Kill the Messenger - this time the LA Times
 

The Wall Street Journal writes an article about GM. It's only common knowledge. GM takes revenge when they don't like what a reporter writes. From the Wall Street Journal of 8 April 2005 As a result, WSJ reporters such as Maryann Keller ("Rude Awakening") were reporting more honestly about GMs product problems.

Honesty is not GM. Example: new Pontiac G6 that GM promoted by giving away on Oprah. Lutz inherited this car and another pathetic product - Buick Lacrosse - when he arrived. Other pathetic designs include the Saturn L series that was forced upon Saturn by corporate bean counters. These are products of a #1 problem in GM - Rick Wagoner. But then let's do the numbers - which GM fears to put on their window stickers. 200 horsepower from a 3.5 liter V-6 is a paltry and low performance 57 horse power per liter. Well at least that is an improvement over their 52 HP per liter cars of the last ten years. 70 HP/liter was standard performance more than 10 years ago. A technology that GM was ready to put into all vehicles in 1975 - more than 25 years ago - if car guys (not bean counters) were permitted to design.

Why put the 70 Hp/liter in cars when so many Americans are so anti-American as to buy cars that must have two extra pistons (and less gas mileage). Those higher prices? Blame the unions.

Two years ago, (July 2003?), the New York Times wrote a scathing review of another pathetic GM product - the Pontiac Grand Prix. Maybe because Pontiac was replacing this product with the G6, then it was safe for the NY Times to report facts. The Grand Prix was called pathetic. Rick Wagoner could not be blamed for that so called 'Wide Track' car. BTW wide track means it is the same width as identical models sold in Buick and Chevy. Wide track is an expression for those who like to be lied to. Pontiacs are only wider in their exaggeration.

Rick Wagoner was head of GMs North American operation when, in February 2000, he was in competition with the European head of operations to succeed Jack Smith. North American operations were losing money while the European operations (Vauxhall and Opel) were providing GM with up to $1billion in profits annually. And so GM promoted the man whose operations lost money every year (North America) rather than promote a man who provided profitable products (Europe). Now that Wagoner is top boss, both operations are losing money heavily. No wonder GM management is blaming everyone except themselves. GM bonds somehow managed to stay out of junk status this week. GM wants the press to spin facts for them. Don't tell the truth about how bad GM products really are - especially their low performance, higher polluting, and lower gas mileage engines. Ignore that $100 million provided by the government in 1993 to develop hybrid products ... that GM still does not sell more than 10 years later. Never attack GM management. They are even more important than the product line. The emperor has no cloths. Fix the problem. Muzzle the press.

This month is the Consumer Reports April car issue. Consumer Reports (not to be confused with Consumers Digest) has a long history of being honest. Why? GM cannot use its advertising budget to take revenge. One famous CR article was entitled "Oldsmobile Achieva is an under achiever". An understatement. But CR can be honest. GM is depicting the LA Times to threaten the news media - because GM products are that bad due to Rick Wagoner.

Dan Neil's LA Times article is not that negative. But it identifies a problem in GM - Rick Wagoner. Not permitted. Responsible technical publications from the IEEE to Scientific American noted that hydrogen as a fuel is not realistic. Better still - it was a lie once you did simple engineering numbers. Not enough energy in a hydrogen fuel. Too much energy lost to store and distribute it.

Hybrids were long known by the technically informed as a viable solution. But GMs top management had to understand simple numbers for BTUs in fuel, pounds per square inch, leakage rates, thermodynamic concepts, ... All things known to an executive who can provide a strategic objective - a product oriented thinker. Ask current GM management to provide the strategic objective? Not possible when bean counters design the products. Currently GM has pathetic products as one should expect from a bean counter - who could not even run a profitable North American operation.

BTW what were Rick Wagoner's previous jobs? Finance.

Signs in GM a decade ago spelled the word "employe". Why? This is how Roger Smith spelled the word in his memos. Therefore all signs in all GM plants were changed to spell the word as Smith insisted. Dan Quayle? Anyone remember how to spell "potatoe"? Immediately after Roger Smith left GM, all signs were immediately changed to spell it correctly: "employee". That is GM. The boss - not the product - is important. A principle promoted by business school management. A problem so deeply embedded in GM's bad management that Rick Wagoner decided to take personal control of jobs by both Cowger and Lutz. A management so deeply entrenched that the head of one few profitable GM operations in China quit when a new boss moved to Shanghai to better 'oversee' operations there.

Rick Wagoner's history was losses when he was boss of GM's North American operations. How do GM managers get their jobs? Clearly not on designing better products or reporting profits. Get Americans to foolishly buy GM products and lies. Better to get news services to spin half truths - so a naive 23% will continue to buy classically anti-American GM products.

They vote to save Rick Wagoner's job. They buy low performance, gas guzzling, pathetic vehicles that cannot be exported and still don't have technology that GM was ready to market in 1975 - 25+ years ago. Technology now found in all patriotic products since 1992. And that was the standard technology before hybrids. Let’s see. No 70 Horsepower per liter engine in the Pontiac G6 or Buick Lacrosse. No hybrids in any models. Who would be so foolish as to buy products from this company?

I'm buying those two extra cylinders to get more liters to get more horsepower...duh.
Don't forget there's a price for that horsepower, the more horsepower the shorter the life span for the same engine.

Blame the unions? For the high prices of cars? Think again pal, the union labor accounts for 12 to 15% of the cost of that car. :eyebrow:

As far as I can tell, hybrids get about the sort of gas mileage you'd expect for a car with the OTHER technological improvements they contain, with an equivalently-sized gasoline engine. That is, they get better mileage because they've got less power.

Horsepower per liter is a somewhat interesting figure, but it means nothing in and of itself, and your religious devotion to it is silly. If HP/L was so important, everyone would be using Wankel engines.

Religions? I have no respect for Spanish Inquisitions.

In the meantime who do I believe - Roger Heimbuch, executive engineer for power train systems at GM? Or Russotto. Who do I believe? Jack Obermeyer, a chief engineer for Magnavox who increased horsepower 15 to 20 percent (including less pollution and increased gas mileage)? Or Russotto? Which one has better credibility. Which one in the group never even provides numbers? Russotto.

Which should I believe. The improved gas mileage, longer engine reliability, and wider operating range in the cars with a 70 Hp/liter engine? Or should I believe Russotto who provides no such examples.

Damning question. Once Porsche was the dream car because it had the 70 Hp per liter engine. Then the superior technology became standard in cars with longer life expectancy such as Honda, Toyota, and Mercedes. What cars fail so often that they are also the most stolen? Those low performance GM products.

Ahhh but Horsepowe per liter tells us nothing even though it explains why a GM car (comparitively equipped) costs more to build than than a Mercedes Benz. The GM car must add two extra pistons and all that other machined parts only to output equal horsepower (with less gas mileage, less responsible engine, and higher failure rates that occur with lower performance engines).

Ahhh, but Russotto just knows HP/liter tells us nothing. No reason to tell us why he knows. It is just better that he knows and we do not (a subtle way of saying, "Prove it").

Religion? I have no respect for Spanish Inquisitions. Instead I cite an enemy of religion - the numbers.

In the meantime who do I believe - Roger Heimbuch, executive engineer for power train systems at GM? Or Russotto. Who do I believe? Jack Obermeyer, a chief engineer for Magnavox who increased horsepower 15 to 20 percent (including less pollution and increased gas mileage)? Or Russotto? Which one has better credibility. Which one in the group never even provides numbers? Russotto.

Which should I believe. The improved gas mileage, longer engine reliability, and wider operating range in the cars with a 70 Hp/liter engine? Or should I believe Russotto who provides no such examples.

Damning question. Once Porsche, with its standard 70 Hp/liter engine, was a benchmark dream car. Then the superior technology (which also means longer life expectancy) appeared in standard vehicles such as Honda, Toyota, and Mercedes. What cars fail so often that they are also most stolen? Those with low performance and therefore high failure engines: GM products. I guess it is just an accident that GM is again on the verge of bankruptcy.

Horsepower per liter tells us nothing - even though it explains why a GM car (comparatively equipped) costs more to build than a Mercedes Benz? The GM car must add two extra pistons, extra machined parts, and a bigger body only to output equal horsepower (with less gas mileage, less responsible engine, and higher failure rates that occur with lower performance engines). Horsepower per liter only accidentally identifies which cars are inferior?

Russotto just knows HP/liter tells us nothing. No reason to tell us why he knows. It is just better that he knows and we do not (a subtle way of saying, "Prove it").

Which cars on the race track (real racing is about innovation) break down less often (and win more races)? Those with the high performance engines. Higher performance means the parts are not vibrating themselves into destruction. Higher performance means more energy applied to the wheel and less energy applied to the destruction of engine and drive train.

One advantage of 70 Hp per liter engines was longer life compared to 1975 lower performance 35 HP per liter V8s. Which cars lasted longer? The Chevy type car (of 1975 vintage) sold under a Mercedes nameplate with a higher performance engine (because it was machined better) or the 1975 Chevy?

"Bigger engines last longer" is a myth promoted by motor heads who cum over V-8s rather than first learn basic engine technology. The same people who called those Hondas and Toyotas junk. In reality, any engine designed and machined better is the one that lasts longer - no matter how many pistons are inside. That means higher Hp/liter.

BTW, which long haul (diesel) trucks have engines that last longer? Trucks with the higher performance engines are the more reliable. Larger engines that only get the same horsepower tend to fail more often.

In the meantime, Louis Hughes is the GM executive who made GM's European and even GM's Chinese operations profitable. When Wagoner, a finance guy who ran unprofitable operations instead got promoted, then Hughes left to become head of (I believe it was) Lockheed Martin. Promote the guy you see more often rather than the guy who makes things work. And so GM market share plummets along with their stagnant technology.

The one reason cited by Roger Smith (of the movie Roger and Me) for buying Hughes Spacecraft was so that GM cars could feature 'heads up displays'. Twenty plus years later - where is it? Well Roger Smith, like so many GM executives, did not know how to drive. Head up displays? I finally saw my first 'heads up display': on a Toyota Prius. A hybrid.

Where is Hughes Spacecraft? GM spun off Direct TV, On-Star, and Delco (all contain Hughes Spacecraft divisions) to cover GMs 1990s losses. I wonder if Toyota gets that 'heads up display' from a former Hughes Spacecraft operation.

:confused:

Why do televisions need more horsepower?

You’re stuttering, TW. You read this in an article (Economist?), understood the concept and their sources but trying to condense it into a short post (after being beaten up for making long ones so often) the cites/ quotes don't fully support the premise.

OK, what in hell is a “High Performance” engine?
Are you saying the more horsepower per cubic inch/liter the longer it will last? That’s simply not true. The longevity of the engine depends on how that HP was achieved. Displacement is a surefire way, in two engines of the same technology. So is nitros oxide injection but neither will help longevity.
You’re right about vibration being the enemy of engines. As a matter of fact it’s engine enemy #1. Enemy #2 is heat(excessive). Both these culprits interfere with lubrication but that’s the method, not the cause, of failure.

Comparing a 1975 GM V-8 to the Mercedes of that vintage, yes, the Merc will probably last longer. And yes it was machined to closer tolerances but it also cost 3 times as much.
That highly touted Honda or Toyota engine was pulling much less weight. They would both fail much sooner than a big V-8, trying to lug a big GM car around.
Engines are most efficient when they’re working their hardest but that hurts longevity.
Remember HP and efficiency don’t mean torque. That’s the value of a diesel, the tremendous torque it produces at low RPM. Those 80,000 lb over the road rigs are turning about 2,000 rpm which helps longevity significantly but they also use transmission/differentials you have to shift 26 times. :mg:

Heads up displays were ONE of the reasons for buying Hughes but it makes a good sound bite for the TV news or quick fact for the automotive press.
The primary reason is they could see electronics was the future of automobiles and experience, capacity, knowledge are easier and cheaper to come by, when you buy a company that has it rather than creating a division from scratch.
They hadn’t planned to spin off On-star, it was a financial necessity.
BTW, GM has heads up in the high end models...it ain’t cheap and of questionable in normal driving.

Bottom line...GM has gone to hell in a handbasket. The MBAs haven't a clue about the car culture so they've made bad moves consistantly. Some of their high end products have finally turned around but the bulk of the products and the Corporation itself are deep, deep in doo doo.

The stupidest part of the whole engineering issue is that the federal goverment wants to slam down Californias efforts at tougher emission standards. The Feds, those corporate ass-kissing former and future lobbyist wannabes, are claiming that although California could write a tougher clean air law, when it comes to auto emissions the only way to improve auto emissions is by improving mileage, which is the sole province of the federal government.

This is of course pure horse manure, since a catalytic converter does not improve mileage.

So here is our "state's rights" conservative Congress using a loophole to prevent a state from trying to resolve a clean air issue on it's own.

bastards.

Kahnwe, Dewey, Fucem & Howe
Attorneys at Law
Detroit, Michigan

Mr. TW Cellar
Onthenet, PA

Dear Sir,
It has come to our attention you’ve been casting aspersions on the General Motors Executives.
Your actions have caused these fine members of the Grosse Point Country Club embarrassment and ridicule by their peers, in the clubhouse.
Your public ridicule has subsequently forced them to increase compensation to their mistresses in lieu of their ability to perform.
Their wives have increased European shopping junkets, their children have been working for Democratic candidates, their dogs have growled at them and their paperboy has been aiming for the roof.

Tsk tsk, Sir. As legal representatives and golfing partners of the aforesaid executives, we demand you cease and desist your criticism, stifle your passion and button your lip.
Should you ignore our demands, we will have no choice but to turn this matter over to the General Motors Corp, Homeland Security Division, Black Helicopter Branch, Field Testing Group.
We will also take all necessary steps to tell on you.

Respectfully Yours
Shirley Fucem

And the creativity prize goes to.....

http://www.icommag.com/january-2005/...mith-prize.gif

xoxoBruce!!!

Two engines using same technology. Obviously nitrous references were made only to confuse the issue. Obvious when industry standard numbers for fuel injected engines were different from turbo which were different from supercharged which are different from nitrous. Clearly those are all different technology engines. Lower performance GM engine (of same technology) is larger because it creates less horsepower for many reasons including excessive vibration, poorly designed exhaust systems, etc. GM engine wears out faster. Obviously. The GM engine has a lower HP/liter number AND costs more to build than the Mercedes.

Don't let those dealer prices fool you. The Mercedes comparatively equipped sell for same or less than the GM product throughout the world. At the same price, Mercedes earns a profit. GM sells many cars at losses which is why GM is so anxious to protect their SUVs with a $5000 profit margin.

Horsepower per liter number accurately identifies both crappy and superior engines. Even an advanced auto engine development engineer from Magnavox cited the number. Hondas and Toyotas move same weight car with smaller engines that also last longer. Why? Same technology engine has a higher HP/liter number due to superior design, less vibration, smarter exhaust system, better fuel combustion (meaning less pollution), etc.

BTW, what does the catalytic converter do? Burns gasoline the engine did not (and a few other functions). How to decrease pollution? Increase gas mileage as was even proven by Japanese cars in the 1970s and 1980s. Burn gasoline in the engine and not in a catalytic converter. Why does Honda ,et al have those ultra low emmission vehicles? They properly burn gasoline in the engine and therefore get higher gasoline mileage to boot.

Properly noted by xoxoxoBruce is that some GM products have improved. How do you know? Those are the few GM products that finally got a 70 Hp/liter engine. Most noteworthy is the performance improvement in cars that are (unfortunately) styled like Bizarro Superman's face - Cadillac.

A worse case problem that virtually everyone says is a GM problem. They have 18 models in 8 divisions. They have three different cars of the same size and market that don't even share any component parts. VW markets numerous nameplates from only three cars. Names such as TT , Pasat, and VW Bug are the same vehicle with modified metal curves.

These recent posts are simply updated details on what was posted many years previously. GM did not fix their problems. Rick Wagoner is no different from previous GM leaders who (for example) short the pension fund contributions to invent profits. Then blame the pension fund for their financial problems years later. Financial problems today were obvious many years previously in the background of top GM management and the resulting pathetic products. What does GM do? Blame the LA Times and seek revenge. Yea. That will fix everything. Kill the messenger.

First of all Nitros Oxide (laughing gas the dentist uses) is a legitimate way to increase hp and NOT obviously made only to confuse the issue. 600/700 cubic inch engines routinely produce 3,000 hp but they are rebuilt after a couple of minutes running. Lot’s of hp/ci but not longevity, which is the point. HOW the increase in hp/displacement is achieved dictates any increase in longevity. Where on earth did you get that from? :headshake If your comparing the Mercedes to GMs sold in Calcutta, but not in NY. The Catalytic Converter was invented to remove the NOx (nitrogen oxides) that come from higher combustion temps. The higher temps are required to make the engine operate more efficiently. Engine coolant temps that used to be 160 to 180 degrees F are now over 200 to keep the combustion chambers and incoming charge passages hot.

Now they have 3-way Cats that will act like a furnace to burn some of the carbon monoxide and any hydrocarbons (fuel or oil) that get by the engine. BUT their primary function is still removing the N from the NOx resulting in O2(oxygen) and N2(nitrogen).

One reason Hybrids pollute less is that huge battery pack has the power to heat the Cat, getting it working quickly.

All these are just technical points. The fact remains GM's management has sucked for some time and still does. The only reason they've survived this long is the momentum and clout of such a behemoth with a better than 50% market share takes a long time to run down.

Again, nitrous only confuses the issue. Do we all run nitrous in our cars? Of course not. We are discussing a technology called fuel injection using standard 87 Octane gasoline. Which versions of these engines last longer? Those with a higher HP/liter number. Again you are looking at retail price and assuming that retail price is reflected in manufacturing costs. When selling a Mercedes in the US, add upwards of $20,000 profit because the equivalent GM car (of inferior quality) must sell at that price to break even or earn a small profit.

About ten years ago, profit margins for GM products averaged - $125 per vehicle. $125 for a less than $20000 vehicle. Ford and Chrysler were both earning about $1000 per vehicle. GM automobiles were sold at a loss which is why GM was about 2 hours away from bankruptcy sometime on or after 1990. One of the biggest losers was the Chevy Caprice. It has been long understood that GMs costs are some of the world's highest - higher than Daimler Benz. (Maybe Fiat had higher costs?)

Look at labor. How many man-hours to make every part and assemble the vehicle? 1000 man-hours? No way. Not even in the ballpark. When GM was making every part from scratch into a completed car: 120 man-hours. However most of GMs competitors were doing same in less than 90 man-hours. When GM was bragging they got their manufacturing labor down to (I forget the exact number) 70 man-hours, well, the industry was doing a car in only 40 man-hours. It is estimated that some Toyota facilities are doing cars in less than 30 man-hours. Again, that is everything from putting threads on the screws to assembling the final product.

For those who listen to silly propaganda about labor costs: first do the numbers. A man earning about $30,000 per year on the assembly line takes 120 man-hours to manufacture one vehicle. Labor costs were about $2500 per vehicle. At $2500 per vehicle, a car company could not be profitable even in the late 1980s. At $1200 labor per vehicle, still GMs costs are some of the highest in the world. Labor has always been that little in the price of a new car. But at $2500 per vehicle, you can understand why GM tried to sell Chevy Cavaliers at $12000 per car. Eventually GM had to lower the base price to under $10000 per car because better designed imports took less man-hours to build.

Was Japanese labor cheaper? More myths. Japanese auto industry labor has traditionally been more expensive per hour than America. Typically 10% higher paid.

GMs problems are directly traceable to bad designs that cost more to build and that have worse reliability problems. And yes, the Daimler Benz products have long cost less to build than comparatively equipped GM models. It is why Mercedes are even found in ghettos such as the Gaza Strip. The dirty little joke played on naive Americans who "Buy American". They say, "Keep making crap that cannot even be exported". They still buy GM products and therefore say it is good to make crap. Patriots believe in the free market and buy the best - which is not an American GM product. Completely wrong. Newer design catalytic converters also address the NOx problems. But the original early 1970s converters only did one thing - burn the hydrocarbons in the exhaust. In fact, some carburetors were so badly constructed that early catalytic converters would set fire to the grass. Too much gasoline dumped into the catalytic converter cause too much heat and grass fires.

To do the same thing (mostly found in low performance American engines) was an air pump. Pump more air into the exhaust to burn the gasoline the engine did not. Nonsense. Innovators instead burn hydrocarbons in the engine - the higher performance 70 HP/liter engine.

This nonsense of about 'burning gas in the exhaust pipe' was made most glaringly obvious when DeLorean rescued Vega from MBA corporate management. Corporate executives wanted GM's Rochester carburetor in Vegas. DeLorean (a product oriented thinker) protected the Holley 5210C (licensed by Weber) that caused more fuel to be burned inside the engine. DeLorean summarizes the story quite bluntly in his book "On a Clear Day, You Can See GM". Rochester carbs were designed by bean counters. Holley innovated - licensed and tuned the world's best carburetor to be used on small engines. When DeLorean left GM in 1977, then the Holley Carb was immediately replaced in 1978 Vegas. But because the carb was so crappy, GM then had to install an air pump - to burn gasoline in the exhaust because gasoline was not fully burned in the engine.

The air pump and catalytic converter were to burn gasoline in the exhaust pipe when engine was lower performance and poor gas mileage; therefore polluted more.

Again, the catalytic converter has been improved since then to also process NOx and CO emissions. But its original and primary purpose is to burn hydrocarbons - as was its purpose in the 1930s when first installed at GM painting facilities by Airco.

What first addressed the NOx problem? EGR valve. Originally developed as part of the Chrysler CAP system in the 1960s. Its purpose: to lower combustion temperatures and reduce NOx. Yes, thermodynamic principles says a high temperature engine should be thermodynamically more efficient. But high NOx production meant more energy was lost manufacturing NOx - a pollutant. High School Chemistry. Break apart NOx into nitrogen and oxygen. Get no pollution and get more energy. An engine that outputs high NOx (pollutants) is using gasoline energy to instead make an air pollutant. To get better gas mileage and reduce pollution (less NOx), all cars now have the EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) valve.

Americans were leading the world with 'less polluting' technologies in the 1960s. However the chief engineer for Chrysler's CAP program was (by 1970) banned from SAE meeting because top bean counter executives did not want those lower polluting technologies known. When top executive testified before the Senate (about 1969) that the 1975 standards could not be met, Chrysler’s CAP program was already testing engines in CA that met 1974 standards. Top auto executives don't like to be exposed by Senators as liars.

Today, many still believe those myths of bean counter auto executives. They claim more pollution control means less gasoline mileage. As demonstrated by the science in that above history, those who make a higher mileage engine also reduce pollution.

When the US auto industry in the late 1970s virtually did everything they could to deny pollution reduction, then patriots appeared in places like Bosch. Bosch developed the oxygen sensor now found in all cars. What does it do? Reduced pollution and increases gasoline mileage by reporting oxygen levels in the exhaust. A device that maximizes gas mileage also reduces pollution. But this has always been the secret to superior products that also have higher Hp/liter. Innovation. It means the top management must be car guys; not bean counters.

Nonsense. You don't need a hybrid battery to heat the catalytic converter. Any energy source (such as the alternator) can do that just fine. Hybrids pollute less and obtain better mileage because they adapt better to changing loads. To solve this 'load' problem, GMs solution was bigger engines. Hybrids do as diesel electric locomotives were doing in the 1930s. The concept was that well understood. Adapt better to changing load conditions and the engine can be smaller. A one liter Hybrid is now doing what a 2.2 liter (or in GM's case, a 3.0 liter) conventional engine does. And this is expected only to get better since the current hybrids are currently so crude.

Why are GMs costs so high? They stifled a 1972 technology even 25 years later - the 70 Hp/liter engine. That technology has since been replaced by Hybrids. Government gave GM (no strings attached) $100 million to develop a hybrid. But GM management is so anti-American, anti-innovation, and anti-humanity as to still not have a hybrid ready for production. $100 million dollars - no strings attached - and they still cannot innovate? Of course not. Look at where GM top executives come from. Finance Department. They even promoted the bean counter who operation was losing money every year - Rick Wagoner - over the engineer whose operation was delivering profits every year - Louis Hughes. A company so much its own enemy that GM cannot even see the difference between a good and bad executive? That has been GMs problems ever since the accountants took the company away from car guys about 1968 and after.

BTW, every executive I personally know in GM is either a lawyer or an MBA school graduate.

You were talking about 70's and 80's during which fuel injection was not universal by a long shot. Obviously you're trying to confuse the issue by using different technologies, apples and oranges, calling them the same, and comparing outputs of horsepower as king. Meanwhile completely ignoring the effect of torque output and the type of technology on longevity.
Shame on you for misleading these good people.
It doesn't matter what they make in the profit column at Mercedes, when they charge 3 times as much as a Chevy people can't afford them. Duh. Use your head. People aren't shopping technology they're shopping price.
Horseshit, GM has never made all it's content. They've always bought parts and fasteners from outside venders. Not as much as today but always a significant percentage. The only hours you can add up is assembly of major components and final assembly of the vehicle. Oh, and vehicle assemblers make more than $30k....a lot more.. But when you reduce the combustion temp the other two pollutants go up. BTW- the automakers were forbidden by federal law to work together on emission controls. Ahem. Ahem. I'm sure every executive you personally know at GM would make me question your definition of exectutive. :eyebrow: