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 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.


"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