HA! Someone please pass the popcorn. Thanks.

The 70 Hp/liter engine was developed and listed for production in 1975. I obtained a production list of GM engines. That year, seven Quad Four engines were listed. Only two contained the seventy Hp/Liter technology.

That new technology requires better machine tools. Whereas many machine shops can do tolerances of 0.001 inches, the 70 Hp/liter engine requires parts closer to 0.0001 inch variation. Why do you think Toyotas, Hondas, etc are quieter and last longer?

GM is not run by car guys - people with driver's licenses. New machine tools mean reduced costs to car guys, and increased costs to bean counters. Instead, GM kept obsolete technology machine tools and sold obsolete technology engines. Engines that requires more cylinders - increased costs - lower gas mileage. Why does GM need SUVs? Any crappy engine can be dumped in an SUV to be sold at a $5000 profit. GM's profit margin on cars (due to inferior technology) is probably below $200. Many models are rumored to sell for a loss. Exactly what cost controls do. So GM will do anything to sell more obsolete technology SUVs built with 1968 technology tolerances.

No problem. GM can hype an SUV with a V-8. It has less horsepower, requires more parts, has lower gas mileage, makes more noise, and wears out faster than a standard technology V-6. But that parameter does not get measured on spread sheets and get ignored by an SUV owner. After all, it makes more noise. Therefore it must be tough - according to the naive. Why do you think pickup trucks make so much noise? Obsolete technology (more noise) makes the owner feel his penis is bigger. That literally is the image.

GM would not upgrade factories to current technology and hid behind myths such as ""Buy Americans", legacy costs, or "blame expensive unions". Sycamore reiterates what GM needs everyone to believe. Sycamore is posting mom, apple pie, and baseball as proof of intelligence? No. He is hiding behind more myths. Chevy was called the "Heart attack of America". (For those oversea, Chevy would advertise as the "Heatbeat of America".)

A Wall Street Journal article some years back noted how the air conditioning industry addressed these same innovation challenges. By reducing tolerances from 0.001 to 0.0001 inches, the air conditioning industry created a significant increase in air conditioner efficiency. Of course, few of these massive improvements get measured on spread sheets. Air conditioner industry remained profitable and without oversea competition because they implemented current technologies.

The economic analysis (if I remember) meant the American air conditioner industry increased the actual American GNP by 8% over ten years simply by implementing tighter machine tolerances. Unlike GM, the air conditioner industry bought those new technology machine tools making a more efficient and longer lasting product. Most of that 8%productivity was due to less energy consumption by air conditioners. America became more productive using the same technology machine tools that also make a 70 Hp/liter engine possible.

Why did GM stifle innovation in America? GM bean counters cannot measure, appreciate, or understand product innovation until after that product is not longer innovative. Tighter tolerances only mean higher costs - according to bean counters.

The Los Angles Times reported this same GM problem long ago. See Kill the Messenger - this time the LA Times. GM attempted revenge by bankrupting the LA Times. GM does not like reporters exposing their spin with technical facts. Learn why GM products cost more to build. GM top executives still refused to buy the new technology machine tools even after touching the advantages in their own Mona Lisa room. Bean counters know 'it would increase costs'. Therefore GM must downsize again while contributing to Americas excessive oil consumption.

Innovators could not put standard technology engines - a technology ready for production in 1975 - in 1990s GM products. It required engineering. It required new technologies. Assets according to car guys. Increased costs according to a bean counters. GM has not been lead by a car guy since the 1960s. Every top GM chairman is from finance – a bean counter.

Machine tools that routinely do +/- 0.0001 inches will only increase costs according to spread sheets. Increased productivity cannot be measured on a spread sheet until four or ten years later. Therefore I never found a single GM car with those two 70 Hp/l Quad Four engines. They were marketed - just not sold. Finance people only make decisions using today’s spread sheet numbers - not the ones that matter - tomorrow's. So Sycamores new Cobalt is the world standard technology from 10+ years ago.

If you bought 100 shares of GM stock on Jan 1976, today you lost money. GM stock dropped another 6% today. 100 shares of GM stock in 1976 was worth more than the same 100 shares today because GM products are that poor. No wonder GM has opposed simple solutions to America's problems such as increased gasoline mileage. GM bean counters must purchase current technology machine tools. Instead, they have Sycamore preaching their praises.

There is no reason for every vehicle to be doing 30 MPG routinely. But that means innovating. Most every significant GM innovation over the past 30 years was required by or resulted from some EPA regulation. No wonder GM routinely opposes better mileage standards. The bean counters would have to innovate. GM still does not put the 70 Hp/l engine - an old and no longer innovative technology - in every vehicle. Increase gasoline mileage without corporate welfare or required by a Federal law? Why should GM innovate? Those 70 Hp/l engines were production ready in 1975.

So, are you saying that GM is to blame for current gas prices? You could have just said so.

No, Kia is responsible.


Wait, wait....



I thinks it was Opel.

Subsidiary of GM, try to keep up.

It was Griff, trying to build his stupid compost toilet or whatever it was...he's responsible for my $4 gas!

January 2, 1976 GM closed at 58.38
June 18, 2008 GM closed at 14.89

If you had invested in 100 sh on that date and held it until now your investment value would have fallen from $5838 down to $2978. That is a loss of $2860. Good job TW, you have pointed out the very obvious fact that a troubled company has seen stock value drop.

Of course, if you gave the rest of the pertinent information the story would look a little different. During that time GM paid dividends on a regular basis. They also had a 2-1 stock split in March of 89. That 100 share investment produced $7872.50 in dividends which must be factored back into current valuation of $2978. So your investment of $5838 is now worth $10,850.50 for a gain of $5012.50.

Those are raw numbers, the return would have been better had dividends reinvested rather than left raw the way I have done.

I don't like GM as a company for their products or their investment potential, but if you're going to make your case using facts and figures it would be helpful if you used all of the pertinent information rather than treating reality as a smorgasbord, just picking and choosing as you move along.

I'll assume that your mistake was accidental rather than an intentional lie. I'm that kind of guy.

Sorry, that was ME lying when he posted that. This is the new Cellar.

I blame it on the footfunguses es's. they're spreading i think. because UT wants them too.

lookout123 added information to only confuse the bottom line. Irrelevant is ROI (which includes dividends). We are discussing GMs market value. GM refused to innovate. GM routinely stifling innovation also is a major reason for today's high oil prices.

Dividends are irrelevant to corporate value. Accurately demonstrated, GM's 1976 investors reaped a loss of corporate value when a stock investment should have averaged a 1,170% value increase.

Previous figures also included the various stock splits. Why confuse others with dividends that were not relevant and stock splits that were already included? lookout123 says he will take any oppurtunity to attack this poster; honesty be damned.

Had the same investor bought 100 shares in 1990, then his $38,000 corporate value has decreased to $14,000 - again due to inferior products. An average company would have increased to $151,700 in those 18 years. Why negative growth? Occurs when a company does as stock brokers promote. "Greed is good". "The purpose of a company is its profits." Therefore GM does not innovate (except when required by government standards), makes products that achieved no energy conservation, cries about unfair foreign competition, blames unions, blames our education system, blames tax laws, enriches their management, shorts their pension funds for $7 billion to claim higher profits (and claim a 'legacy cost' myth), and does not even have the 70 Hp/l engine in all products 30+ years later.

GM demonstrates a major reason for higher oil prices and why more jobs go overseas where finance people (ie stock brokers) do not hinder product innovation.

Irrelevant to the bottom line is lookout123's post. Topic is GM's value - not dividends. Topic is about how GM played money games to maximize profits while stifling innovation. Therefore GM created a company with less value.

Numerous investment management firms conclude that GM is probably worth more if broken up. Why? Breaking up GM would eliminate a reason for its low market value AND the major reason for so much stifled innovation: top management. How ironic that Sycamore would praise GM products when those bean counter designed products clearly are a major contributor to higher gas prices.

When innovative companies average 11.7 times more value, GM has lost value. GM is worth less to a Jan 1976 investor for same reasons why GM products consume so much energy wastefully. If GM had been patriotic and loyal to its stock holders, an average GM product would probably do something approaching 40 MPG AND contain technologies that other nations (manufacturers) must purchase. Instead, GM used cost controls - a bean counter mentality.

hey dumbfuck? is what you said.
i simply pointed out that you were incorrect. inadvertent mistake, i'm sure. my point was that you shouldn't BS your way into making a valid point because then people discount your whole point because they can't trust what you say.

You can reframe your assertion now to suggest you only meant the actual dollar value of one share, but that isn't what you said. A person who purchased 100 sh in January of 1976 has not lost money if they still hold those shares.

GM sucks, but being a lying bastard sucks more. Now bugger off or I'll have someone tough like Jinx kick you in the cunt.

May peace, goodwill and oil be with you. And in these recent times of turmoil, perhaps some self defense weapon as well.

I voted Federal Reserve. Sure, there are many groups of people trying to be as powerful as me. There are only a few that come close.

The Fed is the closest.

GM products are so bad that GM took another new low today. Had an investor purchased stock in 1975 - one year earlier - then a 1975 stock holder's capitalization is now negative. Or, in simple terms, so that any financial adviser can understand it. If he bought 100 shares in 1975, then his market value today is negative. This does not include additional losses due to inflation.

How to keep selling cars? Mortgage the future. GM is again offering cars with zero percent financing. Losses due to loans without interest will not affect today's spread sheets. Therefore GM losses today don't look so large.

GM products are so poorly designed as to be expensive. Their inferior products must be all but given away. But then 1/4 of GM sales are now discounted to employees, et al. More money games (zero percent financing) avert those losses for years on spread sheets. However even Wall Street sees GM real market value. The 1975 investor has now lost money - now owns a company that is worth less than his original 1975 investment (again - ignoring that the $1 in 1975 has also dropped to 25% of its value). The company called GM has a negative capital return over 35 years assuming today's dollar is same as the 1975 collar. Meanwhile those invested dollars also decreased to 25% of its 1975 value. Just to break even with inflation, the $1 investment in 1975 must be worth $4.

How bad are GM products? Those facts were posted previously. Even the accounting demonstrates GM products 10 years ago and today are both crap - facts directly contradicting emotions of other posters.

How curious. Automakers did this same thing back in the 1970s - make crappy products that got worse gas mileage every decade.

Good boy, you've managed to make a point without altering facts. you're learning. *sniff* so proud.

Oil companies have been purposely reducing the supply of gas in America by not running their refineries at full capacity. Speculators are jumping on this. The oil producing countries are not to blame. The price of a barrel of oil is the same number of drachmas it's ever been, but the dollar is weaker (thanks to George W. Bush's deficit spending to fund an illegal war), that people think the price per barrel is rising is going up. Increased demand from developing nations like China and India coupled with investors on wall street realizing they get a better return on oil than through stocks is making this price increase spiral out of control.

Every oil exec should be repeatedly kicked in the balls by each and every single person who has to fill up their tanks at these prices. This includes GWB.

I'm all for free markets, but not for market manipulation by artificially reducing the supply when demand is increasing merely to drive up profits. This is not capitalism. Nor are the plethora of government incentives and breaks given to oil companies.

On the news yesterday, they said if the government stopped allowing oil futures to be traded on Wall Street, the price of oil would drop down to $1.50/gallon within 1 month. This would be great, but I'd be against it anyway because I'm for free markets.

Personally, I see the high price of gas, the threat of global warming, and the fighting in the middle-east as the catalyst we need to finally get electric cars back in America and to stop oil companies and car companies from squashing this kind of technology. I see it as a time for us to finally stop using oil for fuel. The technology is already here. In fact if America legalized hemp, we'd have an unlimited, cheap, renewable source of energy that could replace 100% of our fossil fuel needs within 5 years and unlike corn, it doesn't require pesticides, doesn't erode the soil, and doesn't take food away from hungry people. We could save the corn to feed people and livestock.

Hemp?

I didn't see your post heading in that direction. Surprised me there.

I don't know much about hemp as a biofuel, but I do know that if hemp is planted for biofuel, then that will take up farmland that would otherwise be growing food. So yes, it will take food away from hungry people.

The advantage of hemp, is that it will grow in soil unsuitable for food production, without extensive water and chemical fertilizers. There is a lot of this land available.

I think it actually helps convert that land into something more suitable for producing food too. Although I could be wrong.

OK, but if you are a farmer, and you don't own any shitty land, you'll plant hemp in your good soil so you can make some biofuel money too. At least initially that's what will happen. Maybe there will be more competition later and hemp prices will be driven down as people with the poor soil start planting too, but that will take a little while while they ramp up their production and get their farm equipment in place, etc.

What's the disadvantage if it isn't grown exculsively on shitty land?

If it's grown on good land, it takes away from the other crops that could have been grown on that good land.

I'm not opposed to hemp. I just think that the claim that it will be great for food production is a bit of a stretch.

I don't understand what claim you're refuting.


Are you suggesting that the "fat cats" in the glamorous world of dirt farming will use hemp as a weapon to tighten their stranglehold on the economy, and further their agenda of world domination?

Me... It's all my fault.

I'm sorry... I voted for Bush.

Something like that. I'm hoping to bait you into telling me their secrets so I can get in on the action.

Actually I was referring to Radar's claim that hemp "doesn't take food away from hungry people. We could save the corn to feed people and livestock."

Well, I don't read the threads.

You just weave them together to make pretty macrame owls.

Well, the people sneaking out and smoking that hemp, will get the munchies and increase the demand for food, which will cause an increase in production. :cool:

Historically farmers grew hemp between growing foods to strengthen and enrich the soil. Besides, what's wrong with using government owned land to grow hemp? The government allows mining companies, logging companies, etc. to use government land. Why not something as patriotic as helping America break away from foreign oil?

Also, hemp does not take food away from hungry people. Hemp is a source of food.

Really? I've never heard that. How do you eat hemp? Like a typical green leaf, or does it need to be prepared in some way?

But Radar, the government has so little land to spare. :D

Go HERE and read Chapter 8. In fact read all the chapters.

Other than hempseeds, cannabis is great in baked goods, lollipops, and plenty of other things. :)

Let them eat lollipops!

How bad are GM products? What happens when a company stifles innovation for 30 years, hypes "Buy American", gets the naive to buy a 1995 technology car in 2008 - and praise it ... A GM stock investor now must go back to 1955 to see his capital investment increase. GM stock price reflects how bad GM reliability, design intelligence, and fuel economy really are. GM market capitalization is now so low - a paltry $6.5 billion - that even Sun Microsystems is worth more.

Buy GM; sell off its buildings and machines. Reap a profit. GM products suck that much. Is an investment opportunity approaching as GM stock drops to where it should have been 15 years ago?

How did we know this problem existed in GM? Their management (who don't have driver's licenses) joined the mental midget in touting hydrogen as a fuel. Anyone with access to any science knew hydrogen as a fuel was as real as Saddam's WMDs. Flex fuel vehicles? More hyped nonsense. GM getting as good as Toyota and Honda – the propaganda only six months ago? More lies.

GM management are bean counters - business school graduates - don't know anything about cars. Management so stupid as to even hype hydrogen as a fuel. That irrefutable fact – the hydrogen claim – said GM products were that bad. What happens when a company stifles innovation for 30 years, hypes "Buy American", gets the naive to buy a 1995 technology car in 2008 - and praise it ... A GM stock investor now must go back to 1955 to see his capital investment increase. GM stock price reflects how bad GM reliability, design intelligence, and fuel economy really are. GM market capitalization is now so low - a paltry $6.5 billion - that even Sun Microsystems is worth more.

How did we know these problem existed in GM? Their management (who don't have driver's licenses) joined the mental midget in touting hydrogen as a fuel. Anyone with access to any science publication knew hydrogen as a fuel was as real as Saddam's WMDs. But GM management are bean counters - business school graduates - don't know anything about cars. That irrefutable fact visibly identified GM as a major reason for America's excessive energy consumption. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

The only GM investor who reaped a capital profits is one who bought GM stock in March 1955 because GM products suck. How can that be? Six months ago, GM was touting ‘competitive with Honda and Toyota’? Well GM does these same lies about every five years – and so many consumers believe it for the same reason they believed Saddam had WMDs. Look at the products. Cobalt, G-6 given away by Oprah, Suburban, Volt, Hummer - all crappy products – and no innovations in the GM innovation pipeline.

Is a great investment opportunity approaching? Buy GM cheap. Get rid of their only problem. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Only then do we start addressing the reasons for higher energy prices. GM is an example of the problem that also exists in other American industries, government, and consumers.

Even equivalent Hondas got better mileage 20 years ago than they do now. The reason is tighter emissions controls.

Someone's got a scratch in their record.

Gez - tw did you get a lemon from GM or what? We got the fact that you think GM products suck - You're done now - ktxbai.

Maybe tw lived in Poletown in 1981.

or maybe tw's just a one trick pony disguised as a belligerent asshole. could you imagine this guy after a couple beers at the corner bar?

This is Duff Roberts reporting live from Squeaky Bum's Bar and Grill. The scene here is astounding. Mob violence like you have never seen it before. Rodney King has nothing on this man, identified only as TW. Apparently he whipped the crowd into a frenzy by pointing out repeatedly that he knew everything and they knew nothing. The violence was reportedly sparked when his own mother stood up and was heard to shout, "Shut the F*$@ up already you useless twat!" and began beating him with her oversized purse. What's remarkable in this case is that unlike most fights, not one person came to the victim's defense. Even the police officers responding to the call have begun beating him with their nightsticks. There is a rumor that the National Guard is being called in to hit him with firehoses. And now, the crowd seems to have started chanting... wait...yes, it is - they have picked up his mother's battlecry. It is amazing! The crowd is chanting "Shut the F*$@ up you useless twat!" over and over again.

Now back to you in the studio, Christie. I have a twat to beat with a microphone.

Posted are facts without emotion. You end up seeing today what I was posting about defective and anti-American companies typically 5 years earlier. I said same about AT&T. As a result, AT&T was sold off for little but its name. If you think GM is bad, you have not yet seen how bad it can get - unless you read my post. Poletown? A GM trophy of excellence created by Roger Smith (of Roger and Me)? That got the Baldridge Award because quality increased so much in one year and was still a lowest quality plant even in GM. After Sycamore praise the 40 MPG numbers from his 2008 GM subcompact (J-car or whatever it is called today), I did some long trips. Decided to see what this mid 1990 Honda Accord would do.
196.5 miles 5.136 gal ($19.00)
218.2 miles 5.823 gal ($22.01)
297.6 miles 7.768 gal ($30.44)
Consecutive tanks got 38.3, 37.5, and 38.3 MPG. Well my 1980 Honda Accord was only doing about 30 MPG and never more than 34 MPG. Why does the heavier car get better mileage? Tighter emissions controls mean higher gasoline mileage - if properly implemented.

So why does the much larger and 10+ year older Honda Accord do mileage numbers approaching Sycamore's? One company innovates. GM eventually uses the technology when finally forced to.

Those who know how bad GM products really are find nothing unusual in the tone of that post. GM is that bad. GM management is so misguided as to even believe and preach hydrogen as a fuel. How many innovations in the GM innovation pipeline? One. The Volt. A failed concept. New GM designed engines still use push rods - an technology obsoleted starting in the 1970s.

Why is GM stock so low. GM has virtually nothing to address America's energy problems - other than do what the competition was doing ten and twenty years ago. Where is this Malibu that routinely does 30 to 34 MPG as my 10+ year old Honda Accord does routinely?

GM is doing to America only what American enemies would do. Some so hate America as to buy GM products. GM is a major reason why America consumes twice as much energy per person as any other nation. Today, GM's Rick Wagoner was talking about GM products doing a major increase - 23 MPG. The national average held down by buying politicians was 26 MPG. To address our energy problems, GM products must average 40 MPG. My every Accord (and a GM car I owned in 1975) routinely exceeded 30 MPG. GM stifling innovation is a major reason and perfect example for higher energy prices.

Wagoner is an asshat, but no reason for you to be. You didn't say it, but you seem to imply that is for GM cars. That number includes the light trucks (1/2 ton and smaller) which would logically carry with it a lower than expected average. No, I don't like GM products I just despise sanctimonious liars more.

Everything I have posted is what your best friend and an honest person would say. Nothing posted here by me is typical of an asshat. If you don't think so, well, thank you for your honesty and sorry you don't know what honesty looks like.

Half ton pickup is a perfect example of why GM products consume so much energy wastefully. A pickup properly designed would be front wheel drive (drive wheels should be located where most of the vehicle's weight is located), would weight less than a passenger car (pickups don't have therefore don't need more weight than a same size car), would be much lower, and would have higher ground clearance like a Humvee.

But that means a pickup must be designed. Pickups are a hodgepodge thrown together without integrating the design. Why are pickups so high but have so little ground clearance? Consuming all that more space and adding additional steel (that adds weight but does not increase strength) are easier to design and build.

Why is that pickup truck bed so high? If should be only half as high while the pickup has more ground clearance. But again, that would require an integrated design, using front wheel drive, and stop using simpler parts from other older vehicles.

Of course, an integrated design would mean more engineering. Better is to cut costs, keep the truck heavy, make it higher (to appease egos), and still use those 1968 technology drive trains and engines. Then a pickup that could easily sell at a profit for maybe $12,000 can be hyped into a $25,000 truck.

Pickups are a perfect example of obsolete technology vehicles, grossly overweight, with poor ground clearance for a vehicle so high - but hyped like another poor technology product - Harley Davidson motorcycles. GM makes a $5000 profit on pickups. Why make them better, fuel efficient, with the bed at a respectable height, and so much less weight including front wheel drive? Profits on the poor technology vehicle can be hyped even using fancy interiors for a $5000 and $10000 profit. GM profit on cars is estimated to be as high as $300. Better to keep hyping that obsolete technology pickup as 'cool'.

No reason for a pickup to be rear wheel drive - except that it maximizes profits using same 1968 technology engines. No innovation and a hyped image resulting in higher profits. Why is that pickup bed so ridiculously high? Why does a truck with so little weight so much? A properly design pickup should have better fuel economy than a mid sized car. The whole back end is empty space. But that means engineering the truck.

You failed to pay attention to what I posted earlier. Honda believes in and preaches hydrogen as a fuel -- their HYDROGEN car starts selling in California this month!!!

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest get the second one in California

what you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter if a truck is the cutting edge technology, if it isn't what the consumer wants to buy. Some people buy their trucks for actual work. Some people buy them for legitimate recreation purposes. Most people buy them because that is what they like. They like the way they look and the way they drive. If a company veers too far from that they lose the customer loyalty.

Customers want what they want and they won't let you tell them what they want. If customers really cared about fuel economy and technology the H2 would have never sold a single unit. We would all drive a Prius for daily drivers and work trucks would be small panel vans with fuel sipping engines. That isn't America. Maybe it will be someday, but not today.

GM's management sucks, but you act like they have a public that won't buy the product because we're all waiting for the next technological marvel. People buy cars that they like the looks of, that fit their lifestyle, and fit within their budget. Anything else is icing on the cake.

You are going to have to take your engineer's blinders off and try to understand the world around you is a world full of humans, not machines. Your ideas on technology and products may be correct 90% of the time but you miss the bigger picture 99% of the time.

Yes, CA had a law that all but required all cars to run on hydrogen. That law was eventually repealed. But Honda finished the design anyway. Honda and Mercedes have hydrogen powered cars just like Honda also has walking and running Robots. Honda has the product that some governments threatened to the require. And the work could eventually lead to some other technologies - where the fuel cell is a replacement for the NiMH battery. Honda finished a design that was original only justified by CA laws. The Honda hydrogen car will be sold much like a trophy (as was the Insight or S2000). But hydrogen as a fuel obviously makes no sense.

I did not ignore your post. It just was not relevant once basic thermodydnamics are known. Selling this experimental technology is an opportunity to refine that technology. Even though hydrogen as a fuel makes no sense, the technology could lead to something useful by testing this technology on some consumers. Hydrogen as a fuel never made sense, as should have long been obvious.

Hydrogen as a fuel makes as much sense as our mandatory ethanol nonsense.

Who cares if GM sucks - we all got that and knew it long before you ever posted anything, tw. Is there someone here defending GM products? You seem to be arguing with yourself.

At this point all I see is :dedhorse:

You are saying exactly what those GM executives said in the 1960s - nobody wants front wheel drive. You are saying exactly what those GM executives said after DeLorean put a 5 speed in some 1975 Chevy's. GM said nobody wants five speeds and removed the technology in 1977. You are saying exactly what GM executives said about fuel injection and electronics ignition. Then it was finally demanded by government regulation. GM executives said nobody wants headlights and wipers controlled from the steering column. Then it was standard on what were then superior foreign products. GM executives said nobody wanted rack and pinion steering. So superior foreign products had it 20 years before GM finally reduced their manufacturing costs by also using rack and pinion. GM says nobody wants overhead cams - just another reason why GM engines costs more to build and require two extra pistons. GM said nobody wanted reclining seats. Finally I seen too much as did so many friends once I kept exposing these GM crap products. What happened? Every above item was strongly demanded AND eventually appeared on competition products. Costing controlling created diminishing market share from over 50% to the hard core 25%. Oh. One quarter of those GM sales are not to employees and employees of their suppliers - at discount. Only people all but required to buy a GM product are maintaining sales of cars that don't have what people really want.

Yes, 28% of American also believes George Jr is doing a good job. Same minority would also be in denial about GM for same reasons. Surprising – I still hear people say they finally bought a Hyundai,et al four years ago, did not realize how bad their GM products were, and will never go back. IOW GM’s market position will only get worse because even the hard core who will not change are conceding how bad GM products are.

If GM wanted to stop being a reason for high energy prices, GM would have pioneered a superior pickup truck that long ago using the same principles that made GM so industry dominate in the 1950. Well, with moderate gas prices, GM's pickup market has started crashing. What will happen to truck sales when gas prices become high? GM was not innovating 10 years ago. Therefore sales must crash to maybe below 50% now.

Why did GM so dominate the world auto industry in 1957? Because GM was doing innovation that "nobody wanted": including power steering, three speed transmissions, air conditioning, automatic transmissions, rotating valves that eliminated engine failures, multiport carburetors, etc. Later innovation was stifled by people who said we don't want all this stuff. Twenty years later, all this stuff began appearing in products that therefore became America's best selling products. But marketing still says the public does not want all this stuff? Nonsense. That ostrich mentality - marketing geniuses who don't even drive cars - is why gasoline prices increase.

I understand what you say. You are saying why gasoline prices must rise higher. Americans don't like change. Americans hate hybrids. Eventually Toyota et al will pioneer the pickup that GM should have done 10 years ago. Then another part of GM’s market disappears. How many times do we see this before we acknowledge why innovation was really what people wanted. Wall Street is now asking whether GM will go into bankruptcy first.

BTW, same question is being asked of Chrysler whose products also suck and whose fiinancial numbers are less public.

Sycamore who repeatedly praised GM products including his 2008 Cobalt. Numbers say about 25% of us think GM products are great.

And then the question here - why are energy prices so high? As lookout123 notes, a pickup owner will spend $100 on every tank just to appease his ego AND deny that GM products suck.

You may know that GM is the heartattack of America. But do you know why? And why do one in four Americans still disagree with you - including Sycamore?

Why do one in four Americans support the mental midget president AND praise GM products? Why must gasoline prices go higher? Same answer.

They've probably already done the work that is necessary for it, but they are smart enough to only bring an auto to market when the consumer is ready to buy enough units of the product to achieve profitability.

If you feel that is stupid or unamerican more power to you. you're just one man who is only responsible for your own purchases. until more people agree with you that it is all about the technology, car companies will continue cranking out cars they think people will buy. That usually starts with outward appearance as a top priority. "what do engineers think of my car?" falls pretty low on the list.

I love my Cobalt...it has everything I want, and is perfect for me. And because I love this car while being well-aware of the problems of the maker, I am naive. Could someone explain that one to me?

GM management folks don't have drivers licenses? Tw, do you have a source on that?

1997 Honda Accord 4 cyl 5-spd: 22/29
1996 Honda Accord 4 cyl 5-spd: 22/29
1997 Chevrolet Lumina 6 cyl 4-spd: 18/26
1996 Chevrolet Lumina 6 cyl 4-spd: 18/26

Then let me throw in my previously posted information:

1993 Chevy Cavalier: 26/33
1993 Honda Civic: 35/41
1993 Toyota Corolla: 23/31
1993 Mazda 323: 25/33

All this information is available here. Looks like GM was at least keeping up...unless you believe in the mileage conspiracy that tw mentioned previously. I would believe something like that--25 years ago. Tw also never answered my question about the 40mpg standard that apparently existed in 1993.

For someone that likes to throw around the phrase, "Facts be damned," it seems like tw is acting like management at GM, sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling, "Lalalalalalalala!" I think if we did a scientific study, we would find that 85% of all current Cellar unhappiness has been caused by tw.

Look, Tom, you've already been taken to school at least twice in this thread. Walk away, man. Or at least, come up with some original posting...you're posting retreads that you've probably posted 9 or 10 times before over the past 7 years.

Oh...I forgot to mention that we drove a Ford Edge while out East...I wrote a blog about it yesterday. Check it out!

fixed

Therefore 3 out of four agree - now stop it.


One has nothing to do with the other.

3 out of four agree with me.

Why do 3 out of four disagree with the president and dislike GM products?

Why are you still :dedhorse::

I know what you are trying to say here lookout, but I don't completely agree. If what you are saying is true, then there would be no car advertisements on tv. Advertising works. Car companies routinely change the behavior of consumers by convincing them that they want something that they didn't previously know they wanted.

It doesn't always work for every product. Remember the Aztec? But it does work surprisingly well for most. Consumers usually give more weight to the "image" of a car than most practical concerns when they are buying one, and advertisements are very effective at portraying what the "image" of a car is.

but they are advertising the image that they feel people want. that is why most auto makers have regional commercials. nearly all of them out here show trucks going through the desert and over rough rocky terrain. outdoor sports. in chicago i've seen the same vehicle be advertised as a sleek in city status symbol.

it would be a tough sell to convince those that like the rough and tumble image of trucks to buy a small, highly fuel efficient, front wheel drive pickup. it will happen eventually, but not until the public is ready for it.

One who only drove Model Ts would love a 2008 Model T. That is the point. You were driving GM products. Therefore any GM product that is only 10 years obsolete would be a major improvement. Return to previously posts facts. GM optimizes their vehicles for EPA mileage testing. Ie. Corvette that would change engine parameters and bypass second gear during EPA tests. I never got 26 MPG out of that Pontiac (Lumina equivalent) doing only highway driving. But then no one should have expected GM cars to achieve those EPA numbers. Look at the numbers. These were only 52 HP/liter engines.

EPA numbers for a 1997 Honda were posted. Actual driving numbers for that 5 speed Honda Accord (now more than 10 years old) were 36 and 38 MPG. Why? Hondas are not optimized for EPA mileage testing. Hondas are designed by car guys - the people who innovate. Therefore that Honda EPA rated at only 29 MPG highway routinely does over 30 MPG local AND 36-38 during a trip of nothing but highway driving.

You bragged about a 2008 Cobalt doing 40. A 10 year old Accord - a much heavier and older car - did almost as good because it was not a GM product.

Facts and numbers were posted repeatedly and previous for Sycamore. So again, you post numbers that contradicts what you have posted. The Honda (designed by car guys) is rated only for 29 and did consecutive tanks of 36 and 38 MPG. If I say it enough times, will Sycamore finally understand it? GM products did achieve their EPA highway figures. GM is a major contributor to high oil prices.

Sycamore - welcome to Summer school. You did not learn when these concepts posted month ago. Back when you were praising the poorly regarded (10 year obsolete) GM J-car (or whatever they now call it). This only repeats what Sycamore did not read previously. Energy prices must increase radically. Why? People such as Sycamore would praise GM and buy their crap products. GM - a company that openly advocated low mileage cars - refused to let car guys innovate if not required by government regulation. The US government gave $100million in 1994 to build a hybrid. No hybrid in 2008 and no plans in the innovation pipeline? But Sycamore still praises GM products. Another reason why gas prices must keep increasing. Add Sycamore to the list. He does not even grasp numbers: a patriotic car (now more than 10 years old) rated 29 MPG highway achieved consecutive tanks of 36 to 38 in the real world. GM ran to the government saying this was not possible (just like they did in late 1960s and 1970s).

Ever work in a GM plant. So much of everything. How can GM be worth so little. View GM product designs such as the Cobalt, their pickups, and SUVs. Explains why America consumes twice as much energy per person. It also explains why the American standards of living may be the next victim. Even Sun Microsystems is worth more than GM.

Lessons from the 1970s. Meat prices will double. Massive inflation will finally appear even on spread sheets as jobs are lost. Companies must be sold to foreigners (ie Hershey, Anhauser Busch). Too many would praise and buy GM rather than support free market principles - buy the best. Add Sycamore to a list of why oil prices must increase.

You don't see the word smaller in anything I posted. I have described a truck that is larger, weights massively less, and has a stronger (and longer lasting) drive train. That drive train in pickups today is the weak, low reliability drive train. It's the same 1960 technology that cars no longer use because it fails so often - too many parts - too exposed.

Hear pickups self destructing as they drive down the road. Hear that noise from its exhaust? That's energy being wasted and poorly machined parts vibrating more. Vibrations inside parts cause most wear and damage. Yes, the noise appeals to those with little intelligence - who know it must be better because it makes more noise. But then propaganda can make those types believe anything. Innovative products are first bought by the more intelligent. Notice the increasing market share something recent - Japanese pickups. A Japan clone is superior to a Chevy as the Japan clone mini-van took over that market. Well, it takes time for propaganda to get the easily manipulated to change their thinking. No problem. Toyota, et al will simply do to trucks what they did to cars. More American will end up working for foreigners. All traceable to consumers who encouraged GM to keep making the same pickup based upon a 1930 design with 1960 technology and some of the worlds crappiest drive trains.

Just like in the 1970s - GM, Ford, etc said we cannot improve on cars. They called themselves a smoke stack industry because bean counters cannot innovate. You would suggest GM cannot innovate the truck using the same 'ostrich' reasoning? Innovators always make new markets. Anti-innovators (ie communists) wait for someone else to take those markets away. Same logic also explained why GM, with a 70 Hp/liter engine originally designed in 1972 could not implement that engine even in 2002. Everyone else now uses 70 Hp/liter engines. But not GM. GM said their obsolete technology "was the image that people wanted".

If GM wanted to advance themselves, America, and reduce energy consumption; the pickup would be front wheel drive with all the massive improvement that come from such designs. But GM mentality is to stifle innovation and consume even more fuel. No wonder it takes government regulation to get any innovation out of GM.

You should definitely create your auto line. And then when you've conquered that you should become a business management consultant and change the way companies are run. After that you absolutely must run for office so you can fix corruption in our political system.

you know everything so you'd be the ideal guy to do it. just as long as real life works like you think it will after reading a few books.

All I have done is repost facts and numbers long ago published by others that everyone should know. Nothing new is posted. However it does contradict popular myths. Well, is that not what I do often? See those posts about Saddam's WMDs and reasons for "Mission Accomplished" back in 2003? Who got it right by ignoring popular myths; by instead grasping for facts and numbers? Simply doing same here no matter how unpopular reality may be.

The question is about high gas prices. GM is clearly culpable. Numbers (so often ignored by the local gossip and Fox New propaganda) are posted here. Even Sycamore demonstrates the problem. He posts EPA mileage numbers for equivalent competitive cars - Honda Accord and Chevy Lumina. Even those numbers demonstrate what every one should have known even back then. All I am doing is bluntly attacking popular myths. GM is clearly a major contributor to increasing gas prices with poor products that are also gas hogs and are not exportable.

Why has GMs stock value dropped to 1955 levels? The entire product line is that crappy. And just like throughout the entire 1970s, GM repeatedly stifled innovation while running to government for protection. Want to see GM's problems today. Deja vue. Read DeLorean's book "On a Clear Day You Can See GM".

Okay, snippety snip is unfair. But it's all there ;)