backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Jun 17 at 9:38 PM

The Chinese plan to increase the brand's international presence

DailyTech reported yesterday on GM's announcement that it had found a buyer for the Hummer brand of heavy utility vehicles.  The mystery buyer promised to take on the brand and help expand its international presence.  In the process it saved a number of jobs at Hummer plants and helped GM complete a major step toward moving out of bankruptcy.

Now the identity of the mystery buyer has been revealed.  Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd., a Chinese industrial firm, will be purchasing the brand and attempting to revive it.

States Yang Yi, chief executive of Tengzhong, "We plan to ... allow Hummer to innovate and grow in exciting new ways under the leadership and continuity of its current management team."

He did, however, hint at changes stating that the deal "will allow Hummer to better meet demand for new products such as more fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S."

The companies hope to have the deal finalized by September.  The deal does not concern the military Hummer technology owned by defense contractor AM General, which licensed the brand name to GM for civilian vehicle purposes.  AM General will now, in turn, license the name to Sichuan Tengzhong, which will continue the civilian Hummer development.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 11:08:57 AM , Rating: 0
Also, get rid of CAFE standards and loosen up emissions regulations. That would lower the costs of production.

In a free market, let the automakers produce 5mpg, 10mpg, 15mpg, 20mpg.....55mpg cars without regulation. Let the people decide what to buy. The sales figures will tell the automaker what people want and don't want.

But why won't the current government do this? Because they are afraid that what people really want is not in line with their agenda of catastrophe, fear mongering, global warming, and social belt tightening.


RE: Sad.
By Spacecomber on 6/3/2009 11:42:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
But why won't the current government do this? Because they are afraid that what people really want is not in line with their agenda of catastrophe, fear mongering, global warming, and social belt tightening.


Spoken like a true paranoid.

But maybe it takes one to know one. Oh wait, that would make me paranoid, too. ;)


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 2:32:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In a free market, let the automakers produce 5mpg, 10mpg, 15mpg, 20mpg.....55mpg cars without regulation. Let the people decide what to buy. The sales figures will tell the automaker what people want and don't want.


Your kidding right? If the U.S. automakers were allowed to produce whatever they wanted they would have gone down faster than a cheap hooker after being offered $200 for a blow job when gas hit $4/gallon.

The only reason that the U.S. automakers have survived the last 2 years is because the gov't had forced them to make some fuel efficient cars to make up for the gas guzzlers the were pushing out.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I know you're yelling purely on emotion as most anti-oil drilling liberals do

Mean to add in ANTI


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 4:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
And your post isn't pure opinion? Since you posted your opinion first I'll let you show me proof that the automakers would have had a mix of cars and survived without a gov't bailout if CAFE wouldn't have existed.

I don't know why you think I am yelling - no caps except for where called for.

BTW, I am not a liberal and definitely not anti-oil.


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 2:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your kidding right? If the U.S. automakers were allowed to produce whatever they wanted they would have gone down faster than a cheap hooker after being offered $200 for a blow job when gas hit $4/gallon.


Ummm.... no

They would have actually had a compeditive product profile based on long-term customer desires rather than being forced to produce (and sell) large quanities of cars that #1 not many people wanted (over a Civic/Accord type anyway) and #2 they couldn't make money building. This was a short-sighted stradegy maybe, but it can't be denied that a major factor in them adapting this stradegy was the forcing of CAFE to balance out the profitable and popular cars people actually wanted to buy...

When gas went up and people started to really buy these products, American Car companies were stuck selling things that didn't really make them money.

If CAFE didn't exist, maybe American car companies would have made and sold fewer -small- cars. But the cars would have been higher quality and better designed. They probably would have been in better shape.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 3:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
If CAFE didn't exist I doubt any of the American car companies would have even been making cars (as opposed to truck/SUVs), much less small cars. Any cars they made would have been Caddy/Lincoln luxuries.

Then when gas hit $4/gallon their gas guzzler sales would have dried up (like it did), but they wouldn't have had anything to fall back on. Only at $3+/gallon gas did any U.S. consumers actually think about how much gas they were using to drive the behemoth around.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 3:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If CAFE didn't exist I doubt any of the American car companies would have even been making cars (as opposed to truck/SUVs), much less small cars.

Stuff and nonsense. You fail to realize that not everyone is on the same budget. Not everyone can afford an suv, truck, large car, midsize car. Economy cars/small cars are the cheapest to produce, however they have the smallest profit margin. They have always made a few of them, but due to it not being profitable and the low sales figures, they didn't expand on it...what business would have?

You make the claim that Toyota and Honda always made these cars. Sure, they did, I agree with that. However, their original target market was NOT the US. And it wasn't until gas was over $2.25 a gallon creeping up to $4.00 a gallon that these companies starting rolling out their trucks and suv's in massive quantities (Pilot, Ridgeline, Tundra, Armada, Titan). They too saw the profitability and previous sales figures of the US consumer.
quote:
Only at $3+/gallon gas did any U.S. consumers actually think about how much gas they were using to drive the behemoth around.

You see - this is the big difference in your thinking. You try to justify getting rid of big cars and trucks because we are using too much oil, and that the price of it is what made people aware. But you couldn't be further from the truth. The price of gasoline makes people think about their fiscal responsibility, not their actual oil consumption for the good of mankind. People WANT the government to expand oil, make it cheaper, reduce taxes on it so that they can afford to drive the types of cars, trucks, and suv's that they like. The masses do not want to get rid of their cars to get something economical - that would assume they actually want the price of gasoline to stay as is.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 5:27:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You make the claim that Toyota and Honda always made these cars.


As far as I can tell you are the first and only one to bring up Toyota and Honda. It seems that you like to read a lot between the lines - that I am liberal (not), that I am anti-oil (again, not), that I believe in global warming (juries still out, but I doubt it is majority man made), etc.

My claim was that U.S. car companies wouldn't be producing small cars if not for CAFE. My proof is that they didn't before CAFE.


RE: Sad.
By croc on 6/3/2009 6:36:31 PM , Rating: 1
It always amazes me how few Americans really know their recent history, let alone their past history. CAFE standards were put in place in 1975 in response to the 1973 oil embargo imposed by OPEC. It has not really moved all that much higher in the ensuing 32 years, compared to the rest of the fuel standards in the rest of the world. You yanks always come back with 'yes, but we need our big cars / trucks to travel the vast distances in the US...' Please bring one of your yank tanks down here to AUS, and go outback. Try going from Brisbane to Perth via Alice Springs. Hint: Bring your sand tires, several spares as well, several jerry cans of fuel and several more of water.


RE: Sad.
By Nfarce on 6/3/2009 8:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please bring one of your yank tanks down here to AUS, and go outback. Try going from Brisbane to Perth via Alice Springs. Hint: Bring your sand tires, several spares as well, several jerry cans of fuel and several more of water.


Okay, I'll see your call and raise you: throw in towing a boat or camping trailer that we "yanks" like to haul around in our "tanks." Of course, I won't go into the need to haul around a lawnmower in said "Yank tank" to make a living cutting grass or chopping trees down and selling firewood from the back of a pickup. Guess that wouldn't work down in your land very well either, eh bloke?


RE: Sad.
By jconan on 6/3/2009 10:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
if everyone studied history Apple would not have a group of evangelist claiming that everyone is copying Apple iPod and iPhone...


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 3:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then when gas hit $4/gallon their gas guzzler sales would have dried up (like it did), but they wouldn't have had anything to fall back on.


Execpt that with CAFE, they had nothing to fall back on...

Maybe you are unaware how CAFE works?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE
It makes Automakers to SELL cars such that -harmonic- average fleet MPG reachs an arbitrary target.

I repeat, SELL. Not Design or research, but SELL.

If they fail to reach the target, then penalties start accuring.

In the 1990s, US Automakers faced the situation were they made thosands on SUVs and just couldn't make a small car that was compeditive enough with imports to sell the required number. The solution? Slash quality and price to enable the required number of sales of small cars to allow more sales of the large cars that people A wanted and B made profit. They didn't have the option to drop unprofitable models, or produce high quality cars at profitable prices.

Since gas first rose past 3 dollars a gallon, NA car companies have been making great cars. The Fusion, the Malibu, importing the G8 and Astra, Escape Hybrid...

This was not the result of CAFE, but shifting consumer demands... that NA auto producers might have been able to shift to sooner if they were Allowed to have gone through some lean years selling high quality, high profit cars...

CAFE is a failure, a joke, a menance to people's freedom, ridicolusly complicated, inefficient, perversion of the intended goal.

If the intended goal is for car makers to be artifically forced to build more efficient cars than people want. Tax gas like crazy. Distrabute the gas tax total at the end of the year evenly to all taxpayers/citizens. That would have worked much better than CAFE.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 3:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tax gas like crazy. Distrabute the gas tax total at the end of the year evenly to all taxpayers/citizens. That would have worked much better than CAFE.

I like much of what you wrote in your entire post. Except for the quote above. Never, ever give your money to the government in hopes of actually getting it back. We already give them such a huge percentage of our income tax, that they now want to spend 10x more than we did last year, and add a 25% VAT tax to our bottom line.

They are out of control.


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 4:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say I liked it or wanted it.

I guess as an engineer, I like to see a problem effectively solved. Even if I don't agree that the problem exists in the first place. If the nation is going to do something, lets actually do it.

quote:
They are out of control.


100% agree that US's (mine) current system of government is out of control and has been out of control since at least Reagon, no Carter, no Nixon...could go on a while took over (Not that I am blaming either party as each party has been in power for extended periods of time).


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 4:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
guess as an engineer, I like to see a problem effectively solved.

I'm a former systems analyst, so I know where you're coming from.
quote:
100% agree that US's (mine) current system of government is out of control

That is mine too (US Citizen)
quote:
since at least Reagon, no Carter, no Nixon.

Reagan was the best president of the last few decades. Carter was complete waste - 20% mortgage rates, hyperinflation, high unemployment. Clinton was nothing more than lying & cheater appeaser. The first Bush was so-so,at least he kicked some ass and did it quickly. The second Bush was a great leader for a time being, but got too consumed and in over his head recommending bailouts, wasteful spending, privacy acts, etc. And Obama...well, lets just say that I'd rather vote GW Bush in for a third term over Obama.


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 4:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... Most of his (Reagan) policies were good, but in the long term, he borrowed way too much to cover the shortfalls. Maybe overall this was a good policy, but it still hurts. In fact Reagan was the first president from the end of WWII to increase the nations debt/GDP ratio. Even at times when GDP was skyrocketing, he borrowed and borrowed money.


RE: Sad.
By Oregonian2 on 6/3/2009 6:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
But in retrospect, with the current Federal borrowing rate, Reagan's was peanuts at most.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 7:42:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The second Bush was a great leader


I think that says worlds about your intelligence level.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 5:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
What I would like to see is a tax on vehicle weight and the tax go directly to road upkeep. At least they don't have that here in CO.


RE: Sad.
By mdogs444 on 6/3/2009 5:57:22 PM , Rating: 3
What I would like to see is no additional taxes at all. Enough is enough. Get rid of these social welfare and entitlement programs, stop paying for pork barrel projects like $400,000 to study gay sex in Latin America and how alcohol affects hookers in China.

Viola, look at all this money we have to benefit people who are actually PAYING INCOME TAXES


RE: Sad.
By Keeir on 6/3/2009 6:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I would like to see is a tax on vehicle weight and the tax go directly to road upkeep. At least they don't have that here in CO.


Well most states have a tax on gasoline to nominally pay for road maintainence. A heavier vehicle uses more gas and thus pays more tax. Most states also tax diesel more than gasoline, thus accounting for the higher energy content (and thus more road abuse) of a gallon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax#North_Americ...

If you are talking about the State of Colorado, the Vehicle registration is actually affected by wieght requirements. Future increases (in registration fees) are also proposed based on vehicle wieght and going to road construction.

On top of that, for cars that wieght excessively there is already a gas guzzler tax.

What more do you need? The unfortunate truth is that many Americans find the utility of the largers cars/trucks/SUVs to be worth the already potentially punative measures taken against them. It seems you want to keep increasing the punative measures units larger cars/trucks/SUVs are not built or purchased... but since this will be acchieved through punative measures overall its negative for the society to reduce people's utility/happiness without solid and rationed reasoning.... I am all for applying the correct taxes/fees based on rational examination of measurable externailities, but I am not for just acting because there is a belief there is some great problem which no reasonable cost can be placed on.


RE: Sad.
By fic2 on 6/3/2009 7:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
But the fuel tax goes into the general tax fund and doesn't go into a road maintenance fund. In Colorado every two years the politicos bring up the "fact" that the road systems are deteriorating and there isn't enough money to pay for them. This even though every two years the voters get suckered into upping a tax or fee or something to "bridge the gap". It is like the school funding crap. Never enough money even though funding goes up at least 2x cost of living every year.

Colorado registration is based more on the price and age of the car than on weight.

About two months back Colorado passed a flat fee increase on all car registrations. Not based on weight, fuel consumption, color, height, anything except is it a vehicle.

Higher fuel tax was mentioned, but was quickly shot down even though Colorado has one of the lowest fuel taxes in the U.S.

The only other type of increase that was mentioned in all the material I read on the increase discussion was taxing the number of miles you drive per year. Got to be up there for all time stupid idea award. But, the Dems are in control and they just love to create more gov't bureaucracy and that would be up there since it would probably involve at least another 1,000 people tracking the mileage of all the cars.


RE: Sad.
By Moishe on 6/4/2009 1:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ridiculous.
Look at the past 20+ years and you can see that American auto makers have been making smaller cars while also making larger cars and trucks. I believe in the free market. In a free market, the companies would have learned to offer what people want. If they didn't learn then they'd simply go bankrupt and disappear (a good thing).

Maybe they would have been caught with their pants partially down when gas prices rose. That would be a great learning opportunity. It would be a test of which business has the ability to innovate and adapt.

Instead, we reward failure and we fail to hold business or government accountable for taxpayer money. We force auto companies to build cars that lawmakers or special interests want. *Reward* no longer becomes the primary goal of decision makers and those people who own the business who are actually interested in ROE are now hobbled by excessive regulation. This all happens because U.S. lawmakers essentially take over the decision making for businesses *because they can* (because we let them). Now we have lawmakers running cars companies... The uneducated, corrupt idiots are running the joint and making the decisions. I cannot think of a worse situation. The sad thing is, they will place the blame on everyone else when their decisions utterly fail.

We should just let the market decide what products to sell, and let the failures die. It works, but it requires us to keep our grubby hands off of the process.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki