GM slams possible fuel economy changes

BooHoo Hooo :,,,) I am so sad for Bob Lutz and GM. Poor GM can't compete.

AFTER KILLING THE EV1!!

Idiot.

This statement infuriated me the most:

"There is no technological bag of tricks that enable much better fuel economy than we have today," he said. "Despite what the alarmists may think, we don't have any magic 100-mpg carburetor that we're holding back because we're in bed with the oil companies."

Apparently it has to be a carburetor. A battery won't do.

 

They always do that. They whine and stamp their feet and say that it will put them out of business but then they do it and nothing bad happens to them. It's a dance that the American companies do with the regulators. I wouldn't pay any attention to it.

 

Just like they'd be forced out of business if they had to put air bags in cars?

Geez, if they put just half the energy into designing cars that weren't crapmobiles that they do in thinking up excuses why nobody buys their crap anymore, they'd have the best cars in the world.

 

well well well... "handing over the pickup truck market to the japanese"??

that either means, they can build trucks that get the higher mileage and gm cant, or umm...

well that is about all that statement means...

 

Watching GM self-destruct over the past 7 years has been very interesting. My blogs from then to now are packed with many observed counter-productive responses to market change. The denial is pretty amazing. Belief that gas would be cheap & plentiful was at the top of their not-planning-for-the-future mistakes. Whether it happened right away or not for a decade shouldn't have mattered. With a non-replenishable supply and a rapidly increasing demand, the backlash against guzzling was inevitable... as well as the concern about smog-related emissions... and the expenses that come from pensions & health-care.

The nonsense about fuel-cells coming to the rescue was the ultimate example about not being forthcoming, something that revealed their disingenuous intent. For a vehicle like that to be practical, it had to have a supplemental power-source, since the fuel-cell by nature is a steady-state device. Rapid spikes of electricity, for an activity like accelerating, simply aren't supported. The best choice to fill that need was (and still is) hybrid technology. In fact, that's why Toyota's fuel-cell vehicle is name "FCHV". The "H" stood for hybrid, and it operated very much like Prius does. There's a battery-pack feeding the motor when the other power-supply can't as quickly or efficiently.

Anywho, the point it that not a whole lot seems to have changed yet. They say intentions are now different, but there is very little to actually prove that to be true. We are still waiting for the promised technology to be delivered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Dec 26 2006, 07:10 PM) [snapback]366912[/snapback]</div>

Mr. Lutz,
My heart bleeds for you. I owned a Pontiac and 3 Oldsmobiles before I bought my Prius. The poor design, inability to correct the defect, and the FU attitude toward the consumer expressed by your corporation and dealers sent me in search of a better car. Your problems are worse than you think as your CAFE will drop with the new EPA rating system. Maybe you should follow Chrysler's lead and sell out to a foreign corporation.
To help you prepare for your next job repeat after me, "Do you want fries with that?"

Mr. Moderator, thank you for tolerating my rant.

 

Classic GM, I'm afraid.

"We only build what the customers want."

"Oops. Why aren't they buying our full-suzed trucks?"

If GM truly were building just want the US market wanted, why is it that their advertising budget is so darn big? Each year, they spend more money on advertising their full size trucks and SUVs than the entire EV1 program cost them. They should be fighting off customers left and right if they are offering just what the consumers want!

Isn't GM the company that just a couple of weeks ago said they'd be at the cutting edge of hybrid design? Would they not *welcome* higher CAFE standards if this were true? Something isn't adding up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Dec 27 2006, 12:44 AM) [snapback]366994[/snapback]</div>

Quite correct. But GM is only reacting to market and political forces. The Clinton administration developed a $1.5 billion program to develop an 80mpg car by 2004. This program was killed by the Bush administration, who put into place a $125 million program to develop a hydrogen vehicle. GM jumped on the hydrogen vehicle bandwagen, and committed research in that direction, in spite of a litany of reasons why that was a poor direction to evolve. In fact, some people speculated they were pushing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to prevent the creation of legislation mandating competitive fuel efficient vehicles that they couldn't build at an attractive price.
Now with foreign car makers making inroads into the American market with hybrid vehicles, with which GM cannot compete competitively, they are lashing back in the only way they can.
Having made its choices years ago, GM is only doing what it can to attempt to survive today after making wrong choices. Its weapon is the threat of the loss of American jobs overseas; the overseas car producers will counter that with the creation of more factories in North America. Then GM will have no further counter response except to appeal to the loyalty of the American consumer.
With the Democrats beginning to control things, we are going to see mandated fuel-efficient vehicles, and then we will witness the demise of GM as an American company within 10 years.
It was those who voted Republican who put in place an adminstration that killed the promotion of competitive American fuel-efficient vehicles, and now ironically if the Democrats put mandated fuel-efficient vehicle legislation in place they will cause the demise of GM.

 

It seems GM is cutting every corner they can - manufacturing as much stuff in other countries; laying off thousands of people; slashing research & development. They're doing just about everything except cutting executives' salaries. Because that would be silly, y'know?

 

When you cry wolf often enough, people will ignore you when you tell the truth.

Of course, I think GM has yet to tell the truth. They're still crying wolf.

What I don't get is why anyone listens to them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Dec 27 2006, 01:43 AM) [snapback]367069[/snapback]</div>

It's not so much who GM hires as it is the oppressively heavy bureaucracy that crushes innovation. The products that eventually pop out of GM factories may actually start out well but after committees and multiple layers of management get through with them, they're uninspired mediocrity incarnate. GM is so constipated now that may actually be doing the best that it can but is so bogged down by its own excesses and indolence that it can do no more. Sad to say but in a decade or two, just as refrigerators and televisions, American companies won't be producing cars any longer.

You're right, it IS the 70s all over again. GM is not only building junky, uninspired cars that no one wants but their gas guzzlers are guzzling even more gasoline than the ones in the 70s on top of having actual competition so that the consumer has a better alternative. Back in the 70s, GM could afford to ignore the consumer because the consumer didn't have a choice. It was either a POS GM or a POS Ford or a POS Chrysler or a dinky little Toyota or Honda sub compact. I think that the decline of the American auto companies started a lot earlier than seven years ago. It's been going down hill since the 70s. It's just taken the last seven years for GM, Ford and Chrysler to realize that their problem is so bad that they can't ignore it anymore.

 

I used to drive a Geo Metro. Best damn car I ever owned up until I got the Prius. So when it was time for me to get a new car, I was going to get another Metro; except, by this time Geo was completely folded into GM so it was the GM Metro. I took a test drive at the dealer, which lasted about two minutes. It was a total POS. People always teased me about my Metro for being a "toy car", but the GM one really was! EVERYTHING was plastic, and it felt like it was about to fall apart any second. While the Geo Metro was a joy to drive, the GM Metro felt like an arcade game in a bar that got one too many beer spilt on it. The Geo Metro was surprisingly peppy with its three-cylinder engine. The GM Metro is in the Book of Records as "Most sluggish vehicle". I hated EVERYTHING about that car! OK, I assume the gas milage was still good (the thing that attracted me to the Metro in the first place), but MPG alone won't save a car that's horrible in every other aspect.

I went home, did some reasearch, bought a Toyota Echo the next day, and never regretted it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 27 2006, 10:22 AM) [snapback]367138[/snapback]</div>

I was always amazed to see the MPG on the Geo Metro. What kind of mileage did you actually get on average?

 

Lutz: "There is no technological bag of tricks that enable much better fuel economy than we have today."

Henry Ford: Whether you think you can or can’t, either way you’re right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Bob Lutz")</div>

Strange - last time I heard an article use "little car" was one of those CNW Marketing whack-the-hybrid jobs.

Also sounds like GM is saying they are not competitive.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Bob Lutz")</div>

That was part of my wake up call in June 2004 to drop 25 pounds.

Yeah - take away the warning signs - Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Article")</div>

Not proof, but it leads me to believe ChickenHawks far outnumber Veterns as Hummer drivers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Article")</div>

Is 4% hard? Just make the engines, tires, bodies a little smaller, streamline them a little more...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Article")</div>

To quote Bart Simpson - "I'm an underachiever and proud of it."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Bob Lutz")</div>

He obviously believes Alaska, the North Sea, Mexico, US offshore drilling, etc has not peaked. People planning for retirement are planning for a "theoretical fixed income".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Bob Lutz")</div>

If Star Trek ever has another series, they need a race that is the anthesis of the "logical" Vulcans. This race would preface "BS dictates....then spout the things Bob Lutz has just said".

Lutz says GM is doing virtually everything they can for better fuel economy...so why is Toyota set to overtake them with the hybrids they dismissed? I bet they wish they had that 100mpg carb

I don't know exactly what Lutz would suggest as an alternative, but based on their past, his plan could probably be called (clicking my iPod) "The Highway to Hell"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Dec 27 2006, 11:30 AM) [snapback]367166[/snapback]</div>

I got about 40 MPG on the average, mostly highway driving, Bay Area California weather (slightly better than I'm getting New England wintertime in mostly city driving in the Prius, not as good as I was getting in the fall).