers where their CEO's have asked for people like you to stop pushing for subsidies; they say that some of them are already profitable and your subsidies merely distort their market and keep inferior competitors afloat. Not to mention the misallocation of resources, such as solar power in Germany being artificially boosted, raising global costs, and therefore making it more expensive to install solar power in far more sunny locations.

As for dependence on foreign oil, (we're also dependent on foreign shoes -- oh god!) that is presently the case because it was the most economically efficient method of doing things. So far, it still is. Unless you're pushing a climate change argument, not sure where you could be going with that one. They also mass produced cars and SUV's because that's what people wanted. I know individual liberty is an outmoded concept in liberal circles, though.


RE: Not a good option
By retrospooty on 12/4/2008 6:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not pushing climate change - thats a overlydramatic pile of Gorepoop.

But what I said remains true and what you said on your reply doesnt address it at all. The free market has not been able to respond. The free market has us OVERLY dependant on foreign oil to the point of it being a major problem, economically, and national security... That is not the case with Shoes or other goods. The free market has our big 3 producing SUV's and lousy cars.

and mass producing cars and SUV's with horrible mileage.


RE: Not a good option
By stlrenegade on 12/4/2008 5:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
I agree FITCamaro. Washington needs to trim the fat. I think career congressmen are a big problem that needs to be fixed. Who here gets to vote on their pay increases? I sure don't. Neither should they. Have a cost of living adjustment, and maybe a bit extra since they are away from home. Impose term limits. Scrap their pensions and have them stick their stuff in privatized accounts. Once you leave Congress, your health benefits cease as well. You should be able to find a job back home with benefits.

I always thought of the Legistlative branch as a group of citizens who want to represent the people the best way they can. Go in, make some real changes for a few years, then go home. The longer you are there, the more you network and become slaves to the lobbyists.

Well, whatever. Restructuring of Washington will never happened.


RE: Not a good option
By Penti on 12/5/2008 6:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yes please let the individual companies pay for all that instead... Your debt has to do with trade deficits and war spending not social programs. In Sweden where you have more social benefits then Communist countries (or former) we have had a trade surplus for a long time and a surplus in state finance for years. Yet we rank higher in protection of private property then you do. And of course much higher in the democracy index. The populist liberal-conservatives and center-liberals will loose in a landslide the next election though as people don't like to be kick on while the economy shrinks.


RE: Not a good option
By Suntan on 12/5/2008 10:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, Sweden is the model with which America should tailor its auto business after. We should immediately liquidate all the assets in our auto manufacturers and then look to Swede… … …wait a minute, Sweden’s car makers would be dissolved too as they were bought up a long time ago by American car companies when they could not make a go of it on their own.

Hmmm… Anyway, nice view from that pedestal of yours.

-Suntan


RE: Not a good option
By Penti on 12/7/2008 10:46:55 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't say it where, but Volvo Cars and Saab Automobile still has lower employee costs. That's including the taxes. You know we had a financial crisis of our own back in the 90's so that the companies survived that says something. It took years into the 00's before they started using ford platforms for Volvo Cars. Volvo Cars just lived of the XC90s that didn't even really sell here so they have them selfs to blame. I have heavily criticized them before sales did go down. So I don't feel sorry for them. They where owned by industrial conglomerates before. Which are still strong companies with loads of employees.

I just pointed out that in Sweden they don't pay for there own health care insurances/plans, company pension founds etc etc so they could pay $22 an hour for a worker in total cost or even $15 in other workplaces and he would still get health care and other benefits, the exact same as people payed twice that. You pay more for things like health care in the US yet it's still not reachable for all.

Hopefully some Chinese buy the swedish automakers so they can put in some capital and so the workers can stop complaining. In short I don't view Sweden as a leader in automaking and never has. I'm not nationalistic about "swedish" companies.


RE: Not a good option
By Penti on 12/8/2008 7:03:46 AM , Rating: 2
Besides Sweden still has a trade surplus, and generally a somewhat weaker currency (where not a Euro country, or in recession and trade deficit - yet) helps the exporting business (Machinery, steel, iron and paper products mostly) and it was almost 30 years ago we had a trade deficit, we manged to have a trade surplus the last crisis which brought down many of our banks. Basically where better of then the Euro-countries but will hit a notable recession next year.


RE: Not a good option
By joemoedee on 12/4/2008 10:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the city i live in (here in holland) totals about 200,000 residents. i have lived here my entire life, and most of it in the middle of the city.


Holland is not the US. Europe as a whole has a completely different infrastructure. As such, vehicles will be different.

quote:
i think such a tax on fuel wouldn't be that bad for america right now. it would spur the economic car sales, bring in extra money for the goverment (god knows they need it), and prepare for the time when oil *is* in demand again, and will shoot up as a rocket because of the prodcution cuts OPEC is making now because the price is too low.


In a word, no.

Higher taxes != additional government revenue. This has been proven time and time again.

Many people have loans on their "evil gas guzzlers". The diminished trade-in value on these vehicles makes it so many can not trade in their vehicles on hybrids or more gas friendly vehicles. A further increase in the cost of few will only drive down the value of people's current vehicles, and put them more in a bind financially.

Let the markets work themselves out, as I don't know about other people, but I rarely think to myself "Wow, this would be so much better if the Government controlled it."


RE: Not a good option
By whirabomber on 12/4/2008 12:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
Most hybrid cars cost as much as a gas guzzler. Thankfully, gas is about $2 cheaper here so there isn't a need to bail to beta hybrid technology that would never pay for itself.

What a relief.


RE: Not a good option
By Lord 666 on 12/4/2008 7:53:01 AM , Rating: 1
People like you were whining and crying when oil was $140 in July. Typical American; lack of vision, the ability to see the larger picture, and just uninformed.

As the chap who mentioned "Top Gear," two of the cars were diesel and got over 50mpg. Driving fuel effiecient vehicles makes sense, but those options are not only limited to hybrids. Even the hybrid options of the Camry Hybrid and Escape Hybrdid consume drastically less fuel in certain conditions. Bring over the UK diesel version of the Honda CRV and it would embarrass the current hybrid Escape.


RE: Not a good option
By jithvk on 12/4/2008 9:28:09 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry brother. you are wrong. im from India. :) Most of the cars we drive here give 20KMPL(or 45MPG). Yea, they have small engines, but 100PS(or may be 120) is enough for daily commuting i think. Adding a hybrid option may add just 1 or 2 miles extra to that. that is not reasonable enough.


RE: Not a good option
By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 9:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
And he was wrong how? Your post has nothing to do with what he said.


RE: Not a good option
By fishbits on 12/4/2008 9:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yay for intolerant, bigoted nationalism?


RE: Not a good option
By Gzus666 on 12/4/2008 9:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
How is saying that vehicles are more efficient in the UK bigoted? Also, how is saying that Americans tend to be short sighted bigoted? I don't know what America you live in, but the one I live in fits this conception. The whole credit crisis stems from short sighted stupidity. It isn't bigoted if it is true.


RE: Not a good option
By nycromes on 12/4/2008 11:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
Funny that most of the world is experiencing a credit crunch... yet Americans are the short sighted ones... try being a little less biased and get off your high horse. There are short sighted people everywhere, not just in America.


RE: Not a good option
By Gzus666 on 12/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not a good option
By Ringold on 12/4/2008 3:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
Humble much? :P


RE: Not a good option
By Penti on 12/5/2008 6:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
Sure but most have experienced a credit crunch before just a few years ago in Europe. In addition to that it was already expected that a downturn would hit in 08-09. Plus the former soviet countries (where western companies do business) crashed. Sweden don't need to go back to the great depression in order to find a comparison just to 93. Or actually it isn't near as bad.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki