Gas Prices: Who's to Blame?

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by tw

Sycamore again posts irrelevant numbers because he did not grasp what was posted.

GM developed a 70 Hp/liter engine in the early 1970s. Honda, et al developed their 70 Hp/liter engines about 1992. 30 years later and 15 years after everyone else sells 70 Hp/liter engines, GM still does not sell 70 Hp/liter engines in all vehicles. Sycamore posts 1988 Honda numbers to prove that engine did not exist after 1992? That is proof? Sycamore - read numbers? 1992 is after 1988. Get in the game.

GM products, 13+ years after developing a the 70 HP/liter engine, had 10% LOWER performance, lower gas mileage, higher pollution, more interior noise, higher failure rates, higher production costs, etc. Sycamore also forgot to post the standard number for most 1988 GM products - only 52 Hp/liter - 17% less performance. No wonder GM would teeter on bankruptcy in 1991. Numbers before 1992 demonstrate GM products were worse even before 70 Hp/liter became the world standard. Sycamore – how do I make this any simpler?

I have probably confused Sycamore by claiming 1988 and 1992 are different years. Nine numbers and two paragraphs. Sycamore foolishly praised GM's 2008 J-car that is finally doing mid-1990 gas mileage numbers. GM's J-car was renamed after a long history of bad products. The Vega, Sunbird, Cavalier, and Cadillac Cimarron all were the same J-car platform. Cobalt is a J-car now renamed. Putting lipstick on a pig does not make a thoroughbred.

No wonder GM stock is now worth less today than in 1982. GM stifled technology for 30 years. GM opposed every higher mileage standards. It's still the J-car doing today what the world was doing 10 years ago. Sycamore again forgot to read (grasp) numbers before posting.

Of course, TheMercenary or UG would then call Sycamore a dumb fuck because he acted as one - buying and praising a GM product that is 10 years obsolete. But that is what they do - attack others.

Well, Tommy, you certainly wrote a lot of words...words that mean nothing, because--again--you have provided no support of your statements. Some of what you've posted might be indeed facts, but since only you and 20 other people probably know of it, it would help if you provided sources.

Now, let's get to the meat here. Remember this thread? Let review some of your cute statements:

40 MPG is standard mileasge for Cobalt sized cars even 15 years ago.

I used 1998 numbers from our friends at the EPA, but let's go with some 1993 models, okay?

Cavalier: 26/33
Civic: 35/41
Corolla: 23/31
323: 25/33

So...what standard are you talking about from 1993?

Did you do numbers on that Saturn Astra? It finally has what has been standard all over the world for almost 20 years - the 70 HP/liter engine.

To which I pulled the following information:

1988 Toyota Corolla with 4A-F engine: 59hp/L
1988 Honda Civic with 1500cc engine: 61hp/L
1988 Chevy Cavalier with 2.0L engine: 55hp/L

Almost 20 years? What does that mean? That generally means 19 or 18 to me...not 15 or 16. Who's having problems with numbers now?

But let's go with 1993 models, shall we? Nah, let's go with the first model year of a new generation after the glorious 70hp/L motor became the "world standard":

1996 Honda Civic DX (with the D16Y7 engine): 1.5L, 115hp, 66hp/L
1995 Chevy Cavalier (with the GM 122 engine): 2.2L, 110hp, 50hp/L
1998 Toyota Corolla (with the 1ZZ-FE engine): 1.8L, 120hp, 67hp/L

(All of these are from their respective Wikipedia entries...who the hell would try and doctor some shit like this?)

Close...that's not 70, though. Again, who's having problems with numbers now?

I'm in the game, Tommy. I'm at Citizens Bank Park, waiting for the first pitch at the Phillies game. Meanwhile, you're sitting over at a ball field somewhere in Montgomery County all alone, wondering where the action is.

You hear that whooshing sound, Tommy? Listen closely...

*whoooooooosh*

That's the sound of the last remaining pieces of your credibility slipping away.

[Kingswood]

Americans have it really easy with fuel prices. Here's a comparison:

In Australia we are now paying A$1.70 per litre for unleaded petrol, $1.80 for diesel. A$1 = US$0.95, 3.785L = 1 USG.

1.70 x 0.95 x 3.785 = 6.11 US$ / US gal
1.80 x 0.95 x 3.785 = 6.47 US$ / US gal

[Flint]

I think I know what tw meant. Maybe the more efficient engines were developed as a concept car that was never offered in production.

There's a number of possible different reasons for that: maybe they were unable to offer the product at a marketable price point, maybe there was a lack of interest, and... maybe they were suppressing the technology.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Flint

I think I know what tw meant. Maybe the more efficient engines were developed as a concept car that was never offered in production.

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.