Kill the Messenger - this time the LA Times

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

So basically, now that everyone else in the world has shown that fuel efficient cars can be made, it's unfair to actually set better standards.

And why can some make more fuel efficient cars? Because they have been using and are now upgrading from a technology developed in GM in 1972 ... and GM still does not have those technologies in their 2006 vehicles.

Recently did some GM product numbers. GM products once only did 52 Hp/liter. Now GM is doing 61 HP per liter in some V-8s. Why would they spend any money developing V-8s? No vehicle needed a V8. 80% of Toyotas are four cylinder engines. And who is eating GM's lunch every day? Same company that put GM's 1972 technology in their 1992 cars - Toyota.

GM can cry all it wants. But its top management does not even drive. Its top management did not even come from where the work gets done. Even its chief engineer - a graphics art student.

Pretty is defined by what it does - not the shiny paint. Any whore can fix herself with more makeup. Does that really make her pretty? Only bankruptcy can fix GMs only problem - management that does not even know how to drive.

Ford problems are same. Ford also does not have 70 HP per liter engines in all vehicles. Like GM, Ford puts whore V-8s in trucks to appease ‘big dic’ mentalities – rather than go after intelligent customers. Well, at least Ford is admitting how bad Ford has stifled innovation. So Ford may be negotiating to buy that technology from Toyota.

[Aliantha]

Well it just comes down to the dollar sign at the end of the day.

If they choose to market more efficient cars more effectively, they'll have a growing market. If they choose to rest on their laurels and let the consumers buy what they've already been told they want, then that's what will continue to happen.

To manufacture more fuel efficient vehicles the initial costs would be exhorbitant and that's the only thing stopping the big guys atm. When they're either forced to do it, or realize that fuel for cars as they are now is starting to get a bit more thin on the ground, they'll have to bite the bullet. After that, they'll just tell consumers they don't want big huge gas guzzlers. What they want is something sporty and economical.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

To manufacture more fuel efficient vehicles the initial costs would be exhorbitant and that's the only thing stopping the big guys atm.

It is called Research and Development. If the executive is a graduate of a business school, then R&D (and engineers) is an expense. If the man comes from where the work gets done (by definition, an American patriot), then that same innovation is an asset.

Unfortunately it is that simple. And unfortunately, so many Americans so hate America as to 'buy American'. That 'buy American' attitude is why the problem remains. The real "only thing stopping the big guys" are still too many Americans who are so dumb as to believe George Jr and who also 'buy American'. The problem of intelligence starts at the source - those who keep telling GM, et al to keep making crap.

Another issue is steel... there are other alternatives that are as strong and not as heavy, but the US auto industry is so deeply in bed with steel that the idea of anything else is just impossible for them to even think of.

[Aliantha]

The R&D is done TW. They already know how to make more fuel efficient cars. It's converting the factories that provides the greater expense.

That was my point.

[Hippikos]

Ford's new CEO Mulally could make the difference. He turned Boeing around after 9/11. I heard he created a War Room where he presented the new strategy for the next 3-5 years to the management. All the assets have been mortgaged, including the blue Ford Logo and 82000 people will be laid off.

[xoxoxoBruce]

My brother mentioned yesterday that his Dodge 3/4 ton pickup with a "Hemi" V-8 and automatic transmission gets the exact same gas mileage as his Mazda Miata, 4 cylinder, stick shift.

[Undertoad]

And now this:

http://physorg.com/news122655117.html

Purdue University engineers have developed a new aluminum-rich alloy that produces hydrogen by splitting water and is economically competitive with conventional fuels for transportation and power generation.

"We now have an economically viable process for producing hydrogen on-demand for vehicles, electrical generating stations and other applications," said Jerry Woodall, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue who invented the process.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And now this:

http://physorg.com/news122655117.html

The terrorists will love this technology, beer cans to bombs.

[tw]

They are going to the perfect source of corporate welfare - wacko right wing Republican extremists. GM, et al now wants free government money because, after all, throwing money at anti-American companies will save jobs and reduce the deficit. Right.
From MarketWatch.com:

GM (GM) Wants A Loan From Uncle Sam
Several reports indicate that GM (GM, Ford (F), and Chrysler are approaching the government for a total of $25 billion in loans at interest rates as low as 4.5%. The money could come in the form of loan guarantees.

Let's see. GM was given $100million by the government to develop a hybrid in 1994. Fifteen years later - 10 years obsolete - GM still does not have a hybrid. GM is hyping their first hybrid as the only new product - to save the company. The Volt will not appear for another two years – 16 years after the Congress provided corporate welfare to build a hybrid. How does a company run by MBA auto designers solve their problems? They will run to the government for money.

A country that believes in free markets would let GM go to bankruptcy. Then all those America jobs would be saved. The only reason for GM job losses is Rick Wagoner and his staff of bean counters. How did we save Chrysler? We gave Chrysler no government money; we forced Chrysler to eliminate their only problem. Top management was replaced by someone how knew how to drive - Lee Iacocca. Bankruptcy of GM would also eliminate the only reason why GM refused to innovate - Rick Wagoner. To save his job

The only problem with GM - its product line reflects how MBA school management innovates. GM deperately needs bankrucpty to save those employees jobs and eliminate the only problem in GM.

Ever significant innovation in a GM car in the past 30 years has been all but required by EPA regulation. It takes government regulation before an MBA will let car guys innovate? And then the same MBA will run to government for corporate welfare. Ironically, right wing Republicans support this 'bridge to nowhere'.

[classicman]

GM sucks - is that what you are saying T-dub....AGAIN. I think that horse has been beaten to death?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Hell, tw hates, it appears, any boss who ever went to boss college and passed boss lessons and graduated. You end up wondering just why.

Wonder how he feels about engineers with degrees in engineering?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Hell, tw hates, it appears, any boss who ever went to boss college and passed boss lessons and graduated. You end up wondering just why.

Hell no. This was bait so that the dumbest person I ever knew would post - UG. UG - fist fights never occured even in any bar I drank in. But the minute you walked in, everyone would want to hit you. You are that dumb. You are so stupid that even Forest Gump would want to hit you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Chrysler got loan guarantees.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Chrysler got loan guarantees.

Only after Chrysler 1) fixed the problem - replaced bean counters Townsend and Richardo with Iacocca, 2) still had to obtain loans from private sources, and 3) still had to pay the same high interest rates. In fact, Chrysler almost failed when Deutsche Bank backed out at the last minute. Chrysler had to earn their loans by first fixing the reason for Chrysler’s near demise – bad management resulting in bad products.

GM does not want to fix their problem and wants the government to loan the money at much lower interest rates. IOW an anti-America company (paraphrasing classicman) now wants us to pay - corporate welfare - so GM can continue making the same mistakes. At what point does a GM stock holder suffer risks because stockholders remained in denial? At what point does a bankruptcy threat become so great that stock holders finally demand intelligent management?

So many tried to save GM including Ross Perot and Carl Icahn. GM stockholders refused to admit the obvious. Therefore GM stockholders should be rewarded as the partners of Bear Stearns were also rewarded. Bankruptcy is necessary to remove GM's only problem - Rick Wagoner and his staff. Instead, GM wants free money to keep making bad products.

Only two months ago, GM said they had plenty of cash. Suddenly GM need tens of $billions? Oh. Lying on the spread sheets is also acceptable? Well, when AT&T was finally exposed as lying, then AT&T had to disintegrate - be consumed by companies with responsible management. Just another example of free market bankruptcies solving the problem - bad management.

Gerald Ford to New York City: Drop dead. Without free Federal money, then NYC decided to solve their bankruptcy problems. As a result, NYC did become fiscally responsible again.