The Bailout That Won't - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 07:23 AM Thread Starter
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!
 
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
The Bailout That Won't

Good writeup from the Wall Street Journal

Quote:
Leave it to Bob Lutz, GM's voluble vice chairman, to puncture the unreality of the auto bailout he himself has been championing. In an email to Ward's Auto World, he notes an obvious flaw in Congress's rescue plan now taking shape: The fuel-efficient "green" cars GM, Ford and Chrysler profess to be thrilled to be developing at Congress's behest will be unsellable unless gas prices are much higher than today's.

"Very few people will want to change what has been their 'nationality-given' right to drive big and bigger if the price of gas is $1.50 or $2.00 or even $2.50," Mr. Lutz explained. "Those prices will put the CAFE-mandated manufacturers at war with their customers -- and no one will win in that battle."

Translation: To become "viable," as Congress chooses crazily to understand the term, the Big Three are setting out to squander billions on products that will have to be dumped on consumers at a loss.

None of this was mentioned at four days of congressional bailout hearings, because Detroit knows better than to suggest Congress has a role in the industry's problem. Yet its own recently updated Corporate Average Fuel Economy regime, or CAFE, makes a mockery of the idea that government money will render the companies profitable, even as the same bailout bill demands that the Big Three drop their legal challenge to a California mileage mandate even more unsustainable than the federal government's.

Forget Chrysler, which has needed a bailout from Washington or Stuttgart in three of the last four recessions. The tragedy of GM and Ford is that, inside each, are perfectly viable businesses, albeit that have been slowly murdered over 30 years by CAFE. Both have decent global operations. At home, both have successful, profitable businesses selling pickups, SUVs and other larger vehicles to willing consumers, despite having to pay high UAW wages.

All this is dragged down by federal fuel-economy mandates that require them to lose tens of billions making small cars Americans don't want in high-cost UAW factories. Understand something: Ford and GM in Europe successfully sell cars that are small but not cheap. Europeans are willing to pay top dollar for a refined small car that gets excellent mileage, because they face gasoline prices as high as $9. Americans are not Europeans. In the U.S., except during bouts of high gas prices or in the grip of a Prius fad, the small cars that American consumers buy aren't bought for high mileage, but for low sticker prices. And the Big Three, with their high labor costs, cannot deliver as much value in a cheap car as the transplants can.

Under a law of politics, such truths were unmentionable in last week's televised circus because legislators are unwilling to do anything about them. They won't repeal CAFE because they fear the greens. They won't repeal CAFE's "two fleets" rule (which effectively requires the Big Three to make small cars in domestic factories) because they fear the UAW. They won't hike gas prices because they fear voters.

And make no mistake: An even more massive auto wreck lies ahead when a soon-to-be taxpayer-financed and taxpayer-owned auto industry confronts a California rulemaking that, in a silly gesture against global warming, would render most of its auto designs, profit centers and tooling unsalvageable.

We hate to admit it, but the only good idea from the bailout debate is the proposal for a new "auto czar." Along with disposing of Chrysler and downsizing Ford and GM, his job should be to confront Congress with its own policy cowardice and failure. If saving gasoline and Detroit are both worthy goals, let's ditch CAFE and institute a gasoline tax to make consumers value the cars government is forcing auto makers to build. If Congress doesn't have the tummy for that, at least ditch the "two fleets" rule so Detroit can import small cars to meet the mandate.

Alas, Barack Obama's vaunted "change" apparently doesn't include spending the political capital to make Congress acknowledge the failure of CAFE. If he can't do better than throw taxpayer money at a dismal policy disaster like our fuel-economy regulations (and so far he seems to be joining Congress in pretending it's all Detroit's fault), we might as well give up on his presidency along with any hope of progress on the nation's other unresolved dilemmas.

His campaign never really answered the question of whether he was Chance the Gardener or Abraham Lincoln. We might as well find out now.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

http://www.theboyetts.com

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 07:42 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Look at E-85 and the cars that can use it. (not counting hot rods that use it)
They get 30% less MPG than when ran on gas. E-85 still has .50 tax credit on it and its only .10-.25 less than gas WTF. Anyone that uses this stuff to save .25/gal and then uses 30% more of it is just stupid, but these are the same people that voted in obama who is tied directly to corn subsidies . I bet that before its over the .50 tax credit will be added to the price of gas or better yet put it on diesel we are used to being fucked.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #3 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 08:25 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Bob Lutz is a smart man who tells it like it is.
AL P is offline  
 
post #4 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 08:45 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
I keep hearing how the CAFE averages are killing the US auto makers, and yet the japanese and korean makers are subject to the same standard, and apparently are staying in business. I see it as a red herring; I guess that they want to keep making the big SUVs and keep getting the same fat profits just like before. Also, the market for fuel efficient vehicles is pretty tough to compete in. And anyone that thinks gas prices are going to stay low for a long time is kidding themselves.

It all boils down to their cost to manufacture a vehicle, and the quality of said vehicle. The US automakers cannot yet compete on #1, and #2 is getting better but the public perception is not there yet.
mikeb is offline  
post #5 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 09:10 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
For the most part the American people want big trucks and suv's thats why the big three made so many of them. If people were not buying them I think they would have stoped makeing them a long time ago. Besides, GM has some of the best cafe standards with the cobalt and there fullsize truck. Hell my HD2500 gets 18mpg in town and around 22mpg on the hwy and yet the government has fucked that up by making ULSD requirement which jacks up the price of diesel. Show me a Toyota, Nissian truck that will do what mine can. You cant.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #6 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 09:15 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
I keep hearing how the CAFE averages are killing the US auto makers, and yet the japanese and korean makers are subject to the same standard, and apparently are staying in business. I see it as a red herring; I guess that they want to keep making the big SUVs and keep getting the same fat profits just like before. Also, the market for fuel efficient vehicles is pretty tough to compete in. And anyone that thinks gas prices are going to stay low for a long time is kidding themselves.

It all boils down to their cost to manufacture a vehicle, and the quality of said vehicle. The US automakers cannot yet compete on #1, and #2 is getting better but the public perception is not there yet.
CAFE is a fleet average. The Japanese have traditionally made the smaller cars that get better mileage. The American car makers have had success with trucks and SUVs. In order to make the average work the American car makers have had to sell a small car that offsets their truck sales in order to meet the fleetwide average.

The CAFE requirement is set by politicians under pressure from greenies and not anyone with R&D experience, that is the problem. You can't just pull a number out of a hat, vote it in and expect the carmakers to magically meet it. Then stand around with your thumb in your ass wondering why the American carmakers are getting sunk by R&D costs. It has worked in the past because cars weren't all that efficient to begin with. You can only take efficiency so far.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #7 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 09:53 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
CAFE is a fleet average. The Japanese have traditionally made the smaller cars that get better mileage. The American car makers have had success with trucks and SUVs. In order to make the average work the American car makers have had to sell a small car that offsets their truck sales in order to meet the fleetwide average.

The CAFE requirement is set by politicians under pressure from greenies and not anyone with R&D experience, that is the problem. You can't just pull a number out of a hat, vote it in and expect the carmakers to magically meet it. Then stand around with your thumb in your ass wondering why the American carmakers are getting sunk by R&D costs. It has worked in the past because cars weren't all that efficient to begin with. You can only take efficiency so far.
I understand that, but it is hard to make the case that the rule is unfair when other car companies are subject to it and are still in business. The US automakers had years to design smaller, more fuel efficient cars and instead of doing so they filed lawsuits and pumped out large suvs and pickups instead. I think that this is one of the reasons that the senate is basically for allowing them to go under - failure to innovate.
mikeb is offline  
post #8 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 09:56 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
I understand that, but it is hard to make the case that the rule is unfair when other car companies are subject to it and are still in business. The US automakers had years to design smaller, more fuel efficient cars and instead of doing so they filed lawsuits and pumped out large suvs and pickups instead. I think that this is one of the reasons that the senate is basically for allowing them to go under - failure to innovate.
Why would you build something that people don't want?

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #9 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:01 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67camino
Why would you build something that people don't want?
Apparently people buy shitloads of hondas, toyotas, nissans, kias, ect. So how you get that people don't want fuel efficient vehices?
mikeb is offline  
post #10 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:04 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Apparently people buy shitloads of hondas, toyotas, nissans, kias, ect. So how you get that people don't want fuel efficient vehices?
I'm just saying that people wanted big SUV"s and Trucks why do you think they built so many of them if gas had never gone to 4/gal we would not be having this argument and people would still be buying them.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #11 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:24 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
I understand that, but it is hard to make the case that the rule is unfair when other car companies are subject to it and are still in business. The US automakers had years to design smaller, more fuel efficient cars and instead of doing so they filed lawsuits and pumped out large suvs and pickups instead. I think that this is one of the reasons that the senate is basically for allowing them to go under - failure to innovate.
The foreign companies don't have a hard time meeting the requirements because they don't sell trucks. It's hard to meet CAFE requirements when no one wants your small cars.

I don't know why anyone would think such retarded requirements are a good idea. It's counter to the idea of a free market.
AL P is offline  
post #12 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:45 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67camino
I'm just saying that people wanted big SUV"s and Trucks why do you think they built so many of them if gas had never gone to 4/gal we would not be having this argument and people would still be buying them.
Yes, but gas did go to $4 a gallon, and will probably be there again some day. Oil exploration has surely fallen off given the current price for a barrel of oil, insuring the next "shortage" and subsequent price hike.

You know, energy price hikes aren't new. It started with the oil embargo in 1974. I was there and remember those days. Gas has been on the increase ever since.

While GM was building and selling those suvs (and making fat profits), I have to wonder if they ever considered preparing for the day when they could no longer sell them? Just two years ago I got rid of a gas guzzling F150 when gas crossed $3.30 a gallon due to a hurricane. Surely someone at GM was paying attention, right? Doesn't seem so, we got more suvs. I don't know if it was being short sighted or being obstanate, but GM didn't pay attention to the warning signs, and now the piper has come to call.
mikeb is offline  
post #13 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:49 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
The foreign companies don't have a hard time meeting the requirements because they don't sell trucks.
http://www.nissanusa.com/trucks/

http://www.toyota.com/tundra/index.html

http://automobiles.honda.com/ridgeline/

I will grant you that they are losing their asses on these trucks and plants are closing.
mikeb is offline  
post #14 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:53 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
All I'm trying to say is that they built what the marketplace wanted, thats it. And 3 years ago they were ramping up into the E-85 bullshit still are in order to keep that government $$$$ they are getting because of it. Now that gas is .10 to .25 more than E-85 you would be a fool to buy it.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #15 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:55 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Agree on the E85. It gets less mileage than regular gas and in the end it costs more. It only takes a couple of sensors, some additional programming in the computer, and some hardened gas system components for it, so I don't see that the cost of a flexfuel vehicle to the manufacturer is all that great. E85 runs good in my race car, though

And yes, they did build what would sell but apparently had no backup plan when those trucks quit selling.
mikeb is offline  
post #16 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:55 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
http://www.nissanusa.com/trucks/

http://www.toyota.com/tundra/index.html

http://automobiles.honda.com/ridgeline/

I will grant you that they are losing their asses on these trucks and plants are closing.
Those are not real work trucks. and your right they are closing plants that make them. But they are still doing good because there more into the car market and the UAW aint fucking up their profit margin.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #17 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:57 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
http://www.nissanusa.com/trucks/

http://www.toyota.com/tundra/index.html

http://automobiles.honda.com/ridgeline/

I will grant you that they are losing their asses on these trucks and plants are closing.
Come on man, of course they are selling trucks, its not like they are moving hundreds of thousands of units though. Its all about the average fuel economy of what you sell.

The Geo Metro, do you think GM made any money on that shit? CAFE forced GM to sell that junk.

It's like Congress mandating that foreign companies HAVE to sell trucks. They don't do trucks well and never have. They'd be up shit creek!

Granted you have a point about the companies being better prepared and such. I agree with that, they should have planned ahead. I just can't get over the fact that Congress needs to get out of the car business. Instead they are getting deeper into it.

"I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt
AL P is offline  
post #18 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:57 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
http://www.nissanusa.com/trucks/

http://www.toyota.com/tundra/index.html

http://automobiles.honda.com/ridgeline/

I will grant you that they are losing their asses on these trucks and plants are closing.
Turnabout is fair play. Nissan and Toyota decided to get on the full-size V-8 powered pickup truck bandwagon and got bitch-slapped for it.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #19 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:58 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Agree on the E85. It gets less mileage than regular gas and in the end it costs more. Runs good in my race car, though

And yes, they did build what would sell but apparently had no backup plan when those trucks quit selling.
Some people have to have a truck for what ever reason. Its hard to get your 10'000lb skidloader to the job sit with your honda, nissian, or toyota of any type.

That E-85 shit wont run in my race car

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #20 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:59 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67camino
Those are not real work trucks. and your right they are closing plants that make them. But they are still doing good because there more into the car market and the UAW aint fucking up their profit margin.
for the purposes of discussing CAFE, they are.
mikeb is offline  
post #21 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 11:02 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by AL P
Granted you have a point about the companies being better prepared and such. I agree with that, they should have planned ahead. I just can't get over the fact that Congress needs to get out of the car business. Instead they are getting deeper into it.
This I agree with. It looks like the senate is going to allow the companies to fail. While I am concerned with the possible pension and unemployment cost to the taxpayer chapter 11 gives them a fresh start. A car czar? Terrible idea.
mikeb is offline  
post #22 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 11:04 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
for the purposes of discussing CAFE, they are.
Agreed they do fall in the under 8500gvw cat. But you still dont see them in large fleet operations.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #23 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 11:09 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67camino
Agreed they do fall in the under 8500gvw cat. But you still dont see them in large fleet operations.
Agreed, no self respecting real texan would be caught dead in one (except sneaky ). Even when they filmed that add where the nissan/toyota/whatever truck was on the ramp and stopped quickly, etc you could spot F150s in the background.
mikeb is offline  
post #24 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 11:24 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Ever wonder why foreign companies make more money besides not being a part of a Union.


Now, the U.S. car companies find themselves in the lurch. They are asking the government for what amounts to a $25 billion loan at a very favorable interest rate -- about 4.5 percent per annum -- to help pull themselves up. They are being told to get lost.

It is a hypocritical response.

What gets me is that there is not one foreign car company manufacturing in the United States that has not received millions of dollars in government aid -- usually via local and state tax incentives and abatements that ultimately have a federal tax impact. Toyota in Kentucky got government aid. Hyundai in Alabama got government help. Nissan in Tennessee received hefty tax breaks.

But here are GM, Ford and Chrysler asking for a loan, which they are vowing to repay. Beggars! Profligates! Go away!

"They make stuff. Companies that actually make stuff -- manufacture things -- don't get any respect in America," said Lou Ann Hammond, an automotive and energy writer living in California.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #25 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 11:38 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67camino
Ever wonder why foreign companies make more money besides not being a part of a Union.


Now, the U.S. car companies find themselves in the lurch. They are asking the government for what amounts to a $25 billion loan at a very favorable interest rate -- about 4.5 percent per annum -- to help pull themselves up. They are being told to get lost.

It is a hypocritical response.

What gets me is that there is not one foreign car company manufacturing in the United States that has not received millions of dollars in government aid -- usually via local and state tax incentives and abatements that ultimately have a federal tax impact. Toyota in Kentucky got government aid. Hyundai in Alabama got government help. Nissan in Tennessee received hefty tax breaks.

But here are GM, Ford and Chrysler asking for a loan, which they are vowing to repay. Beggars! Profligates! Go away!

"They make stuff. Companies that actually make stuff -- manufacture things -- don't get any respect in America," said Lou Ann Hammond, an automotive and energy writer living in California.
They got state and local loans and concessions from states without an auto maker presence in order to create local jobs - no federal money. Now if the big three were to offer to create a new plant in a southern state they might get similar concessions, but the UAW would never allow it to happen. Thus, the UAW needs to get the boot.
mikeb is offline  
post #26 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 11:58 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Thus, the UAW needs to get the boot.
Agreed

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #27 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 12:21 PM
BP
Keep your unicorns
 
BP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: At the Dexter Lake Club
Posts: 12,422
CAFE isn't a bad thing but just like nearly every other brainbuster the government comes up with it's not being enforced properly. How do you make someone have an average fuel economy across a product line but let them build something specifically to get around the CAFE rules? Even better write another law encouraging people to buy these same vehicles because they can be 100% written off come income tax time as a business expense.

We'll have tons of hybrids for a few years and probably some electric cars and their will be massive tax credits to encourage everyone to buy them. Then when the markets stabilize they'll get killed off slowly after the tax credits dry up.

Buell 1125R
Raptor 700R
No fast cars though
BP is offline  
post #28 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 12:31 PM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Thought this was funny but true.

Give Carmakers a Little Respect -- and a Loan


By Warren Brown
Sunday, September 7, 2008; Page G02

CORNWALL, N.Y.

It's too bad that General Motors is little more than an American manufacturing company providing American jobs. It gets no respect from the U.S. government.

The same can be said of Ford and Chrysler, beggars all -- and all of whom are being treated as such by the U.S. political and financial establishments.

The domestic car companies should turn themselves into a foreign government. Iraq is an example. Then, they should declare themselves open for democracy and economic development, whether their native constituents want it or not. That should get the U.S. Treasury dollars flowing.

Better still, maybe the domestic car companies should just get out of making cars and trucks altogether. They could use whatever money they have left after liquidation to set up a business making risky mortgage loans. That should win federal favor.

I mean, it's downright embarrassing, watching Detroit automobile executives running around Washington and the Democratic and Republican national conventions, as they were in Denver and in St. Paul, Minn., over the past two weeks, begging for loans and mostly getting the bum's rush.

It's demeaning.

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #29 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 03:59 PM
gear jammer
 
bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: out west
Posts: 2,373
The main reason to me the Big 3 couldn't sell small cars is they're ugly as shit. For proof just look at the Dodge Caliber and Chevy Aveo.

Live..ride..dream


1998 Suzuki TL1000
1983 HD FXSB
bucky is offline  
post #30 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 06:06 PM
T5-T56-Tremec specialist
 
thesource's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heading back to Plentywood
Posts: 8,389
Given the choice , I would drive a full size truck over a small car . I actually have both a 4 door F250 and a Cavalier . I drive the wheels off the Cavalier for two reasons . (1) I had to adjust to driving it all the time because fuel prices went through the roof on diesel and (2) I bought the car for my MIL and she could not get financed on it so I am in the process of driving my money invested out of it .

I know low fuel prices are hurting some industries but damn it was nice to fill up the Cavalier @ $1.47 a gallon today .
thesource is offline  
post #31 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 07:01 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky
The main reason to me the Big 3 couldn't sell small cars is they're ugly as shit. For proof just look at the Dodge Caliber and Chevy Aveo.
I also agree with this. IMO they should:

1. Fire the current designers. Go find some hungry college kids with fresh ideas and artistic skilz and hire them. Turn them loose and see what happens. And it's not just the small cars; the cars and trucks are all squared off and ugly.

2. Get the bean counters out of the design loop. Maybe bring them in after the design is done, but limit their decisions.

3. Bring in the cars you sell in Europe, and sell them here. We know we're getting 2nd best in many cases.

4. Produce some cars with fuel efficient diesels. Europe runs on them, why not here?

5. Turn your powertrain engineers loose. Come up with some fresh thinking, not just cylinder deactiviation that you had in the 70s. Fords work with direct cylinder injection is progress in this direction. There is a bright future here for small, turbocharged engines.

6. Warranty - bumper to bumper 100k miles. Stand behind your product.

7. Dealers - must toe the line and quit trying to fuck people on warranty repairs and on repairs in general. A large part of people being turned off on american cars has to do with getting worked over at a dealer in the past.

8. Automakers - pay the dealers fairly for warranty work. Revise the SLTS to reflect reality. If you believe a cylinder head can be swapped in 30 minutes then prove it. Mechanics are a part of the equation and screwing them out of honest wages to increase profits is wrong.

Just some of my ideas.
mikeb is offline  
post #32 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 09:01 PM
Lifer
 
Ylw 98~~SNAKE~~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: DFW
Posts: 13,083
Republicans killed the bailout look for a rough day tomorrow on wall street for the big 3

98 Brokra
Ylw 98~~SNAKE~~ is offline  
post #33 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 09:10 PM
dead
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 14,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ylw 98~~SNAKE~~
Republicans killed the bailout look for a rough day tomorrow on wall street for the big 3


hell ya! now if i could just get oil to come back down a bit.
momo stallion is offline  
post #34 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 09:15 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: smithville
Posts: 1,993
what a chevy aveo with boost? lmao

reminds me of walters bit on a prius.lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf81dE4DS20

RON PAUL '08
fast83 is offline  
post #35 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:10 PM
BP
Keep your unicorns
 
BP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: At the Dexter Lake Club
Posts: 12,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ylw 98~~SNAKE~~
Republicans killed the bailout look for a rough day tomorrow on wall street for the big 3
No they didn't, the UAW did. The Republicans wanted some sort of chance of possibly getting the money back some day.

Buell 1125R
Raptor 700R
No fast cars though
BP is offline  
post #36 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-11-2008, 10:18 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by BP
the UAW did
dumbasses. What do they hope to gain by hardcore negotiations at this point? The game is over.
mikeb is offline  
post #37 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-12-2008, 06:38 AM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
I also agree with this. IMO they should:

1. Fire the current designers. Go find some hungry college kids with fresh ideas and artistic skilz and hire them. Turn them loose and see what happens. And it's not just the small cars; the cars and trucks are all squared off and ugly.

2. Get the bean counters out of the design loop. Maybe bring them in after the design is done, but limit their decisions.

3. Bring in the cars you sell in Europe, and sell them here. We know we're getting 2nd best in many cases.

4. Produce some cars with fuel efficient diesels. Europe runs on them, why not here?

5. Turn your powertrain engineers loose. Come up with some fresh thinking, not just cylinder deactiviation that you had in the 70s. Fords work with direct cylinder injection is progress in this direction. There is a bright future here for small, turbocharged engines.

6. Warranty - bumper to bumper 100k miles. Stand behind your product.

7.Dealers must toe the line and quit trying to fuck people on warranty repairs and on repairs in general. A large part of people being turned off on american cars has to do with getting worked over at a dealer in the past.

8. Automakers - pay the dealers fairly for warranty work. Revise the SLTS to reflect reality. If you believe a cylinder head can be swapped in 30 minutes then prove it. Mechanics are a part of the equation and screwing them out of honest wages to increase profits is wrong.

Just some of my ideas.
1.Agreed

2.Agreed

3.Congress wont let them. Most of these cars wont pass emissions or saftey standards of this country.

4.The price of Diesel would sky rocket. They also have cleaner more efficient diesel in Europe.

5.Cylinder deactiviation of today does work, but why the hell would you put it in a heavy truck?

6.Most Do.

7.Not all dealers fuck people but most do.

8.Agreed, but most off the time I can beat book time if I have the correct tool. So maybe they need to quit coming with new shit that requires a new tool every month.

9.GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
post #38 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-12-2008, 08:15 AM
dead
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 14,611
motherfuck, damn, son of a bitch!

the white house and treasury are seeking to loan the 14 billion despite the actions of congress.

FUCK COMMUNISM. we elected these people (congress) to make these decisions on the behalf of the people for what? to get over-turned by the worst treasury department ever? fuck this and fuck the government.
momo stallion is offline  
post #39 of 39 (permalink) Old 12-12-2008, 12:54 PM
Lifer
 
67camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nevada,Texas Custom Tranny Builder
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Yes, but gas did go to $4 a gallon, and will probably be there again some day. Oil exploration has surely fallen off given the current price for a barrel of oil, insuring the next "shortage" and subsequent price hike.

You know, energy price hikes aren't new. It started with the oil embargo in 1974. I was there and remember those days. Gas has been on the increase ever since.

While GM was building and selling those suvs (and making fat profits), I have to wonder if they ever considered preparing for the day when they could no longer sell them? Just two years ago I got rid of a gas guzzling F150 when gas crossed $3.30 a gallon due to a hurricane. Surely someone at GM was paying attention, right? Doesn't seem so, we got more suvs. I don't know if it was being short sighted or being obstanate, but GM didn't pay attention to the warning signs, and now the piper has come to call.
Looks like they have been spending $$$ on this for a while now. But the public did not demand it until recently, maybe that's why they never built any until now?

1977 - 1979 General Motors spends over $20 million in electric car development and research, reporting that electric vehicles could be in production by the mid-1980s. They do this only a year after US Congress passes an act to help improve batteries, motors, and other Hybrid components

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertnut View Post
Bullet sort of looses his grip when he factually gets his ass tore off.
67camino is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome