lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: GM and Chrysler bailouts
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-08-2009, 01:24 PM   #41
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
So on rereading, I missed a good amount of stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
I'll tell ya this, I'd rather drive my 2000 miles in my Tahoe than a Toyota Prius. Oh and just so you know those hybrids... they don't get even the same fuel efficiency as a V6 at highway speeds(aka 75+MPH).
You know quite well my stance on fuel efficiency, but I would love to see the evidence for that statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
Yup. Aptly named for Lake Tahoe. Used to live there and probably heading back soon. Not as many rough offroads as even 10-15 years ago, but the area's many different variables, and adventure zones did require a bit of diverse ruggedness. A prime example of the truck that does not need to be an absolutely huge P.O.S. in the road to get the job done. Indeed the virtues you mentioned (size economy for a truck while packing that extra punch and build for the rough areas) make it a more practical vehicle than its larger counterparts in general. (Recalling larger wider behemoths getting stuck driving over high mounds. )

While I am a fuel economist I can attest that sometimes you simply need larger vehicles to do the work horse duty. Try using your car to haul: furniture, hundreds to thousands of pounds of tiles, logs and lumber, your entire crew's arsenal of equipment for a "job" (construction, electrical, roofing, landscaping, insulation w/ fiberglass (yuck!)). You can, but it REALLY sucks and your MPG goes down the toilet. Uncomfortable, you worry for the interior, gets sluggish to drive...I think everyone gets the picture.
Agreed. There are many situations for needing a truck or SUV. Sadly, the demand for them is far more than the amount of people who actually need one. I need a racecar tow vehicle, it sure won't be my Scoob. Conversely, my tow vehicle wouldn't be my DD unless I was strapped for cash. If I could afford to modify the racecar to the point of needing a truck and trailer, chances are I would also have a DD. That said, many racers DD the tow vehicle. It all comes down to what you need the vehicle for. Most buyers of trucks and SUVs would be better served by a minivan that isn't designed to tow 500000lbs. Some aren't.

Carting kids around needs a big vehicle; whether the family also goes boating or what decides whether an SUV or minivan is called for. Back when I was in Scouts, I saw minivans do an incredible amount of towing and off roading; it's not impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
I might also add that compact cars are a sonofabitch to fix when something serious goes wrong. There are damn good reasons that many good general auto mechanics (reputable ones working for ~$85-150/hr) won't touch them. Specialists...yeah, viable if they are around. Otherwise dealerships...hahaha--good luck! The service in addition to parts...not even going there.

Pay for it? HA! Yeah, ok, that will come to about $2675.88 for the part ALONE replace new, $1866.74 rebuilt, and that isn't taking into account the additional $500-900 for the cooling system attatched to it...and the painstaking effort to determine which one it actually is b/c they may have 4 or even 8 different cooling systems for a given year and most people in service or parts stores don't have any idea wtf part you are talking about. Hoo. So the only other option: get dirty and fix it yourself.

Experience talking here: I had to fix the carburetor of my '85 Honda Accord--skill, thrift, resourcefulness, and LUCK--or the force on my side with an uncle who has gazillions of parts and tools to help out with. Man was THAT ever a pain. (Though it felt great like nothing else when I succeeded and drove it!)
...blew up 8 months later just shy its 22nd birthday.
I know what you mean. I taught an ex how to change the oil on her 05ish Honda Civic. It is impossible to find the damn oil filter! (Protip: it's over the front axle....which is great when you get oil spilled all over it and exhaust manifolds. Yum!) My 89 325i, while actually smaller than that damned econobox, is soooooo much better to work on. Same with my Scoob. The size of the car doesn't dictate the ease of maintenance though. Taking the valve cover off on the E30 and adjusting the valve lash of the rockers inside the engine's head is just a joy from a packaging and ease of job point of view. It still sucks though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX
I said nothing about banning SUVs entirely, I do, however, believe that there is absolutely little to no regulation when it comes to the overall reliability and security of SUVs. Rollovers are still a concern with truck-based chassis SUVs, and there is still the piss-poor fuel economy, that although is better than several years ago, is still pathetic. Furthermore, larger SUVs an trucks are essentially military-grade vehicles, and as such, they can be extremely dangerous towards pedestrians and other drivers when in an auto wreck, further increasing auto fatalities
PastramiX--Um.....what? Think for a minute. The GVW of an SUV is near 3 tons. Nearly 6000lbs. 2800kg. That's an insane amount of mass to move. Then consider the frontal area and drag coefficients, which are about as good as that of a chimney brick. There is a HUGE reason that trucks burn more fuel; they are terribly non-aerodynamic at highway speeds (only speeds aero is important), and their weight is an incredible burden to move around.

Similarly, when GM introduced a hybrid Yukon, the city mileage jumped from 12 to 20, and the highway from 18 to 20.

Now, you may think that is pathetic. You are absolutely wrong. Let's do some math- 8/12 = 0.66667 = 67%. The hybrid system improved the city MPGs by 67 effing percent! Hybrids cannot work miracles. Without losing some serious bulk, the truck will never gain enough MPGs to hit the much-vaunted 30 MPG HW rating.

SUVs aren't any less reliable than cars. They are less structurally safe. However, the only worry is really from rollovers, which do not occur often enough (trust me, I've gotten a 96 Suburban on two wheels whipping around a corner) to require additional weight that will only lead to the manufacturers being crucified over lower MPGs. Federal standards are being changed to necessitate rollover testing though. The main danger from SUVs is simple momentum- get hit by one and you will lose in a crash. That's why I drive cars nimble enough to get the hell out of the way. That, and mine have more safety equipment than you can name, and it will get worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastramiX
Simply put, the auto companies and the government had the power to regulate SUVs and classify them as commercial trucks, like many pickups. Instead, the allowed the auto companies to buy into a target market cheaply, by selling inefficient, unsafe vehicles, that could have been of higher caliber, without a complete prohibition.
At what point do these considerations to parameters begin to contradict each other as well as interfere with the main design goal of the vehichle?

While I will admit improvements could always be made, some stuff is forgone simply by virtue of what type of vehicle said make model and brand is. Talk to an automotive engineer professor. He/she could tell you more than I ever could.
PastramiX- GTA's right. Changing a lot on them will only destroy the design goal of the vehicle. Furthermore, SUVs are not unsafe by design. Only in roll overs, which are a small percentage of accidents. A principle of engineering is the law of diminishing returns. While you could make the roof stronger still, it would add weight (impact MPGs negatively), add production and manufacturing complexity (increase cost to company and you), and increase development time, for what? a reduction from 1% to .9% deadly rollovers?

Think for a minute on the strength required to hold up a roof from 5500lbs. It's a lot. What you aren't aware of is that the SUV is already required to hold 150% of its weight on the roof in a rollover. They ALL meet this. The proposed rule change is to require 200%. If it did not meet it, it would not be sold. Of course the roof will fold, buckle, and crumple, no amount of engineering can defy physics! Crumpling is designed into the materials used, the shape of the A, B, C, D pillars, and the unibody design so that even after crumpling, the weight is supported without killing the inhabitants. I have seen a few roll overs of Explorers, and no, the roof does not kill people. Your fear is unwarranted.

That, and SUVs are classified the same as pickups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
My current Subaru Legacy is ~ 2700-3000 I think.
No, you, sir, are full of WIN. 95-99 gen? Details! Cheers!

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
Making it possible to do your homework and make informed decisions...now if only people would actually DO it.
That is the problem. Aside from car enthusiasts, who research the hell out of cars in most cases, most people just pop down to the dealer, pick out the car that looks cool, then wonder why it's a loaded pile of crap. Consumer's is a great resource.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2009, 01:52 PM   #42
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
Isn't it good business practice to make what your customer wants and what they're going to buy? The truth is Americans wanted bigger cars, and American car companies accommodated them and sold a ton of cars. What the car companies failed to do was foresee just how much the oil companies were going to screw over the world by jacking up the price per barrel to ridiculous levels on top of a mortgage collapse.

Executives wanted outrageous salaries, union workers wanted outrageous salaries, and no one wanted to take a good hard look at the balance sheet and tell anyone that they couldn't afford to do that and tell everyone to live within the means of the company.
Actually, a majority of car companies foreseen such future and still promoted SUV's and Hummers. The CEO's and board members believed it was a great short-term solution to get big profits, but whatever consequences came... they would be on the heads of their successors. As for the board members, they sold their stocks before the companies went belly-up. After that, it didn't matter what happened to the corporations.

It wasn't recklessness or stupidity, but deliberate acts of greed that these huge cars rolled off the production lines and these 'unprofitable,' but long-term investments in car design were not pursued. These CEO's and board members probably didn't expect that oil companies would jack of the prices as they had, but they did know that SUV's and Hummers were going to have a long-term negative effect as gasoline became more expensive and foreign cars became more favorable because of their fuel economy.

We shouldn't blame the current CEO's, but their predecessors who have retired; knowing that the consequences of their past actions wouldn't be their problem.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 05-08-2009 at 02:17 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2009, 09:23 PM   #43
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Actually, a majority of car companies foreseen such future and still promoted SUV's and Hummers. The CEO's and board members believed it was a great short-term solution to get big profits, but whatever consequences came... they would be on the heads of their successors. As for the board members, they sold their stocks before the companies went belly-up. After that, it didn't matter what happened to the corporations.
Proof. Seriously. I have not seen any board members selling their stock prior to the crap hitting the fan; that's called insider trading and is a felony. The first part of your paragraph is true, but not just for the automotive industry, and not just for the big three. Toyota, Honda, BMW, et al, all brought out the gargantuan whipping posts and made massive profits on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
It wasn't recklessness or stupidity, but deliberate acts of greed that these huge cars rolled off the production lines and these 'unprofitable,' but long-term investments in car design were not pursued. These CEO's and board members probably didn't expect that oil companies would jack of the prices as they had, but they did know that SUV's and Hummers were going to have a long-term negative effect as gasoline became more expensive and foreign cars became more favorable because of their fuel economy.
Are you in the R&D division for these companies? No? Then how do you know they did not have any research into the future? The simple, inescapable fact is that they built SUVs because a) demand was HUGE b) demand was HUGE c) low manufacturing cost combined with d) high market value and penetration results in e) high profits. Any business person worth their suit will tell you to pursue that which makes the most money and costs the least. Any engineer will make it cheaper, better, and more profitable. Seriously, hate on the vehicle all you want, but due to the ridiculously high demand for these silly vehicles, the manufacturers were more than happy to indulge and get rich.

Now....where did that money go?

NOT into the coffers of the shareholders, board members, and CEOs. These profits were reinvested into modernization of the assembly lines and factories, into new research and development of smaller cars, more fuel efficient technologies, hybrid tech (bet you didn't know this, but GM has been working with BMW on hybrid tech since the early 90s. World view shattered yet?) and more.

You, and everyone who is harping on the manufacturers for not having a product ready when the crises hit, is fundamentally ignorant of the basic tenets of manufacturing and product development. The simple fact is that it takes YEARS, yes, YEARS, to go from concept to production model rolling off the line. It is not anywhere as simple as seeing gas prices creep up quickly and snapping fingers to make a hybrid. If you think that....I sure as hell hope you realize how insane that is.

Take the new Dodge Ram truck. It is still a gas guzzler, hideous, overpowered, useless vehicle (for 90% of the population. 10% of buyers would actually use it for its purpose). However, back when the R&D cycle began on the new truck, shortly after 9/11 (yes, it really takes that long, and gas was around $1.25/gal), the working group asked owners of older Ram trucks what they would like changed. Among the highest wishes was for lower fuel consumption--higher MPGs, along with smoother ride, better ingress/egress, better storage, etc truck stuff. To address point number 1, to improve MPGs the engineering group made the truck much more aerodynamic without compromising its brand identity. They played with the gearing. They added cogs inside the transmission. The kept weight nearly the same. All this ads up to 1 or 2 more MPGs.

Sound poor? It's astounding, actually. The old model got 12/18 MPG. The new one? 14/19 MPG. That is a 16% increase in city MPGs, and is a number any engineer would be happy with. Quit expecting trucks to have Prius-like MPGs; it won't happen.

Now, as for the long term effect of "Hummers and SUVs."

They both burn lots of gas. Hummers account for barely a single percent of SUVs and far smaller percentage of on-road vehicles. For any statistical analysis on fuel consumption, they are irrelevant. Too few buyers. They are simply a symbol for people like you to beat like a dead horse.

Now, SUV impact on the earth. It's bad. I won't dispute that. Do you really think that car companies believed SUVs would always exist? Really? They have had R&D projects going on for decades regarding what happens when oil disappears or when the price skyrockets. How is this research funded? Oh yea...the highly profitable SUVs. Is the impact of an SUV any worse than that of a Prius? In terms of gas burned....yes. In terms of total environmental footprint? No. Prius requires mining for the batteries that only last 100k miles, shipping from Japan, and more. SUVs are simply welded metal. It comes out to more or less the same.

Why would the manufacturers switch from high profit SUVs, which people want, to almost zero-margin subcompacts, which people don't? Subcompacts have almost no profit margins at all. They are costlier to make, to engineer, and to manufacture. No business person in their right mind would advocate that if they want to avoid pissing away money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
We shouldn't blame the current CEO's, but their predecessors who have retired; knowing that the consequences of their past actions wouldn't be their problem.
Um.....no, we shouldn't blame anyone but the American car buyer. The CEO wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't come out with a product that is the perfect trifecta-- a) cheap to manufacture and advertise, b) high return on investment (profits), and c) something the audience wants. You, your family, and every single hypocrite who bought an SUV and then complains about it, you only have to look in the mirror to blame someone.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2009, 10:49 PM   #44
Darth Avlectus
Any other dumb remarks?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Driving a garbage truck
Posts: 4,228
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
So on rereading, I missed a good amount of stuff.
Well, such is LF. People post tons in peak hours. You can leave one minute come back the next and have a dozen posts come from outta nowhere.



Quote:
Agreed. There are many situations for needing a truck or SUV. Sadly, the demand for them is far more than the amount of people who actually need one.
Right there is probably the thesis, or at least a major reason for why we're all even having any discussion about econo car VS current car...
===
@ general audience: ...which we'll notice is a sub-discussion of the thread subject...so we should try to steer this back in that direction.
===
Yeah. Part of the problems could actually be attributed to the fact that people are not always going to buy economical.

I think Roxy had it right: Encourage (maybe using subtle nudges and by making more options available), as opposed to force, people to make wiser and more practical decisions.

Murph had a point too: we cannot, basically, hand treats out to everyone for every little thing.

My suggesiton: It needs to be something on the order of pragmatic and consequential.


Quote:
It all comes down to what you need the vehicle for. Most buyers of trucks and SUVs would be better served by a minivan that isn't designed to tow 500000lbs. Some aren't.
Well there you have it. Even in general: does it fit its purpose? Does it fit your purpose? What do you need? What can it do? Those sort of questions.

They claim they make it that strong b/c of the off chance that someone might just need that little bit extra--just in case. So it depends on the consumer's mind: Do I decide to be either more cost effective, or more sturdy? This is where the conflict comes in that the market allows choice to override what might be a wiser decision. So it depends on the type of general decision making process the person is most likely to use, generally.


Quote:
I know what you mean. I taught an ex how to change the oil on her 05ish Honda Civic. It is impossible to find the damn oil filter! (Protip: it's over the front axle....which is great when you get oil spilled all over it and exhaust manifolds. Yum!)
I recall mine was in an odd place inaccessible from anywhere but underneath. It was somewhere similar if I do recall. Lovely that you could not help but to have some spill all over your arm at the least due to the position you were forced to be in just to replace the filter.

Quote:
The size of the car doesn't dictate the ease of maintenance though.
The inherent habitual tendency of their designs certainly do, though.

Quote:
The hybrid system improved the city MPGs by 67 effing percent! Hybrids cannot work miracles. Without losing some serious bulk, the truck will never gain enough MPGs to hit the much-vaunted 30 MPG HW rating.
Hollow brick is more likely to crumble and shatter upon impact.

Losing bulk will in turn, reduce its effectiveness for its other purposes. Also since we touched on reliability and safety we must consider a lighter vehicle is more prone to severe damages including that which may harm the vehicle's occupants.


Quote:
PastramiX- GTA's right. Changing a lot on them will only destroy the design goal of the vehicle. Furthermore, SUVs are not unsafe by design. Only in roll overs, which are a small percentage of accidents. A principle of engineering is the law of diminishing returns.
Which ironically is a concept first learned in economics
Quote:
While you could make the roof stronger still, it would add weight (impact MPGs negatively), add production and manufacturing complexity (increase cost to company and you), and increase development time, for what? a reduction from 1% to .9% deadly rollovers?
Presumably people realize what they are basically getting into with their choices in the first place. Though many don't and some information made available would go a long way if people thought about these sorts of things more than they do.


Quote:
No, you, sir, are full of WIN. 95-99 gen? Details! Cheers!
A 1993 legacy. Automatic. A little old man in his 90's owned it. Could not drive it anymore, was sad to see it go. It had only ~22,800 miles on it. Maroon. Looks dark red most of time, though kinda purple in the late afternoon shade...and in stormy days.

My little sister got one nearly identical '94. Dark red. More driven, replaced stick-shift transmission. Thing has *scary* takeoff from a standstill. She's scarier...

Quote:
That is the problem. Aside from car enthusiasts, who research the hell out of cars in most cases, most people just pop down to the dealer, pick out the car that looks cool, then wonder why it's a loaded pile of crap. Consumer's is a great resource.
Sadly: Until doing your homework looks cooler to the general populace...I'm afraid duping idiots is in part how the free market works, my friend. Ce` la'vie.

I think most people would agree??? Anyone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Actually, a majority of car companies foreseen such future and still promoted SUV's and Hummers. The CEO's and board members believed it was a great short-term solution to get big profits, but whatever consequences came... they would be on the heads of their successors. As for the board members, they sold their stocks before the companies went belly-up. After that, it didn't matter what happened to the corporations.
Which is why as a free marketeer I advocate both being your own self advocate, and doing the responsible thing in the end.

Quote:
It wasn't recklessness or stupidity, but deliberate acts of greed that these huge cars rolled off the production lines and these 'unprofitable,' but long-term investments in car design were not pursued. These CEO's and board members probably didn't expect that oil companies would jack of the prices as they had, but they did know that SUV's and Hummers were going to have a long-term negative effect as gasoline became more expensive and foreign cars became more favorable because of their fuel economy.
I think while such might stand to reason...until you have definitive proof of their intent... I'm afraid it will be up to circumstance to ultimately convict them of any wrongdoing. Sometimes it jumps up and bites them, but often it does not. Sure. It sucks, but what can we do?

Were there any evidence, don't you believe these people would already be in shackles? I certainly do.

Quote:
We shouldn't blame the current CEO's, but their predecessors who have retired; knowing that the consequences of their past actions wouldn't be their problem.
Agreed. But how are we going to chase them down without evidence? Also, you're now fighting them now that they are more wealthy and powerful.

It would take
1) the building of evidence over a long period of time.
2) constructing a timeline of events and checking it against verifiable data
3) constructing a testimony that casts guilt over the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's not fair. However, the laws being what they are both in government and nature of reality, everything unfortunately just kind of falls into place. It bothers the hell out of me. I hate it when they take the money while knowingly lacking merit for it, and run...especially when that direction of their running is for office. But what can you do? Make laws? That becomes like hay in the needle stack. Especially considering 'the office' is where the money is: you need it to get in, you make a ton of it before you get out. The jackals you have making the laws were the ones ripping you off in the first place. Which is partially why I hold such bitter disdain for politicians.

Thing is this: I'm all for making as much $ as you possibly can, provided it is on merit. People generally agree with that. There are further rewards down the less materialistic path, but the greedy don't see it that way. So long as there is no physical incentive to do business that is always actually merited...so long as that potential goldmine exists by screwing everyone else over...this problem will keep occurring. Unfortunately, government laws can't ultimately make these people change and be any better people EITHER if you try to change the way things are.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-09-2009, 01:37 AM   #45
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
My bad bimmerman, I saw BMW520. Didn't see it was the 520d. I was thinking that the BMW 520 outdid the Prius. Of course, I think I would rather cruise around in the BMW than a Prius ANY day haha. Of course the V6 Camaro gets 29MPG and has 305HP sooooo.... I think that's good enough for me... especially when I start swapping out gears hehe... yeah right... Probably going to get the 425HP V8 with 26 MPG... and a shiney third pedal(auto is optional, but come on... THIRD PEDAL!!!!). What... it's a hybrid... it burns gas and rubber.

Of the big 3 GM is winning the MPG war as well. hating GM is funny. The V6 and V8 versions have better highway AND CITY MPG than the other two muscle cars. GM and BMW have been working hard to bridge the gap between what people want and fuel economy. Actually all the manufacturers are.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2009, 07:46 PM   #46
John Galt
Junior Member
 
John Galt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Galt's Gulch
Posts: 474
A thought on the subject: If the auto industry oligopoly is broken, we might actually see some real innovation instead of largely aesthetic changes every few years. Of course, bringing real competition into the auto industry is probably not the sort of change that the Obama administration would like to occur on its watch...





Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. -Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse
John Galt is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2009, 02:15 PM   #47
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
A thought on the subject: If the auto industry oligopoly is broken, we might actually see some real innovation instead of largely aesthetic changes every few years. Of course, bringing real competition into the auto industry is probably not the sort of change that the Obama administration would like to occur on its watch...
What do you define to be innovation?

Off of the top of my head, in the last three or so years, the following innovations have been produced:

-Fuel Cell Cars
-Hydrogen and Gasoline internal combustion flex fuel cars
-Clean diesel cars that pass US emissions laws (much harder than EU4 regs)
-Direct Injection for gasoline cars
-Variable valve timing
-Variable valve lift
-Emissions equipment that does not sap power
-8spd autotragic transmissions
-6spd dual clutch automated manual transmissions
-More horsepower out of an engine with lower emissions and better fuel economy
-Significantly safer cars
-Flex fuel cars
-Hybrids for the fashionistas
-Incredibly sticky rubber that also lasts a long time
-Low rolling resistance tires
-Active safety devices
- and much more

Now, go through that list, and note I did not specify the automakers involved. That is because EVERY automaker, including everyone's favorite whipping posts, have made significant innovations in those fields.

It takes much more time than anyone realizes to bring a product from the R&D stage to the production stage. When it does reach mass production, most people do not notice the difference, or the improvement. Saying that there is no innovation going on right now is frankly ignorant. Just because it GM doesn't have a car with "FUEL CELL" stickers on it does NOT mean they are not innovating, nor does it mean they have not released any truly innovative products lately.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-23-2009, 03:21 PM   #48
Darth Avlectus
Any other dumb remarks?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Driving a garbage truck
Posts: 4,228
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
^^^Nobody will get another word into this thread without the resident car expert having something to say in response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by =Bimmerman
It takes much more time than anyone realizes to bring a product from the R&D stage to the production stage. When it does reach mass production, most people do not notice the difference, or the improvement. Saying that there is no innovation going on right now is frankly ignorant. Just because it GM doesn't have a car with "FUEL CELL" stickers on it does NOT mean they are not innovating, nor does it mean they have not released any truly innovative products lately.

Hence the differences between a) those with masters or even PhDs in some kind of engineering versus the rest of us in the Bachelor's or Associate's. Those at the top are designing it at its every aspect while the rest of us are merely building the box it's supposed to go into.

As for the rest of your sentiment: I do truly wonder how many "disappointments" in popular media and publication are put out there simply because people bring preconceived notions or inflate expectations to the table.

While there is definite pragmatism that needs to be looked into from the firm's side of things, there are so many of the little things that happen to remain unnoticed. It's almost like the people are conditioned to NOT see these things. Unless the media producers are happy, nobody else is supposed to be. I'll make up my own mind, TYVM!

I second your emphasis: Just b/c it's not what certain of media head an "groups" want to see, doesn't make it any less of a breakthrough.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 06:29 PM   #49
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
^^^Nobody will get another word into this thread without the resident car expert having something to say in response.
Hahahaha thanks, but I'm happy to discuss cars. I just want to set the record straight and be fair to all makers, I don't like bashing for the sake of bashing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
Hence the differences between a) those with masters or even PhDs in some kind of engineering versus the rest of us in the Bachelor's or Associate's. Those at the top are designing it at its every aspect while the rest of us are merely building the box it's supposed to go into.
Well, I don't have a masters or a PhD (yet), but am more of a student of history and an avid reader and researcher. I absorb anything I read on automotive technology, and frequently debate/analyze with my coworkers and car nut friends on new tech. I am an engineer though, that's where it all started.

Production gaffes are quite common really-- it has happened numerous times in every industry where a company sees a niche, develops a product, only to introduce it to a vanished market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
As for the rest of your sentiment: I do truly wonder how many "disappointments" in popular media and publication are put out there simply because people bring preconceived notions or inflate expectations to the table.
Far too many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
While there is definite pragmatism that needs to be looked into from the firm's side of things, there are so many of the little things that happen to remain unnoticed. It's almost like the people are conditioned to NOT see these things. Unless the media producers are happy, nobody else is supposed to be. I'll make up my own mind, TYVM!

I second your emphasis: Just b/c it's not what certain of media head an "groups" want to see, doesn't make it any less of a breakthrough.
Exactly! It may not be PC, but a breakthrough is a breakthrough. While it may not be impressive initially, it will be further refined and developed.

Anyway, to get this topic back on topic somewhat, now that the Obama administration has essentially dictated the terms of Chrysler's bankruptcy as well as GM's forthcoming bankruptcy, what are all of your thoughts? I find it blatantly unconstitutional, monopolistic, and reprehensible. The UAW now owns a majority stake in Chrysler, and will with GM. What the union doesn't have, the Government does. Only 9% of GM belongs to the bondholders now, which is despicable.

I'm having serious thoughts about voting for Obama again over this flagrant unconstitutional behavior. This is wrong, and should not occur.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-28-2009, 08:03 PM   #50
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Yeah the latest developments on what the two HAVE to do for their bankruptcy is at best troubling. I really don't like how it's looking for Chrysler, and it looks to be a foreshadowing of what GM will be facing. Not a pretty sight. What's really sad is that this comes on the heels of some really big breakthroughs. I mean the Circuit EV Dodge has planned looks like an EV I would actually want(0-60 in 4 seconds!). GM with their FCEV's. Just darned bad timing.

I think it's kind of scary that the Government is delving into business ownership. I mean they seem soo good at managing cash these days(If I need a sarcasm tag for that you should beat yourself)


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2009, 11:49 AM   #51
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,911
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
The Supreme Court just put the brakes on Fiat's buyout of Chrysler (pun fully intended). I'm wondering if Chrysler's going to go completely down the tubes now.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2009, 01:45 PM   #52
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 

I was sorta hoping Fiat would get a chance to turn things around, if only because they A seems like a rather good match (I.E chryshler has volume, Fiat has the cars the market wants) and B: because Fiats CEO has allready turned one company around.
Still, Fiat says they aren't pulling out yet, so maybe it will work out in the end.

Oh, and I would also like to thank GM for signing up for a deal made in hell, with unions and Putinists controlling enough shares to make the future for GM, eh, interesting for lack of a better word. At least car news will be fun for a while (though I would prefer if the news would stop chanting "Putin saved the US).
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2009, 04:44 PM   #53
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
The Supreme Court just put the brakes on Fiat's buyout of Chrysler (pun fully intended). I'm wondering if Chrysler's going to go completely down the tubes now.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/08/b...ysler-to-fiat/

I'm a bit less than happy, but it's only a temporary stay. Hopefully a solution is found that appeases all sides, including shareholders. To hell with the union, the shareholders are far more important. The UAW can die in a fire for all the good they've caused. Seriously, they've had everything given to them on a silver platter; no other industry gives someone who hasn't necessarily graduated from high school such a high paying job with perfect job security and obscene benefits. Many college graduates make less!

I really hope that through bankruptcy that someone will grow a spine and change things regarding the union that ruined GM and Chrysler.....but I doubt anything will happen. I blame the UAW's protectionist policies faaaaaar more than the executive issues, of which there have been many. Boo hiss die in a fire.



A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz

Last edited by Bimmerman; 06-09-2009 at 04:49 PM.
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2009, 03:16 AM   #54
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,778
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Well, the USSC has cleared the deck. Looks like Fiat shall now get their chance.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2009, 12:59 PM   #55
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
I want one of those t-shirts.

God, how I hate the UAW.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2009, 01:09 PM   #56
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,911
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Fiat has gone ahead with taking over Chrysler. We have a Chrysler plant in town that's scheduled to shut down because Chrysler used the gov't buyout dollars to build a plant to do the same thing in Mexico. Maybe Fiat will do something else with the plant so we don't lose all these jobs. It's one of the big employers in our town.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > GM and Chrysler bailouts

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:45 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.