U S Big 3 Auto

MrBrian

http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/03/bmw_beats_prius_in_mpgs.php

diesel cars have become fairly clean running, in some cases cleaner.

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Uniquely/FutureTechnologies/EfficientDynamics/AdvancedDiesel.aspx

Pacomc79

Is that similar to Mercedes Bluetec Mr B.?

12345AGNST1

Pacomc79 wrote:

Can I have a VW R44 instead? Or one of the new 73MPG diesels?

The thing with the diesel technology is that we know it can be used cleanly and efficiently because they use diesel locomotives (filtered) in coal mines. It's not un reasonable to imagine that they can be made reasonably efficient and much more environmentally friendly.

That too. US automakers are lazy, but now GM is spending money on a half electric car. The Volt runs about 30-40 miles on one charge then the gas engine kicks in. Not only that, but GM has been making Hybrid SUV's. How STUPID and lazy is that? A hybrid SUV is like ordering a Big Mac without cheese because your on a diet. It's still bad either way.

VW and other German companies are just using diesel. Its cheaper, easier, very fuel efficient, and better for the environment compared to older diesels.

German FTW

MrBrian

Pacomc79 wrote:

Is that similar to Mercedes Bluetec Mr B.?

In the case of The Bluetec from Benz, the gases from the exhaust have a solution put into them turning something like 70-80%? of the nitrogen oxides into nitrogen and water! They run very cleanly.

Yeah they are similar I believe, but as BMW says, (in reference to Mercedes BlueTec)

'You can also get the cleanest diesel from BMW, but you get performance, too.'

The Illinoisemakers

Another bailout for the big 3 is garbage. Start making better cars and you'll be fine. People want smaller more fuel efficient cars, Ford, Chevy, and GM aren't getting it done on that end.

I say let them die. Let Toyota and Hyundai build plants in the US and there will be plenty of jobs.

I bet GM is kicking themselves now for killing the EV1. No bailout for the big three. Not the Government's job to rescue poorly managed companies.

know1

12345AGNST1 wrote:

I only read the first page but my opnion on the auto industry is this:

If they didn't continue making shitty cars since the 80's we wouldn't have this problems. The big 3 are nothing but lazy cost cutting pussies who's only incentive is to build cars for Rent a Wreck and Hertz. To some people, quality isn't that important, but most car people care. Sit inside of a new Avenger or Focus (cheap plastic, poor styling, sloshy performance), then sit inside of a Jetta. I guarentee you a fully loaded Avenger is still worse then a base Jetta.

I will continue buying European cars till I die. A European car is miles better then anything this country has to offer, or Japan as well.

Quality isn't really the problem other than they have to cut costs to pay those ridiculous union wages.

Blame the workers for making terrible cars and requiring too much pay to do it.

SundaySilence

During the last great depression the auto industry was shut down. Auto plants were contracted for not cars but military components. This was good for our domestic economy and good for our foreign policy efforts.

Instead of a bailout why not contract the big three to produce energy infrastucture; geothermal technology, solar panels, wind turbines, hydropower components, power grids. Investments that would leave us something to show ourselves. Save or even create jobs with recession bargin wages for our tax dollars. Investment that would yield dividends too long term for the private sector. Our big three could lead the world in a new economy. Big oil windfall taxes could help with the funding.

Perhaps industry today is too specialized to convert. Perhaps the recent drop in oil prices will prohibit windfall taxes. Perhaps unions would obstruct. But perhaps some outside the box thinking could expand our options beyond handout vs job loss.

Lesbelges

Having worked in the auto industry, and specifically finance I have a very "insider" view of how/what has caused GM to fail.

There are many aspects but the main causes in my mind are (Keep in mind that I have worked at GM for slightly more than a year:

1) The UAW
2) Crappy Products
3) The US Government
4) *EDIT* The dealer network

Unfortunately, the Union has a huge power over the whole automotive industry. When times were good at GM, the union workers' wages and benefits kept increasing. The problem is, that when times go bad you can't proportionately decrease their benefits and salaries. The Big 3 tried several times but succeeded in having month long strikes which cost billions in revenues! In the end, the UAW tried to keep the gravy train going as long as they could at the expense of the company. This factor has made the big 3 so uncompetitive. For example, when we look at a product program, we look at the expected sales price and the expected revenue and of course we go forward with a product program that will make money. A big problem about small cars is that you can't mark those up a lot, and with such disproportionate wages, there was no way for small cars to make financial sense in that context.

2) Yes, GM made some really shitty products (Aztec cough cough), but now they are truly good and I don't just say that cause I work there. I'm from Europe so I'm not saying this in blind faith. That's not to say that I like all the upcoming product...The new El Camino looks horrible (yes, one is coming).

3) Yup, the US government has some blame in this in an indirect way. When the Japanese manufacturers started entering the US market, the US did not put tariffs on the Japanese cars (which is how it should be, I'm all for free markets), however the opposite was not true. Also, the Japanese government subsidies a lot of the engineering work done by their manufacturers as well as on some commodities.

4) The dealer network makes it SUPER expensive to get rid of brands. Which causes GM to have tons of brands which cannibalize each others sales and divide up our marketing budgets into too many small segments rather than several big ones. If GM restructures, I think the new GM would look like this: Chevy, Cadillac, and Saturn, the rest would be axed.

I have a know some people that have negotiated with the UAW, and I saw some of the requests that were made to GM. This is just to provide some humor.

1) Petty theft should not be punished unless it is for profit
2) Porn addiction should be considered a disability
3) Every UAW worker at a specific plant (I forget which) should get free internet at home, a laptop and computer training.


Here is one thing I can't get over. If a UAW worker is laid off from a plant, they go into a JOBS bank until they can find work for them again. That's fine, BUT in a JOBS bank a UAW worker earns 85% of their salary and can stay home! I would gladly take a 15% pay cut to just chill at home.


I don't know how the bailout is going to happen. But I think to really help GM, the UAW has to go back to realistic/competitive wages.

Besides that, GM needs capital to keep going on until the market regains confidence. If that happens, I think GM has high chances to start turning a profit and repaying the loan back.

I hope none of my fellow detroit PJ fans are UAW workers

Anyway, the point of this post is not to defend GM's mistakes in the past, but to show that it's more complicated than "they make shitty products". Besides, assuming that GM still made horrible cars, it would take Billions and 3 years...GM wouldn't last that long, hence the bailout.

Guess we have to wait and see what happens!

sponger

Yep...Lesbelges hit it on the head.

The reason why Japanese and German auto companies with factories in the US are able to survive is because they don't allow their employees to unionize.

Those employees are paid competitive wages, but no pension and no retirement medical.

I'm all for unionization. I used to work in lower mgmt at UPS which is unionized, and that company stays financially strong and its employees are ensured fair treatment by the Teamsters.

However, it sounds like the UAW takes worker protection to a whole new level that borders on the ridiculous, and which makes other unions look bad just for being a union.

Jack_C_Gregory

Lesbelges wrote:

2) Porn addiction should be considered a disability

I would definitely want those guys bolting something. They would without a doubt have the strongest forearms.

PJ_Saluki

From David Brooks in Nov. 14 New York Times:

David Brooks wrote:

In short, a bailout will not solve anything — just postpone things. If this goes through, Big Three executives will make decisions knowing that whatever happens, Uncle Sam will bail them out — just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the meantime, capital that could have gone to successful companies and programs will be directed toward companies with a history of using it badly.

Brooks goes on to use the phrase "progressive corporatism" to describe the situation of bailing out these companies. That's a great way to look at it; it's not capitalism or socialism, it's corporatism.

Anyway, I'm not for anyone losing their jobs, and Michigan's been kicked in the nuts enough times. However, I'm no fan of tossing money at people who have proven themselves incompetent.

Is there nobody who could step up and buy these companies? Would the auto industry be better off if GM went away and Chevy, GM, etc, were sold off and operated separately?

I don't want foreign ownership, but if it means people keep working, bring it on.

Lesbelges

WeaponX655321 wrote:

I would definitely want those guys bolting something. They would without a doubt have the strongest forearms.

heheh good stuff!

spappy

After 1 year the difference goes from 2500 to well more than 5000 and just keeps increasing. You hit the nail on the head "You get what you paid for." Nobody wants to buy a used Ford.

jbalicki10 wrote:

Apples and Oranges...
Base 09 Focus MSRP: $14,985
Base 09 Jetta MSRP: $17,340

You get what you paid for. That Jetta is about 2,500 more. I don't know too much about dodge advenger. I prefer American cars to Imports myself.

sponger

I rented a Dodge Avenger for a week last year and loved every minute of driving that car. The handling, acceleration, interior, and even the stereo were more than satisfactory.

Of course, it's the mileage and the exterior that are the kicker. It's going to send you to the pump way too often and as far as appearances go, it's like a big rectangle on four wheels. I can't understand how anyone can seriously design a car to look like it's something that an Ogre beast would drive.

MrBrian

sponger wrote:

I rented a Dodge Avenger for a week last year and loved every minute of driving that car. The handling, acceleration, interior, and even the stereo were more than satisfactory.

Of course, it's the mileage and the exterior that are the kicker. It's going to send you to the pump way too often and as far as appearances go, it's like a big rectangle on four wheels. I can't understand how anyone can seriously design a car to look like it's something that an Ogre beast would drive.

I don't know much about that Dodge Avenger, so I did a car and driver search and found a comparison test they did, They threw it against the big names, accord, altima, camry.

They didnt seem to like it much.
--

2008 Dodge Avenger SXT
Seventh Place: The Buzzard-and-Baloney Brigade

It may look like a seven-eighths-scale Dodge Charger, but any other claim the Avenger may lay to its big brother’s well-earned reputation is a stretch.

What most damages the Avenger is its 173-hp, 2.4-liter “world engine,” built just down the road from us in Dundee, Michigan. It produces way too much racket—the noisiest in our group at full throttle and at 70-mph cruise. And the sound quality was alternately described as “walnuts in a Cuisinart,” “a weed whip with a loose spool,” and “four shot wheel bearings.”

What’s more, the engine felt overwhelmed in this package. To 60 mph, it was the second slowest in the group, and the four-speed transmission was often guilty of summoning the wrong gear. On backwoods roads, it was sometimes difficult to keep the powerplant on the boil, which at least mitigated the noise. The upside, however, was that the Avenger equaled the Camry for best observed fuel economy.

The Dodge lost points for its plasticky interior, with so many hard and angular edges that it resembled a gray Picasso. “There’s no common theme in here,” griped one editor. “Watch what your elbows bang into, because it’s gonna hurt.” With its squat, upright windshield and high beltline, the Avenger felt small, inside and out. And it wasn’t wholly an illusion. In this group, its back seat proved the most cramped for two adults, and the Dodge offered the least capacious trunk.
---

The Honda wins...btw i'm guessing you had the V6?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/sedans/2008_honda_accord_vs_nissan_altima_chevy_malibu_hyundai_sonata_toyota_camry_ford_fusion_dodge_avenger_comparison_test+page-2.html

sponger

MrBrian wrote:

I don't know much about that Dodge Avenger, so I did a car and driver search and found a comparison test they did, They threw it against the big names, accord, altima, camry.

They didnt seem to like it much.
--

2008 Dodge Avenger SXT
Seventh Place: The Buzzard-and-Baloney Brigade

It may look like a seven-eighths-scale Dodge Charger, but any other claim the Avenger may lay to its big brother’s well-earned reputation is a stretch.

What most damages the Avenger is its 173-hp, 2.4-liter “world engine,” built just down the road from us in Dundee, Michigan. It produces way too much racket—the noisiest in our group at full throttle and at 70-mph cruise. And the sound quality was alternately described as “walnuts in a Cuisinart,” “a weed whip with a loose spool,” and “four shot wheel bearings.”

What’s more, the engine felt overwhelmed in this package. To 60 mph, it was the second slowest in the group, and the four-speed transmission was often guilty of summoning the wrong gear. On backwoods roads, it was sometimes difficult to keep the powerplant on the boil, which at least mitigated the noise. The upside, however, was that the Avenger equaled the Camry for best observed fuel economy.

The Dodge lost points for its plasticky interior, with so many hard and angular edges that it resembled a gray Picasso. “There’s no common theme in here,” griped one editor. “Watch what your elbows bang into, because it’s gonna hurt.” With its squat, upright windshield and high beltline, the Avenger felt small, inside and out. And it wasn’t wholly an illusion. In this group, its back seat proved the most cramped for two adults, and the Dodge offered the least capacious trunk.
---

The Honda wins...btw i'm guessing you had the V6?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/sedans/2008_honda_accord_vs_nissan_altima_chevy_malibu_hyundai_sonata_toyota_camry_ford_fusion_dodge_avenger_comparison_test+page-2.html

Call me stubborn, but I'm not much into letting a magazine tell me what cars I should or shouldn't like.

MrBrian

sponger wrote:

Call me stubborn, but I'm not much into letting a magazine tell me what cars I should or shouldn't like.

I agree 100%, I was just pointing out things/issues they had, as in quality and so on. Which was the point.

In comparison to other cars in it's field/range...

sponger

MrBrian wrote:

I agree 100%, I was just pointing out things/issues they had, as in quality and so on. Which was the point.

In comparison to other cars in it's field/range...

It's true that the transmission was nothing to brag about.

However, I was able to extract quite a bit of fun out of that car by dropping it into a lower gear setting and then popping it into the standard drive setting after hitting 40 mph or so.

Interior is subjective, and I personally prefer the Avenger's interior stylings to the Camry's. The Camry's might be of a better quality, the Avenger's had a unique, almost gothic styling to it. I don't remember banging my elbows into anything.

Rear seating room? Not something I really consider.

I don't remember loud engine noise past 70 mph. That's probably due to the fact that the stereo was blasting the whole time.

mca47

I don't think they should be bailed out.

I think the best thing that could happen to this country, in terms of automotive innovation, is to let those three companies crash and burn.

I know they employ tens of thousands of people, but letting these companies, who have done nothing more to this country that to whore itself out to the cheapest bidder (typically the American public) while supplying a sub-par product and destroying the environment...I say let the big 3 die!
This would only spawn a tremendous drive for REAL innovation, and REAL solutions.

beachdweller

Pacomc79 wrote:

Well, letting them fail leaves an enormous vaccum for someone else to come in and take advantage. These laborers will still be able to do thier jobs, they'll just be working for someone else.

The big 3 automakers have made really really poor executive decisons for the last 30+ years the same goes with domestic Airlines like Delta for example. Bailing out these executives is sending the wrong message and it's keeping a dead bloated unhealthy animal on life support.

Out of death, comes life or opportunity in this sense. Everything about the big 3 is absolutely inefficient and bloated.

I agree, but it's going to hurt a lot of people that word hard, and what comes from death will take a while to develop.

I would have liked to see wall street fail and the auto industry get bailed out.