General Motors Announces Job Cuts and Plant Shutdowns in North America

Maybe governments will learn their lesson and stop with the corporate welfare someday.

10 hours ago, dfelt said:

using Uber / Lyft than wanting to drive. 

I think everybody I know has used Uber and/or Lyft and they're a great service and I think they keep A LOT of drunk drivers off the roads daily. I know that's why all my friends and I use them. 

10 hours ago, daves87rs said:

I also think that the price of cars and such has got a bit high...which is not helping either.

Absolutely. People coming out of college with 100k in debt.. Then trying to add a 40k car payment.. 

10 hours ago, daves87rs said:

Yep, I think I have the last of them....a 2003 and 2004 base Cavaliers. Neither one has power anything! And I can count the issues I have had on one hand.... ? 

I think the Wrangler can still be had in a very base trim without A/C and stuff. 

47 minutes ago, ykX said:

Trump says GM should repay U.S. taxpayers for bailout
The bill: $11.2 billion in taxpayer money lost saving the company

"The U.S. government lost $11.2 billion on its bailout of General Motors, according to a 2014 government report. The government invested about $50 billion to bail out GM as a result of the company's 2009 bankruptcy, and at one time held a 61 percent equity stake in the Detroit-based automaker.

Treasury whittled down its GM stake through a series of stock sales starting in November 2010, with the remaining shares sold in December 2013 at a $11.2 billion loss."

Autoblog

No one ever told the GOV to sell, they could have waited and recovered, but the idiots in DC wanted to give money to the 1% crowd and over priced defense idiots. Yes I could go very political here, but lets just end it with the GOV and NOT the tax payers or GM sold and took a loss when they did not have to.

Idiots in DC trying to tell a profitable company how to make money when they cannot handle a balanced budget. Crazy! 

31 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

This is what I'm talking about..

 

 

3480lbs of car.. and 630 lb-ft of torque available at 1 rpm
 

As super bad-ass as that is, it doesn't interest me at all. 

12 minutes ago, frogger said:

Maybe governments will learn their lesson and stop with the corporate welfare someday.

That would be great, but then that would also mean not funding money loosing defense companies too.

There will always be reason to bail out and replace total mgmt like with GM due to the ripple affect of jobs that letting it totally fail would have caused. 

Much like the saving and loan mess of the 80's and how it would have really destroyed this country if the gov did not step in and take control and force change.

33 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

This is what I'm talking about..

 

 

3480lbs of car.. and 630 lb-ft of torque available at 1 rpm
 

Love this car, this is what we need now too.

But there’s a simple truth. GM simply can’t build a decent car for the life of them. 

Their new trucks for example. No real revolution other than bed tech that even an FCA on life support and the incumbent F150 are seen as fresher options. 

Their crossovers for the large part are still too damn small. Why the hell is this Blazer smaller inside than an Equinox! Yet $$$$ to start? 

Like it or not, there is not a single compelling model car from GM, not they they’re bad cars, but they were marketed just plain wrong. 

Cadillac is toast as far as I’m concerned with ever being considered a sport sedan player. Which is too bad. 

20 new EVs? Half of them are from China folks.

You’ll see a face lifted Buick Velite and such. That’s their plan. 

3 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

But there’s a simple truth. GM simply can’t build a decent car for the life of them. 

Their new trucks for example. No real revolution other than bed tech that even an FCA on life support and the incumbent F150 are seen as fresher options. 

Their crossovers for the large part are still too damn small. Why the hell is this Blazer smaller inside than an Equinox! Yet $$$$ to start? 

Like it or not, there is not a single compelling model car from GM, not they they’re bad cars, but they were marketed just plain wrong. 

Cadillac is toast as far as I’m concerned with ever being considered a sport sedan player. Which is too bad. 

20 new EVs? Half of them are from China folks.

You’ll see a face lifted Buick Velite and such. That’s their plan. 

 

So what should GM build? I am sure they would like to hear some superior alternatives from you.

GM should just exit the U.S. market. ?

LOL first they need to fix their standard equipment, make driver assistance tech standard on all of their family vehicles (CUV's) like just about everyone else has.

1 hour ago, Suaviloquent said:

Their crossovers for the large part are still too damn small. Why the hell is this Blazer smaller inside than an Equinox! Yet $$$$ to start? an. 

  

Blazer pricing is mind boggling, like there is a $4000 premium for the style for those that like it.  Less cargo room behind the front seats than popular compact CUV's.

2 hours ago, Suaviloquent said:

Their crossovers for the large part are still too damn small. Why the hell is this Blazer smaller inside than an Equinox! Yet $$$$ to start? 

..what..? There's less interior volume in the new Blazer than the Equinox????

Just now, ccap41 said:

..what..? There's less interior volume in the new Blazer than the Equinox????

Not sure, can't seem to find the numbers.  But they are following the Camaro formula---big on the outside, tiny inside. 

7 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

..what..? There's less interior volume in the new Blazer than the Equinox????

I think they've only published cargo capacity of the Blazer thus far.

The CRV has 75.8 cubic feet behind the reat seats.   New Honda Passport has 78. 

The Blazer 64.2 cubic feet and Equinox has 63.5 cubic feet of capacity behind the front seats.  The Blazer is 4 inches longer than a Passport.

I think you mean with the rear seats down.. 

From my googling:

CRV seats UP: 39.2 CuFt

seats DOWN: 75.8 CuFt

Edge seats UP: 39.2 CuFt

seats DOWN 73.4 CuFt.

Either way, if that's with the seats folded down and the Blazer has less space behind the driver's seat...WTF GM? 

Also, this is all a little mind boggling to me because my brother just bought a new CRV and I've been in an Edge and they do not feel like they are that close in total interior volume.

5 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Haven't written this much in a while on any forum..?

Anyone notice that COROLLA sales are down 15%? Civic 28%? This is a real thing. Cars, at least in every segment outside of Sports and Mid are simply dying.. as one can get a categorized TALL-CAR for the same price with more room and similar fuel economy. This is not the days of U had to buy a compact to get great fuel economy.. no.. the CUVs are getting similar fuel economy to the cars. In other word this isn't a time anymore where it was a Cavalier vs a TrailBlazer.. the time now is a Cruze vs a Trax or Equinox

I think a lot of sedan segments will only have 3-5 brands to pick from, as sedan sales drop off like they have only the top few will stay in there.

3 hours ago, Suaviloquent said:

But there’s a simple truth. GM simply can’t build a decent car for the life of them. 

Their new trucks for example. No real revolution other than bed tech that even an FCA on life support and the incumbent F150 are seen as fresher options. 

Their crossovers for the large part are still too damn small. Why the hell is this Blazer smaller inside than an Equinox! Yet $$$$ to start? 

Like it or not, there is not a single compelling model car from GM, not they they’re bad cars, but they were marketed just plain wrong. 

Cadillac is toast as far as I’m concerned with ever being considered a sport sedan player. Which is too bad. 

20 new EVs? Half of them are from China folks.

You’ll see a face lifted Buick Velite and such. That’s their plan. 

 

Yep.

4 hours ago, Suaviloquent said:

Their new trucks for example. No real revolution other than bed tech that even an FCA on life support and the incumbent F150 are seen as fresher options. 

They have some pretty impressive technology in the 2.7T and the active fuel management on the 5.3. 

5 hours ago, ccap41 said:

As super bad-ass as that is, it doesn't interest me at all. 

mind boggling.. seriously.. zero fuel, engine can be bolted up to a current transmission.. zero emmisions.. torque at git.. 0-60 in under 3 seconds and can STILL handle like a... a... CAMARO... OH.. its a GM product. If Ford produced it I bet someone would be singing praises.

2 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

mind boggling.. seriously.. zero fuel, engine can be bolted up to a current transmission.. zero emmisions.. torque at git.. 0-60 in under 3 seconds and can STILL handle like a... a... CAMARO... OH.. its a GM product. If Ford produced it I bet someone would be singing praises.

It would be pretty cool to see a production Camaro with a drivetrain option like this, tuned for real world use. 

5 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

mind boggling.. seriously.. zero fuel, engine can be bolted up to a current transmission.. zero emmisions.. torque at git.. 0-60 in under 3 seconds and can STILL handle like a... a... CAMARO... OH.. its a GM product. If Ford produced it I bet someone would be singing praises.

Nope, not correct. Cram that in a GT350's body and I still don't care. 

If I'm buying a product like this I want the noises it makes as well. To me, that's part of what makes it awesome. 

I'm okay with the EV thing for commuter vehicles and whatnot but I don't want a pure EV sports car. No freakin way. 

5 hours ago, Suaviloquent said:

But there’s a simple truth. GM simply can’t build a decent car for the life of them. 

Their new trucks for example. No real revolution other than bed tech that even an FCA on life support and the incumbent F150 are seen as fresher options. 

Their crossovers for the large part are still too damn small. Why the hell is this Blazer smaller inside than an Equinox! Yet $$$$ to start? 

Like it or not, there is not a single compelling model car from GM, not they they’re bad cars, but they were marketed just plain wrong. 

Cadillac is toast as far as I’m concerned with ever being considered a sport sedan player. Which is too bad. 

20 new EVs? Half of them are from China folks.

You’ll see a face lifted Buick Velite and such. That’s their plan. 

 

a lot.. and I mean A LOT of bull$h! in this quote. Still laughing at the "Cadillac is Toast" part.. because honestly.. even if Cadillac continued to produce the CT6, the only car being lost to them that wasn't known to be getting an axe., past 2019.. when were U planning on buying one in the first place??

Blazer has more cargo space than the Equinox..of this we know. 

Single compelling??? Marketing aside.. they do sell a $h! load of vehicles.. Trucks, SUVS, CUVs, Sports cars, Supercar, EVs..lotta bases covered.. I don;t think this news impacts sales very much considering the change in consumer tastes

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Nope, not correct. Cram that in a GT350's body and I still don't care. 

If I'm buying a product like this I want the noises it makes as well. To me, that's part of what makes it awesome. 

I'm okay with the EV thing for commuter vehicles and whatnot but I don't want a pure EV sports car. No freakin way. 

Then I'm wrong... I have it on good authority that they will simulate the noises if that's what U are looking for.. either way.. screw it.. U hate it then hate it.. I personally would love to have access to this engine for everyone of my vehicles.. from Z06 to CTS-V to Impala LTZ to Impala SS to Cruze to Yukon.. and that's a fact

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Yep.

YEP.. this is an ANTI-GM message and automatically I say YEP.. My name is SMK4565 and I approve this message

17 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Blazer has more cargo space than the Equinox..of this we know. 

??

18 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Then I'm wrong... I have it on good authority that they will simulate the noises if that's what U are looking for.. either way.. screw it.. U hate it then hate it.. I personally would love to have access to this engine for everyone of my vehicles.. from Z06 to CTS-V to Impala LTZ to Impala SS to Cruze to Yukon.. and that's a fact

I'm even fine with hybrid sports cars but I just can't get behind a pure EV one quite yet. 

Contrary to your believe Casa,

I truly believe GM is doing the right thing. They are blazing their own path, making cars that sell on their own merits, and are going to stop reinventing a segment. Where there’s too many entrenched choices.

Instead they will will bring forth entirely new segments into themselves. Unfortunately the CT6, such a lovely car that it is will be lost. The LaX...too bad. The Cruze I think had problems because it was late to market twice. Brining to market issues all are related to standard equipment, promotion, timing of release of late available options and overall dealer experience. 

Cadillac is yes, they will now not make sport sedans past the end of the CT6-V. They will instead make super electric wagon/sport back/sedan hybrid thingsmajiggers that have no real competition as everyone is being really slow to ditch the sedans.

30 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

??

I'm even fine with hybrid sports cars but I just can't get behind a pure EV one quite yet. 

So... U proved me right?? Even more to the point was that the Blazer was created to give the Chevy brand a more Sporty and upscale CUV. Thus far..at least in looks.. the vehicle accomplishes that in spades. Incremental size variations are what they are. 

Interesting. The Trax/Equinox/Blazer/Traverse essentially are supplanting the Sonic/Cruze/Malibu/Impala dynamic. 

11 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

Contrary to your believe Casa,

U literally said something totally different on the other page.. were U just playing devil's advocate? U went so far as to say GM should exit the US market.. ? I'm confused

11 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

 

I truly believe GM is doing the right thing. They are blazing their own path, making cars that sell on their own merits, and are going to stop reinventing a segment. Where there’s too many entrenched choices.

This is exactly what they are doing.. and killing 6 vehicles while simultaneously introducing new vehicles that better fit market sales makes a lot of sense.. especially in some cases like the Cruze where the Sonic is already available AND... being made profitably last I checked. If the Cruze was not.. why keep it? Since the demise of the Verano.. the market share of the D2xx is smaller in the U.S. The Sonic can sop up Cruze sales while supplementing Trax sales. Perhaps GM is PLATFORM SALES biased (as they should have been all along) now.. and if that is the case.. the Trax/Sonic/Encore absolutely clobber Cruze/Volt sales

11 minutes ago, Suaviloquent said:

Instead they will will bring forth entirely new segments into themselves. Unfortunately the CT6, such a lovely car that it is will be lost. The LaX...too bad. The Cruze I think had problems because it was late to market twice. Brining to market issues all are related to standard equipment, promotion, timing of release of late available options and overall dealer experience. 

 

Cadillac is yes, they will now not make sport sedans past the end of the CT6-V. They will instead make super electric wagon/sport back/sedan hybrid thingsmajiggers that have no real competition as everyone is being really slow to ditch the sedans.

This is not true. Unless they suddenly make an announcement that the CT5 and CT3 are now stillborn.. they will be on the market next year. The CT6 dying in the US, after 4 model years could mean that the brand saw little need to continue selling it with car market share dropping.. or they have a radical large car design in the works.. such as the rumored Escala .

New Aviator is hellfire better than anything Cadillac's got now, and in the published future timeline.

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

New Aviator is hellfire better than anything Cadillac's got now, and in the published future timeline.

Is the Aviator going to take market share away from the Cadillac XT5?  or the XT4?  If not, nothing to worry about.  Aviator seems to be a really nice CUV though.

Aviator seems like it targets where an XT6 or XT7 would be.  They already have the MKC (Corsair) and MKX (Nautilus) to target the XT4 and XT5. 

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

New Aviator is hellfire better than anything Cadillac's got now, and in the published future timeline.

What @riviera74 and @Robert Hall said. The Aviator is Lincoln's rival to the upcoming XT6. And yeah.. Cadillac better come correct with their entry. Crazy thing is that they have all of the tools to counter it. 

Yes and the XT6 is reported to be a Traverse/Enclave relative.  So it is already outclassed by the Aviator.

The majority of segments are dominated by 3-4 players.  Full size pickup you have the Detroit 3, mid-size pickup, Toyota, Nissan, GM, minivan Toyota, Honda, FCA, luxury car is Lexus and the Germans, etc.  If you aren’t one of the top players in a segment it is hard for an automaker to justify staying there.  That is why GM and Ford don’t make minivans, FCA has very few sedans, Ford will have no sedans, etc.  

Mid size sedan, small and mid-size crossover has enough volume that 8-10 brands can play in that sandbox, but in other segments you better win or you won’t last.  

That is why Ford made cuts, GM is making these cuts and someday GM will realize that they don’t need 3 luxury SUV brands when Buick and Cadillac quit making sedans and one of those brands will get cut.

5 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Nope, not correct. Cram that in a GT350's body and I still don't care. 

If I'm buying a product like this I want the noises it makes as well. To me, that's part of what makes it awesome. 

I'm okay with the EV thing for commuter vehicles and whatnot but I don't want a pure EV sports car. No freakin way. 

Brings up an interesting point. Despite the really high levels of scoot in some EVs (and I will offer the same statement some folk do WRT 3/4- and 1-tons trucks; 'Most people won't even use it')- electric power is devoid of so much of the visceral characteristics of IC that perhaps, indeed, it's true calling is that of the 'appliance vehicle'. Seems to make sense; lower the range of Kw, decrease the cost of the vehicle markedly, and suddenly it's that much more obtainable/appealing to the masses.

In hindsight, it seems the push to stuff 10,000 cells into a car so it has scary-quick acceleration (which brings up another common statement; 'Most drivers can't handle it anyway') in order to make it 'cool' when it should have been targeted at the mainstream sector to realize economies of scale years quicker.

14 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Haven't written this much in a while on any forum..?

Anyone notice that COROLLA sales are down 15%? Civic 28%? This is a real thing. Cars, at least in every segment outside of Sports and Mid are simply dying.. as one can get a categorized TALL-CAR for the same price with more room and similar fuel economy. This is not the days of U had to buy a compact to get great fuel economy.. no.. the CUVs are getting similar fuel economy to the cars. In other word this isn't a time anymore where it was a Cavalier vs a TrailBlazer.. the time now is a Cruze vs a Trax or Equinox

I totally believe that is what is killing the compact car class..they price them smash near mid size and CUV .Why spend 23k on a Cruze when for 25k you could have a Malibu or Equinox?

Easy choice there. Now if they were still 15-17k? Different story there....

7 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

I disagree. The problem with the Electric Car -- apart from the inconvenience from the inability to be recharged in a the few minutes it takes to refuel a conventionally power car -- is that the cost of the battery (about $12,000 for a 60kWh Li-Ion pack) -- exceeds the fuel cost of an equivalent gasoline powered car over 125,000 miles or the lifetime of the battery. This is not counting the cost of electricity it costs to recharge the battery pack. That is why electric cars need subsidies to attract normal buyers who are not worshipers of the Global Warming fraud..

The Golden Age of Industrialization is over in the USA because -- over the last seven decades -- we allowed foreign produced goods (including cars) to be imported into the USA will minimal or no tariffs, even from countries which charge significant tariffs for our exports -- China has a 25% tariff on cars, EU has 10%, whereas the USA has tariffs at 0~2.5%. This is not called Free Trade. It is called Stupid Trade. It's called an unequal treaty. This is the kind of agreement which countries sign when enemy tanks are on the capitol lawn! Except of course our politicians galdly sign it because the were never negotiating in the best interest of the American people or the USA nation. They were acting in the best interest of multinational corporations which cannot careless about the rise and fall of nations as long as they get to make their profits somewhere in the world.

This is not to mention the fact that Free Trade itself is suicide and fundamentally incompatible with social policies like a minimum wage, safety nets, environmental standards and labor laws. You can have a high living standards for your workers or you can have Free Trade. You cannot have both! Else, all the $h! hole countries will build everything, you will buy everything, the outflow of wealth from your country will continue until you are poor and they are rich. It's not rocket science.

 

You ROCK, sir!

15 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

So... U proved me right?? Even more to the point was that the Blazer was created to give the Chevy brand a more Sporty and upscale CUV. Thus far..at least in looks.. the vehicle accomplishes that in spades. Incremental size variations are what they are. 

Interesting. The Trax/Equinox/Blazer/Traverse essentially are supplanting the Sonic/Cruze/Malibu/Impala dynamic. 

Yes, you are correct. It's just comical how similar the interior volumes are. 

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yes, you are correct. It's just comical how similar the interior volumes are. 

What makes it so odd is the Blazer has a 5 inch longer wheelbase and is 10 inches longer overall than the Equinox but seemingly negligible increase in interior space.   They are following the Camaro formula---big and wildly styled outside, small inside. 

10 hours ago, daves87rs said:

I totally believe that is what is killing the compact car class..they price them smash near mid size and CUV .Why spend 23k on a Cruze when for 25k you could have a Malibu or Equinox?

Easy choice there. Now if they were still 15-17k? Different story there....

100% agree with this. 

3 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

What makes it so odd is the Blazer has a 5 inch longer wheelbase and is 10 inches longer overall than the Equinox but seemingly negligible increase in interior space.   They are following the Camaro formula---big and wildly styled outside, small inside. 

Yeah it doesn't really make sense to me. I understand the looks and everything attracting people but the interior volume just seems off. 

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yeah it doesn't really make sense to me. I understand the looks and everything attracting people but the interior volume just seems off. 

It's one of those style over substance plays...

12 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Yes and the XT6 is reported to be a Traverse/Enclave relative.  So it is already outclassed by the Aviator.

oh.. CAUSE ITS rwd? This makes zero sense in a world of adaptive AWD.. especially the advanced systems that are employed today. The Trav/Encl are excellent vehicles.. and I venture to say that it would be a waste to spend time arguing about track times of any of the three. Silly as a mofo in fact. What makes it worse is that if "whichwheel drive" is your thing what does it matter when the systems are able to go 100% to the rear. WTF are people gonna cry when they realize that the new C8 Corvette is most likely just this system ?.. It can be tuned to be sporty if necessary and I predict that if Cadillac simply goes into the treasure box of engines it will be fully capable of making this Lincoln also ran within no time. The Escalade will do the same with the Navigator

21 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

What makes it so odd is the Blazer has a 5 inch longer wheelbase and is 10 inches longer overall than the Equinox but seemingly negligible increase in interior space.   They are following the Camaro formula---big and wildly styled outside, small inside. 

Whats' the actual passenger space situation versus each other tho? That would seem to me to be a true reason to have a longer wheel base... not to mention handling and road going smoothness. I can't believe that an SUV fashioned to be sporty has a main function of Suburbanesq cargo space

6 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

 

Whats' the actual passenger space situation versus each other tho? That would seem to me to be a true reason to have a longer wheel base... not to mention handling and road going smoothness. I can't believe that an SUV fashioned to be sporty has a main function of Suburbanesq cargo space

You would think the longer wheelbase would result in more rear leg room, but I don't think they have published those numbers yet.   The reason it has the longer wheelbase is it's a reskinned Acadia. Same wheelbase.  The exterior dimensions are identical to the Acadia, so I suspect the legroom inside is similar. 

10 hours ago, daves87rs said:

I totally believe that is what is killing the compact car class..they price them smash near mid size and CUV .Why spend 23k on a Cruze when for 25k you could have a Malibu or Equinox?

Easy choice there. Now if they were still 15-17k? Different story there....

Yes... A Corolla is showing on Toyota's website as starting at $18,700K and the Civic is at $19,500

Just now, Robert Hall said:

You would think the longer wheelbase would result in more rear leg room, but I don't think they have published those numbers yet.   The reason it has the longer wheelbase is it's a reskinned Acadia. Same wheelbase. 

Exactly.. so why are we only relying on CARGO space dimensions as the defining characteristic of the vehicles overall space? I tend to wait for information before I make the kind of criticism that its getting on space. 

I wasn't relying strictly on CARGO volume but total volume behind the driver's seat, which includes the 2nd row of seats. 

12 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

I disagree. The problem with the Electric Car -- apart from the inconvenience from the inability to be recharged in a the few minutes it takes to refuel a conventionally power car -- is that the cost of the battery (about $12,000 for a 60kWh Li-Ion pack) -- exceeds the fuel cost of an equivalent gasoline powered car over 125,000 miles or the lifetime of the battery. This is not counting the cost of electricity it costs to recharge the battery pack. That is why electric cars need subsidies to attract normal buyers who are not worshipers of the Global Warming fraud..

The Golden Age of Industrialization is over in the USA because -- over the last seven decades -- we allowed foreign produced goods (including cars) to be imported into the USA will minimal or no tariffs, even from countries which charge significant tariffs for our exports -- China has a 25% tariff on cars, EU has 10%, whereas the USA has tariffs at 0~2.5%. This is not called Free Trade. It is called Stupid Trade. It's called an unequal treaty. This is the kind of agreement which countries sign when enemy tanks are on the capitol lawn! Except of course our politicians galdly sign it because the were never negotiating in the best interest of the American people or the USA nation. They were acting in the best interest of multinational corporations which cannot careless about the rise and fall of nations as long as they get to make their profits somewhere in the world.

This is not to mention the fact that Free Trade itself is suicide and fundamentally incompatible with social policies like a minimum wage, safety nets, environmental standards and labor laws. You can have a high living standards for your workers or you can have Free Trade. You cannot have both! Else, all the $h! hole countries will build everything, you will buy everything, the outflow of wealth from your country will continue until you are poor and they are rich. It's not rocket science.

 

Too bad that the current administration does not follow what you prescribe.  Then again, this is not 1970, despite their best efforts.  Gotta love our bought and paid for politicians.

12 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

I disagree. The problem with the Electric Car -- apart from the inconvenience from the inability to be recharged in a the few minutes it takes to refuel a conventionally power car -- is that the cost of the battery (about $12,000 for a 60kWh Li-Ion pack) -- exceeds the fuel cost of an equivalent gasoline powered car over 125,000 miles or the lifetime of the battery. This is not counting the cost of electricity it costs to recharge the battery pack. That is why electric cars need subsidies to attract normal buyers who are not worshipers of the Global Warming fraud..

The Golden Age of Industrialization is over in the USA because -- over the last seven decades -- we allowed foreign produced goods (including cars) to be imported into the USA will minimal or no tariffs, even from countries which charge significant tariffs for our exports -- China has a 25% tariff on cars, EU has 10%, whereas the USA has tariffs at 0~2.5%. This is not called Free Trade. It is called Stupid Trade. It's called an unequal treaty. This is the kind of agreement which countries sign when enemy tanks are on the capitol lawn! Except of course our politicians galdly sign it because the were never negotiating in the best interest of the American people or the USA nation. They were acting in the best interest of multinational corporations which cannot careless about the rise and fall of nations as long as they get to make their profits somewhere in the world.

This is not to mention the fact that Free Trade itself is suicide and fundamentally incompatible with social policies like a minimum wage, safety nets, environmental standards and labor laws. You can have a high living standards for your workers or you can have Free Trade. You cannot have both! Else, all the $h! hole countries will build everything, you will buy everything, the outflow of wealth from your country will continue until you are poor and they are rich. It's not rocket science.

 

We'll where to begin....... ?

Simply, science has proven Global Warming or climate change is Real, no Fraud here. But I get it some like to ignore the facts of science and climate change.

Correct, battery charging is no where near gas refueling, but like the start of the ICE auto's, EVs are reducing the recharge time all the time and there is the total REAL convenience factor of just plugging in at home overnight and not having to run to the gas station, smell, dirtiness, etc. We have Level 1 (110V), level 2 (220V), and level 3 (440V) 3 phase. Level 4 is coming 800V as most of the OEMs have agreed to support this XFC or extreme fast charging design that will recharge a 400 mile battery pack in 15 min or less. So just like the start of the auto age with weak motors, poor mpg and slow refueling with manual gas pumps, they improved to what it is today over 100 years. 

We have already reduced charging times greatly and will do so even more in the next few years. Cost of charging be it public infrastructure or at home will reduce costs for end users compared to the craziness of gas.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/latest-bull-case-for-electric-cars-the-cheapest-batteries-ever

Correct you are on the price of the 60 kWh battery pack, to be specific it is as of the end of 2017 $12, 540 per battery pack. Yet that price is a 24% drop from the year before and LG who supplies the 60kWh battery pack for the BOLT has already stated they have the cost even lower in 2018.  This is just about a 5th of what it was in 2010 and the goal which the auto industry has stated they should achieve is below $100 per kWh by 2025.

I TOTALLY AGREE with you about the trade, we have not had free equal trade in generations, politicians have always looked out for their own self interest, not that of this country or the citizens. If they did this, we would have proper control over the craziness of gun ownership and idiots that use them to hurt innocent civilians. To correct this we need level heads with negotiation skills, not bankruptcy manipulation skills of the current leadership.

In regards to your last paragraph, I will say that we agree to disagree on some points, I still believe you can have a free trade system that also is balanced with a fair minimum wage to get kids some work experience, not this crap living wage of San Francisco. I believe you can have a decent living standard for workers with Free Trade. Our Democracy is way better than socialism, fascism, dictatorship, etc. that has failed and pretty much bankrupted Europe. Yet our own idiots in DC spending and borrowing against everything for their own self interest are about to bankrupt this country too.

Remember, republicans approved borrowing against Social Security and Democrats approved taxing SS this is not an entitlement of the government but a benefit of those paid into it which both parties have then used to give away to court votes. The politicians should be held like the president to term limits, but then I like you have waded into the political arena and Drew killed that forum and asked us to behave the stay away from politics and talk cars.

Back to Auto's, Trade needs to be better negotiated than the crap DC has done from current to past administrations, I agree on. Electric auto's are where ICE Auto's were 100 + years ago but are going to surpass the ICE industry as technology will allow better and faster change than what we had in the past. Costs will come down and the jobs will be in alternative energy, EVs, etc. This is NOT a LOSS of Jobs, but a CHANGE of Jobs that will require new skill sets. 

Dementia / Alzheimer's research has proven that when humans stop learning, stop working out, stop pushing themselves we start to shut down and decay. One must ALWAYS accept change and grow and learn. This way we continue to improve just as we did from Leaded gas to unleaded gas to electric / hydrogen etc. We should ALWAYS find better ways to improve the life we live on this planet and into space as we also find ways to improve how we live on this planet in a healthier cleaner way.

Change is inevitable.

Those that fight against change will be left behind by those that embrace it and look to the future.

Question : If Li-Ion batt costs have dropped 24% in 8 years, what EV auto has likewise dropped it's MSRP by that much or ANY amount in the same time frame?

13 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Simply, science has proven Global Warming or climate change is Real, no Fraud here. But I get it some like to ignore the facts of science and climate change.

Really? Have you actually looked at the issue or are you accepting the "everybody says its true, hence it must be true" fallacy?

#1   The Earth is not warmer than it has ever been. The Earth was warmer many times before in the history of the planet, including several times in the last 10,000 years. This includes the medieval era when there was little to no polar ice cap, and Norse settlements were established on Greenland, while CO2 levels are half today’s level.

#2  The Earth has been cooler than it is today many times before. During some of these periods, CO2 levels far exceed today’s level. For example, during the late Ordovician, the Earth turned into a great snowball with ice all the way to the equator while CO2 levels were 10x today’s level. In fact, if you look at ice core samples (length of winters) you'll see that temperatures has NEVER tracked CO2 concentrations in the air in a statistically discernible manner over the planet's history.

#3 If you cannot establish that today's temperatures are outside of historic interglacial fluctuations. And, you cannot establish that global temperatures track CO2 levels in the air, how can you justify economic suicide in rejecting the most reliable, most (currently) available energy sources for dubiously green and exorbitant energy?

37 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Question : If Li-Ion batt costs have dropped 24% in 8 years, what EV auto has likewise dropped it's MSRP by that much or ANY amount in the same time frame?

That is unfair. If the battery is $12,000 and the vehicle is $40,000. The battery is 30% the bill of materials cost. A 24% reduction in battery costs represents a 7% reduction in vehicle costs. But, no, you won't even see that because ALL the legacy automaker's EVs from the Bolt to the Leaf to the i3 to the eGolf are being sold at a loss. Hence, the manufacturers are simply glad they are not losing as much.