Reply With Quote
We are dominant and will always be dominant just because we are the USA. All is well!!! [/Clandestupid]
EV World"AS GASOLINE prices surge to record highs, General Motors teeters on the verge of collapse with a credit rating one step above junk. This is hardly coincidence. GM has willfully ignored fundamental trends in technology and oil. To make matters worse, so has our government. U.S. security is threatened by rising dependence on oil and instability in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Our automakers and government have a brief window to adopt an aggressive strategy to push fuel-efficient vehicles, especially hybrids, or we risk yielding our destiny to outside forces.
Oil prices have risen sharply, yet GM stubbornly keeps making the wrong vehicles, losing market share to fuel-efficient, foreign-made vehicles that have caught the public imagination - the identical predicament GM found itself in three decades ago. GM had been warned in the early 1970s that oil prices would rise, but it refused to match the gas-sipping, high-quality compe ion from Toyota, Honda and other imports. GM fought the future and lost. In the 1990s, when oil prices again were low, many predicted that prices would rise within a decade, threatening our security. OPEC nations simply had (and still have) much more oil production capacity and reserves than non-OPEC nations. Population growth, industrialization and urbanization were, predictably, driving oil demand steadily up, especially in China and India. Also, U.S. demand was again rising steadily as the political will for tighter fuel-efficiency standards had ended with the low oil prices.
Back then, the Energy Department partnered with GM, Ford and Chrysler to speed the introduction of hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles. Ironically, the main result was to motivate the Japanese car companies to develop and introduce their own hybrids. GM walked away from hybrids as soon as it could - when the Bush administration came in. The result: GM, which had a technological lead in electric drives, let its No. 1 compe or, Toyota, achieve a stunning seven-year head start in what will likely be this century's primary drive train. GM was publicly criticizing hybrids as late as January 2004, and only recently announced a half-hearted effort to match Toyota. This miscalculation will be regarded as one of the biggest blunders in auto industry history.
GM stubbornly pursues hydrogen cars as its vehicle of the future, but such cars require multiple scientific breakthroughs and massive government subsides. They would reduce the freedom of American drivers by keeping them tethered to a small number of fueling stations dispensing expensive hydrogen fuel. Most independent analysts believe these cars are decades away."
EDIT
Seems that American automakers didn't learn anything from the 70's oil crisis. Sales of American cars and SUV's are down across the board, while Japanese auto makers like Toyota chew up more of the available market.
We are dominant and will always be dominant just because we are the USA. All is well!!! [/Clandestupid]
whatever... the american car market is bs. i drive a foreign suv myself.
Yes, there is a huge difference between a Ford built in Canada and a Toyota built in Canada.
good, i have an old chevy but i hate GM
those tahoe-making-layoffgiving-government-influencing-onstar*installing bas s
The carmakers that did not invest in hybrids grossly underestimated the emotional appeal of those cars to people who want to feel like they are doing their part to save the environment.
From an economic standpoint, keeping everything else constant like the price of gas and driving habits, a hybrid will be more expensive to drive than a conventional car. A lot of the gas-mileage benefits evaporate when you take into account running the heater in the winter or the A/C in the summer, or driving up hills. A lot of hybrid junkies change their driving style to maximize their mileage (hypermiling), but that can be done with conventional vehicles as well.
But emotion and iden y have a lot to do with people's vehicle choices. if practicality were the biggest factor, only people with six kids who need to tow boats would drive full-size SUV's.
You notice that Toyota and Honda have focused primarily on the upper end of the market for their hybrids. This is because their target demographics are wealthier folks: urban liberals who want to feel green, techno-junkies who love the gadgetry, and people who will pay for the convenience of going to the pump less often.
As for the idea that hybrids will dominate the market, I doubt it. I think people will just go for smaller cars and smaller engines first. Manufacturers will adjust engine tuning to get better mileage at the expense of peak horsepower. (Does a Honda Accord V-6 really need 240 hp??) Vehicles will go on a diet. Hybrid technology is expensive and bersome -- there's something like 42% more parts to a hybid drivetrain. I think 25 years from now, hybrids will be looked back upon fondly as a crude first step.
Europe has a lot of turbodiesels that get great mileage, but their emissions restrictions are looser than ours. If Europe tightens those restrictions to match the U.S., we might see more diesels over here -- assuming we build the capacity to produce more diesel (there's a shortage now), but no manufacturer is going to invest the money it would take just for the U.S. market, given that just 0.5% of cars sold here have diesel engines.
Manufacturers are working on HCCI technology to make gasoline engines work on the same cycle diesels do, but there's a lot of work to be done, and at best we're talking 2015 before a commercially viable engine could be available (they have a tendency to blow themselves apart right now).
And fuel cells are even further out, largely due to the lack of infrastructure, and big concerns about the environmental impacts.
more knowledge
liberals are wealthy and drive hybrids, but not on vacation because they hate vacations
i guess conservatives are so poor they have to drive tahoes... on vacations because they love vacations
As for GM's strategy, they appear to be heading directly into the iceberg. They and Ford have been strugglig of late because sales of their highest-margin vehicles, full-size trucks and SUV's, have been slumping. From what I read, analysts are saying this is NOT just because of the price of gas, because the market for Tahoes and Surburbans is largely among people wealthy enough that gas prices are just an annoyance.
However, there is the psychological irritation of paying so much at the pump, and the uncertainty of how much higher prices might go. Nevertheless, the biggest reason for the shift is the increasing supply of vehicles that provide the SUV "image," but with more practicality and carlike handing. Consumers like these vehicles. The emergence of sport wagons and sporty hatchbacks is gradually changing the "mommy-mobile" or "econobox" image of those vehicles.
Ford has jumped on this wave with vehicles like the Freestyle, and an upcoming crossover based upon the Mazda6 platform. DaimlerChrysler has enjoyed success with the PT Cruiser and the Dodge Magnum wagon, and the Neon replacement, the Caliber, will be styled like a small SUV. Toyota started this trend with the Camry-based Highlander and Lexus RX.
GM is convinced that the reason for the soft demand on the big truck barges is just because the product is aging, and that their all-new 2007 full-size SUV's and trucks will reinvigorate the market. They've actually diverted development money from car and crossover platforms in order to get the new Silverados and Tahoes to market more quickly. Given the current market, this sounds insane and suicidal.
However, it may be a chance that GM has no choice but to take. They have the technical ability to build smaller, practical vehicles -- look at the well-executed Chevrolet Equinox on the Theta platform -- but they need their highest-margin vehicles to sell well because their fixed-cost structure puts them at an enormous disadvantage. Because they were once so large, and their labor deals with UAW so generous, they currently have 2 retirees on pension for every current employee, and are paying 25% more per retiree and employee for health care than their compe ors, resulting in a $1500 hit for every vehicle sold at current volumes. If they shrink, these fixed costs don't go away. If they stay the current size, they can't spend enough on R&D to get fresh product to the dealers quickly enough. GM spends less than half as much on R&D as Toyota in the North American market, yet sells 89 different vehicles here to Toytoa's 26.
Right now, their health care liabilites alone exceed the entire market capitalization of GM. Chapter 11 is inevitable, and only their substantial cash reserves prevent it from happening in the short term. If their 2007 pickup/SUV launch falls flat, as is very likely, I predict they'll be bankrupt by 2009 at the latest.
Last edited by Extra Stout; 05-04-2005 at 11:06 AM.
there retirement sounds like our social security!
Oh, you. What I wrote is over your head.
Wealthy liberals place a higher priority on "social responsibility" than wealthy conservatives, and these vehicles make them think they are doing their part, even if the actual benefit to the environment isn't that great depending on how they are driven. A Honda Accord V-6 will typically get 22 mpg in mixed driving. A Honda Accord hybrid with the A/C on full-blast and the driver gunning it through traffic will get 24 mpg. Whoopty-doo. And do you think those EV1's the Hollywood crowd was leasing were at all practical?
Last edited by Extra Stout; 05-04-2005 at 11:08 AM.
Well, GM executives might start sounding like hardcore liberal Democrats really soon. Nationalized health care is one of the few ways to get them out of this jam.
gm has been in trouble for a long time though.. this again, is nothing new from dan. you could easily wasn't going well, with their gmac smart notes(bonds), they have had very high rates lately. plus gm's stock has dropped for a long time.
dan, again, with old news...
hollywood drives more hummers escalades and g-wagons than anyone.
i dont see why people constantly scoff "liberals" for looking out for the dam enviornment, the ing ENVIORNMENT!!, thats the lamest way to put people down, calling people treehuggers and , i dont see how the enviornment is politcal issue, this should be one issue that everyone agrees on
but you can't even get a majority of scientists to agree on environmental issues and causes...
I don't think that is what he was saying. I think the term "poser" applies here.
JD Power predicts that hybrids will peak with 3% of the market in 2011. That's not exactly the "century's primary drive train."
And if all people cared about was gas mileage, hey, GM's 3.5L pushrod V6 gets 24/35 and 200 hp for the same cost as most compe ors' 4-cylinders. But that's still not what sells cars.
GM suffers because of their unsustainable fixed costs, which make it impossible to upgrade their products as quickly as their compe ors, and because of the negative image they created for themselves in the 1970's and 1980's, when their vehicles were unreliable poorly built primitive garbage that left their customers stranded on the road, out thousands of dollars.
personally, i wouldn't buy a gm car or truck.
I wasn't saying it was bad that they care about the environment. But marketing usually has nothing to do with reality, and what I'm saying is that the hybrids out there have more to do with marketing to people who care about the environment and want to do their part, than actually helping the environment.
Toyota, and Honda especially, make it a priority to put out ULEV and SULEV vehicles, not just because they are wonderful, altruistic people, but because it gives them an attractive image to the kind of customer they would like to buy their cars.
These hybrids also serve as a kind of "halo" car for those who won't actually buy them, but will think these companies must be responsible citizens and therefore will visit their showrooms.
im speaking in general "liberals" are put down for helping the enviornment, always called wackos and hippies, treehuggers...scoffed for BELIEVING in global warming like its made up. is the opposite of wanting to help the enviornment, NOT wanting to ? i dont get it
it is cliche- but this is the only earth we have
the V6 accord was made to show people that hybrids can be fast, those es are fast, the gas mileage is not that great, its experimenting with the technology the mileage alot less than a regular 4 cyl car of anykind
even if they dont give a about the earth, cant they buy hybrids because theyre cheap bas s who like saving money on gas without being labled as posers, thats mostly why id buy , not to save the planet but to save gas
you can't even get a majority of scientists to agree on global warming. some say it is happening bc of humans are doing, others say it isn't...
Incorrect. Environmental issues??? Dude I'm still in college and using the basic ecological principles I've learned it would take a Scientist on crack not to agree on the same basic environmental issue. I'd like proof of this.
Causes? Ok....But the issues, they do not disagree on.
Even the scientists who don't beleive in "Global warming" still agree to the fact that the earth is warming up. They disagree on the causes not the issues.
Some say its a regular 10000 year cycle of the earth, some say its the CFC's, etc. The point is you can't say scientists, people who have devoted their entire lives to science, can possibly disagree about issues.
Even the scientist that does not believe global warming is caused by CFCs will admit that Carbon Dioxide, Water vapor, and Methane gas are green house gases that lock re-radiated heat into the earth like a blanket.
It's a fundamental property of earth responsible for all life.
If you think they disagree about this youre wrong.
So what is the harm in trying to limit our cfc's, trying to do things we know CAN have an adverse effect on the environment?
I understand your complaint, but since I wasn't making that argument, I don't see why you feel the need to go off on me. Right-wingers aren't clones.
While I think science must be taken seriously, I also understand that people have agendas. Many distrust the alarmist cries about global warming because 30 years ago many of the same people were crying about global cooling. There's a lot of doomsday rhetoric about the effects of global warming, but from what I can tell the biggest problem comes if it gets hot enough that the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica melt. For most of Earth's history, the earth has been much hotter than now, and there have been no ice caps, and therefore what we today call "the Midwest" typically has been a shallow ocean. It's why you find marine fossils around San Antonio all the time. Obviously, if most settlements below elevation 1000 in the world were submerged, well then I hope Noah shows up with his ark.
But we're not on a pace to get that hot, and all scientists can tell us is what *might* have to happen to get that hot, what we're talking about is changes in weather patterns, mostly. Well, 500 years ago the Gulf Stream pointed at Spain and not England, so it's not as if these changes are unprecedented. Also, nobody knows to what degree human activity is causing these changes, given that we just passed a 10,000-year solar maximum and that we're still coming out of the last ice age.
So some of the scoffing comes because leftie rhetoric is not based in fact. On the other hand, clearly a lot of righties are sticking their head in the sand, and then there are also the lunatic theocrats who think environmentalism doesn't matter because Jesus is coming back in 15 years anyway.
If somebody is buying a hybrid because they think it's cheaper, then they are horribly misinformed. Read what I posted earlier. The cost of ownership with a hybrid is much higher, because even with $2.50 gas, you have to drive the car like 150,000 miles before your gas savings equal the extra you paid to get the hybrid.
You also have a vehicle whose powertrain is much more complex and likelier to have problems than a conventional one from the same manufacturer.
a civic hybrid or a prius is not more expensive than a tahoe or a yukon or a suburban, the 3 most popular in texas
the solution is for us to all use SMARTCARS dammit
ive been saying this for decades
the only problem is that with every neo conservative hooking up his 5 foot 1 wife with a Tahoe, people that drive smart cars in america will be deathly afraid to get out of the garage. The tahoe could smash into a smartcar and not even need to get a carwash afterwards.
sad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
