Reply With Quote
difference between showing inefficiencies and showing how to fix those inefficiencies.
The solutions are what I'm most interested in.
GM alone is burning through 2-3 $B/month. $25 won't go very far, even with reduced expenses.
If they propose a plan in 12 days, it will be an insult to intelligence, exactly like Paulsen's 3-pager was, with NO intent of it being followed, and no intent by Congress to provide effective oversight.
Congress and business leaders are engaged in a ing smokescreen charade, a dog-and-pony show signifying nothing.
difference between showing inefficiencies and showing how to fix those inefficiencies.
The solutions are what I'm most interested in.
I posted this in the Club...
It is a widely held belief that the Oil Companies & Tire Companies are in collusion with the auto makers to keep big gas guzzling cars on the road…Public rails have been eliminated from many big cities in the 1950’s…Higher mileage standards are always fought by the powerful conglomerates…
So if this is even slightly true, why doesn’t GM, Ford & Chrysler ask Exxon, Conoco Phillips, Goodyear or even Saudi Arabia for bail out money…Why should the U.S. Taxpayer be on the hook for all of this?
I drive a 08 Malibu and love it- I get 26-30 mpg with my daily driving. I traded my 2002 Trailblazer in that I put 150,000 miles on without doing anything but changing the oil and putting new tires on it.
I'd rather have a Camary or Corrolla. Both get better millage and both are flat out better cars imo. I'm sure the Camary costs more but I think the Corrolla is cheaper.
yeah well I could do that or I could just ship $20,000 and send it to Japan. I have too much pride in my country than to drive a rice burner
and the Malibu gets better gas millage than the Camery
Actually, the new Malibu's are of comparable quality now. Of course, mpg is definitely the area where the Big 3 always seem to lose. The 4-cylinder Malibu is only rated at 22/30, which is worse than my first car - a 1987 Pontiac 6000 with a 4-cyl. was.
It's supposed to be GM's "savior" car, sort of like what Taurus was to Ford in the late 80s and early 90s.
The Camry gets similar mileage - 21/31. However, the Camry Hybrid is rated 33/34, while the Malibu hybrid is a weak 24/32.
I have a Malibu 4-banger and I can assure you that I got 34 mpg when I drove from Cleveland to Chicago a couple weeks ago. It has a computer in it that tells you what you are getting
Actually if compare the four cylinder models its pretty much identical. However, if you want a six cylinder of each vehicle the Camry has a clear edge. And if we compare the Hybrids, its not even close.
Oh, and your so such an automotive patriot my man.
and you also pay $4,000 more for it than you do the Malibu, and $4,000 buys alot of gas
people can't seem to wrap their heads around paying more for a car they think will save them money i.e. see the Toyota Prius
So then I am to be assured that you have also driven a Camry on that route the same way in order to make sure that it doesn't get better mileage right?
Most people who buy Prius probably aren't doing it to save money, because they're not cheap.
the Toyota Camry Hybrid starts at 26,170, the Malibu Hybrid starts at 22,180
you do the math
Buying a Prius means you better drive a lot of miles in order to save money at the pump. A load of miles. I'll give you that much.
If you want to save money at the pump a Corrolla or Yaris from Toyota is the way to go. I'd also buy a Honda Fit. I wouldn't buy an American vehicle for that. I've had a Ford in the past, and their crappy quality was enough to steer me away.
And whats the resale value on either? Do the math.
do you know why foreign cars have a higher resale value than American car companies? hint, it has nothing to do with quality. And the Malibu Hybrid will hold it's value because it escapes this case
Heh, well if cost is the prime objective, you wouldn't buy a new car ever. I mean, buy a car with just 10k and you save 30%.
I bought a Daewoo Nubira with 16k miles for $3 grand. Gets 33mpg highway and runs smooth.
The stupid part for ALL of these manufacturers is how they attempt to ring out HP instead of MPG. I mean even the fours for these cars have 160-190hp. Why not stick a little 1.6L that gets 110hp. No one actually needs the power to reach 120 miles an hour.
How well will that Malibu Hybrid hold its value if GM goes under? Why a car has a higher resale value is irrelevant. I don't care WHY Joe is going to pay more for my car, I just care that he is.
I'm not sure if theres a way for me to measure how much more people will pay in repairs for domestic vs foreign cars, but I know my personal history and how it shapes my shopping.
You just keep trying to paint this picture of GM cars being on par with Honda and Toyota and I don't see it. Honda and Toyota have always had better mileage and its been my experience that the overall quality of the vehicle has also been higher. If GM is finally catching up, then thats good, but they have to actually prove it first and no one here is sure if they're going to get that chance.
The reason that escapes your mind is that it is because foreign automakers will not allow their cars to be sold in fleets and rentals the way that American companies do. If foreign companies did this they would have to hire more US workers than the bare minimum they do now to get tax breaks. So they skip out on this (which cheats America) and they paint the picture that their cars are higher quality which explains their higher resale- but that is not the case, it's because they have less cars sold here in a model year.
If they had to produce more cars, that means they will have to hire more of these "expensive Americans" (the assholes that work and pay taxes). The more people they hire, the more expensive their cars get, and they might actually have to pay a US Tariff if they import more, or a tax if they hire more.
They are cheating you or tax dollars they SHOULD be paying, but they are cheating the system by
quality is what killed them to begin with.
Everyone knows this right? Toyota and Honda built plants here so they could get out of paying tariffs set up by our fore fathers. They hire the bare minimum of workers to get around those, and if it comes time to expand they expand in Japan because they take care of their own homeland first...something we obviously don't do. They pay their corporate taxes to Japan, not the US. That money goes to Japan, not the US
Honestly, the more I hear from Congressmen and people with their fly-by-night opinions of the RustBelt makes me think less and less of them.
The Honda Accord is a mainstay on the Car and Driver top cars list. Is that because they don't allow fleet purchases?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
