Kill the Messenger - this time the LA Times

[tw]

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 GM has struggled to stop losing market share in the US, executives there have stepped up the volume of their complaints about negative press. ... In a Wednesday column, Los Angeles Times auto writer Dan Neil sharply criticized GM for what he said were a series of poor management decisions.
"An American idle" in the LA Times of 6 April 2005

"GM is a morass of a business case, but one thing seems clear enough, and Lutz's mistake was to state the obvious and then recant: The company's multiplicity of divisions and models is turning into a circular firing squad" ...

There is some precedent for such harsh action among auto advertisers. Ford Motor Co yanked ads from the New Yorker magazine when the magazine failed to alert it about a Jun 1995 article containing a four letter word. In response, the New Yorker set up a formal system to warn about 50 companies on a "sensitive advertiser list" about articles that might offend.

In 1954, GM threatened to cancel its advertising in The Wall Street Journal, and not speak to its reporters, if the Journal published a story revealing the next year's cars. During the 1950s and '60s, the Journal put enough money into liquid assets that it would be able to keep publishing even if five big advertisers withdrew.

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.

It was Lutz, after all, who candidly averred at a Morgan Stanley meeting last month that GM might have to phase out some of its product lines, even using the word "damaged" to describe Pontiac and Buick.

GM utterly missed the boat on hybrid gas-electric technology and lobbied Congress not to raise fuel-economy standards on the grounds that meeting higher standards would divert funds from critical research in the ultimate propulsion technology, hydrogen fuel cells - an argument that, shall we say, lacks authenticity. Today, GM has no hybrids of consequence on the street, while rivals Toyota and Honda are selling as many as they can build.

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?

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

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.

[russotto]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by russotto

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").

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

Jack Obermeyer, a chief engineer for Magnavox who increased horsepower 15 to 20 percent (including less pollution and increased gas mileage)?

Why do televisions need more horsepower?

[tw]

Originally Posted by russotto

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.

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").

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Don't forget there's a price for that horsepower, the more horsepower the shorter the life span for the same engine.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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. ...

Comparing a 1975 GM V-8 to the Mercedes of same vintage. Yes, the Merc will probably last longer. And yes it was machined to closer tolerances but it also cost 3 times as much.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

The GM engine has a lower HP/liter number AND costs more to build than the Mercedes.

Where on earth did you get that from?

The Mercedes comparatively equipped sell for same or less than the GM product throughout the world.

If your comparing the Mercedes to GMs sold in Calcutta, but not in NY.

BTW, what does the catalytic converter do? Burns gasoline the engine did not (and a few other functions).

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.

[richlevy]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[BigV]

And the creativity prize goes to.....



xoxoBruce!!!

[tw]

From the New York Times of 23 April 2005

Bicoastal Blues for G.M. and Ford
Washington and Oregon plan to become the 9th and 10th states to adopt California's tough car emissions rules, forming an increasingly potent market for more fuel-efficient vehicles on the West Coast and in the Northeast.

The states that already follow California's stringent tailpipe emissions rules also happened to fall in the blue column of the 2004 presidential election: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. ...

Further pressure comes from Canada, which recently forced automakers to agree to substantial cuts in emissions of global warming gases; California has a similar plan that automakers are challenging in court. ...

... on the coasts the last two domestically owned automakers face their biggest challenges, with customers turning to competitors like Toyota faster than in the rest of the country. Together, Ford and G.M. controlled 49.1 percent of domestic sales last year, but according to Polk, their market share in the 10 states was 40.6 percent.

... G.M. is diverting engineering resources from passenger cars to rush a new generation of its largest S.U.V.'s into production, betting that new models will stimulate the market for big sport utility vehicles ...

"The reality is that both companies are heavily invested in large S.U.V.'s and both companies have more risk than they have opportunity with their current sales mix," said John Casesa, an auto analyst at Merrill Lynch. "There is a secular trend towards lower emissions and higher fuel economy, which can only be met with lots of technology investment and probably smaller vehicles. There's only so much you can do with a Suburban."

Since more consumption means higher gasoline prices, where is the logic in GM's planns. Those who lived through this kind of downturn in the 1970s can also appreciate what GM, Chrysler, and Ford's solutions were back then. They simply kept building more large vehicles with low performance, low mileage engines. History tends to repeat itself in 30 year cycles when we don't learn those lessons.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In TW’s original post he made the assertion that GM’s management sucks. I agree with this assertion. However, he offered up as proof the magic 70 hp/liter as evidence of higher efficiency, better mileage and longevity which is utter bullshit.
Russotto offered an opinion which TW twisted until it was unrecognizable and belittled the poster as unworthy. You’ve seen it before.

Actually I made two mistakes. One was trying to respond to TW’s jumping around history and technology, and trying to answer his accusations of things I didn’t say, when I was too busy to devote that kind of attention to the thread.
The second, and more important mistake, again because of hurrying, was to reverse the chronological order of the catalytic converters. I apologize if I misled anyone.

More hp/liter doesn’t prove anything because there are so many ways to make hp. Better manufacturing tolerances, better balance for lower vibration (preferably by design and care rather than counter balance), better air flow in and out, more accurate spark and fuel delivery/timing, higher compression, variable valve timing, supercharging, turbo charging and NOS not to be confused withNOx.

I said

Comparing a 1975 GM V-8 to the Mercedes of same vintage. Yes, the Merc will probably last longer. And yes it was machined to closer tolerances but it also cost 3 times as much.

And TW responded

Two engines using same technology. SNIP 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.

Carburated, pushrod Chevy is the same technology as an overhead cam, fuel injected Merc. Yeah right.
Next

“So why was technology stifled until fuel injection (and other innovations) appeared in 1992 in competition products?”

1992?? By '92 everything had injection for several years. Before Bosch invented the oxygen sensor enabling electronic fuel injection and electronic engine management, fuel injection was a nightmare. Prestigious, yes, but tremendously complex to manufacture and maintain. Easily clogged, impossible to keep in tune more than a few months at a time, and no advantage for street driving. That’s one reason the Mercedes engines cost 3 times as much as GM’s to buy.
I also said mercs cost 3 times what a Chevy does, in reply to TW’s,

“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.”

I guess “patriots’ are much richer than most of us if they can spend 3 times as much for a merc.
So then he says,

‘xoxoxoBruce - inventing numbers such as a Mercedes costs three times as much to manufacturer does not make your posts credible.”

You see how he’s twisted what I said from the cars cost the consumer 3 times as much to the manufacturing costs being 3 times as high? Man, your nose must be growing.
I also said,

”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.”

And he responded,

, “BTW automakers were not forbidden to sell their emission technologies to other companies - even their competition. Why is the EGR valve developed in Chrysler found in all other cars? Clearly this must violate some federal law... not. But then I keep knocking down myth after myth.”

This time "work together" becomes "sell". Liar, liar, pants on fire. :p
All the manufacturers had a deadline to come up with a system of controlling their pollutants. The Fed’s were afraid collusion would prevent independent research to come up with the best possible solution(s) so they made it illegal to work together or even to know what the other was doing. After they had met their targets they were free to use any method to meet their mandated levels.
Make up a myth and knock it down. Wonder if he knows anyone named Sancho Panza?

An engine cylinder has a set displacement so it needs a certain amount of fuel to maintain a ratio of 14.7 pounds of air for each pound of fuel. At times of low or no load it's wasting that required minimum fuel but if they give it less fuel the combustion temperature soars and the engine will melt down plus the NOx climbs with the temperature. The ERG valve replaces part of the oxygen rich air with oxygen poor exhaust gas so they can withhold part of the fuel and not go lean, causing the temperature and NOx to climb.
Unfortunately the ERG valve is a trouble spot because its controling exhaust flow which tends to clog the valve with deposits. But since GM didn't invent it, that's ok.

You know...I’m beginning to think Bush didn’t lie.