GM RWD on hold?!

[bcs296]

To clarify about selling more 'trucks'.

GM could sell more mid size and comapct crossovers to people who want the room, even if CAFE for trucks goes up. They would just have to sell less BOF ones.

With a 34MPG car CAFE, there is no way they can offer a 'full line' of RWD sedans, with 16-20 mpg ratings. Only the Caddys and Camaro could survive, and the rest would have to be hybrid-ized or FWD compacts.

And no way is E85 going to sell for "50 cents"!!!

Would someone like to present an explanation as to how RWD automatically translates to poor gas mileage, because I'm not seeing the correlation. There is no reason to assume that every RWD car is going to be V8 powered. I want to see what the new CTS and STS will get with the DI 3.6 and 6 speed. Even better, I'd like to see what the V6 G8 will get.

V8 or not, RWD offers a better driving experience. Traction control, stability control, and *gasp* SNOW TIRES defeat the argument for FWD. If you live in an area where snow is a concern for you, you should have snow tires or at least good all seasons anyway. Think I don't know? Check my location.

[ehaase]

Would someone like to present an explanation as to how RWD automatically translates to poor gas mileage, because I'm not seeing the correlation.

It doesn't, but a 34 mpg CAFE will mean drastically fewer V6 and V8 engines and many more hybrids and sub-2.0L four cylinder engines. Many automakers still seem to have difficulty meeting emission controls with diesel. Easier use of high powered engines are the main reason many have been looking forward to more RWD.

[bcs296]

It doesn't, but a 34 mpg CAFE will mean drastically fewer V6 and V8 engines and many more hybrids and sub-2.0L four cylinder engines. Many automakers still seem to have difficulty meeting emission controls with diesel. Easier use of high powered engines are the main reason many have been looking forward to more RWD.

Then the issue is not whether or not there will be RWD cars, but instead how many LARGE cars will be around. No 4 cylinders are going to power a Zeta.

Once again, the automakers are being punished because Americans like big cars. Large cars != good gas mileage... This is simple physics. Advance technology all you want, small cars will get better mileage.

The only way Americans are going to buy small cars is if they have to, and they only reason they would have to is if they couldn't afford filling up large cars.

No automaker is going to stop making large cars and lose sales because the government wants them to.

[CARBIZ]

There is no doubt that technology has greatly improved the fuel consumption and emissions of engines over the past 25 years. Anyone who ever drove the X-cars and K-cars of a generation ago will attest to this. However, whether there is a trillion barrels of oil sitting in tar sands or whether Iran nukes Isreal, there is absolutely no denying that the U.S. is going to run out of its own oil and gas, then it will have to import ALL of it - and much of it from not-so-friendly countries.

Given to "natural" market forces, the auto industry in the U.S/Canada has bucked the world wide trend toward fuel efficiency and lower emissions. Witness the SUV/truck "craze" of the past 15 years. Is that a natural trend, or did MadisonAve/Detroit figure out a way to condemn the minivan/wagon and elevate the truck to circumvent CAFE ratings in the '80s? Trucks are more profitable and avoided CAFE. Bingo. Truck sales went from 25% to 50%.

I'd hate to give Washington (or Ottawa) any credit, but perhaps someone has figured out that importing so much oil from places that hate us is NOT in our best interests. By using Global Warming as the bogeyman, perhaps the genie can be put back in the bottle and NOrth America can join the rest of the world in driving vehicles that are both fun and practical.

The vehicles are out there, they just may not be RWD or V-8.

Obviously, this is an "enthusiast" board, but I honestly don't understand the venom and level of anger that GM May be retracing its steps on RWD vehicles. It is not the end of the world. $10 a gallon gasoline would be the end of the world. A return to L.A. skyline of the '60s (or Mexico City now!) would be the end of the world.

Flame away.

[ellives]

There is no doubt that technology has greatly improved the fuel consumption and emissions of engines over the past 25 years. Anyone who ever drove the X-cars and K-cars of a generation ago will attest to this. However, whether there is a trillion barrels of oil sitting in tar sands or whether Iran nukes Isreal, there is absolutely no denying that the U.S. is going to run out of its own oil and gas, then it will have to import ALL of it - and much of it from not-so-friendly countries.

Given to "natural" market forces, the auto industry in the U.S/Canada has bucked the world wide trend toward fuel efficiency and lower emissions. Witness the SUV/truck "craze" of the past 15 years. Is that a natural trend, or did MadisonAve/Detroit figure out a way to condemn the minivan/wagon and elevate the truck to circumvent CAFE ratings in the '80s? Trucks are more profitable and avoided CAFE. Bingo. Truck sales went from 25% to 50%.

I'd hate to give Washington (or Ottawa) any credit, but perhaps someone has figured out that importing so much oil from places that hate us is NOT in our best interests. By using Global Warming as the bogeyman, perhaps the genie can be put back in the bottle and NOrth America can join the rest of the world in driving vehicles that are both fun and practical.

The vehicles are out there, they just may not be RWD or V-8.

Obviously, this is an "enthusiast" board, but I honestly don't understand the venom and level of anger that GM May be retracing its steps on RWD vehicles. It is not the end of the world. $10 a gallon gasoline would be the end of the world. A return to L.A. skyline of the '60s (or Mexico City now!) would be the end of the world.

Flame away.

OK - I'll go first (unless someone beats me to the post.) Let's at least agree GM is behind in bringing RWD vehicles to some market segments... particular in the large luxury class (DTS, et al.) There will always be a market for this kind of car - not huge but it will be there and if GM wants any shot at holding on to any portion of it they need a RWD version of the DTS class vehicle.

When you mention $10/gal pricing I question how easily we'd get there. Remember the US is a HUGE part of the worldwide market for all goods, and of course particularly oil. If gas did spike to this level, people would abandon big vehicles in droves. They'd figure out a way to get what they need to get done with less. The real catch is there is an elasticity behavior to this market where the suppliers of oil don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. They want to maximize their profits so they have to find a price point where they don't make their product so expensive they kill the demand. At some price point alternative fuels will become more attractive than gas. I'm not sure where this is but it's there somewhere.

I just watched a news segment this morning talking about how the "new" American family has 3 cars. Someone on this forum made this argument a while back that his thinking was families would have multiple vehicles.... each tailored just for the specific purpose... For example one very high mileage commuter car, one large comfortable sedan and one pick-up truck for example. This is one way people will get around high gas prices. At some point it's just cheaper to buy a smaller vehicle or carpool to get to work. Believe me - people figure out a way to make it work when they have to. They won't like it but they'll do it.

I can understand why Lutz is concerned. He's betting millions if not billions of dollars on strategies to sell cars and now the government is making like they're going to stick their noses in things again. While I don't like Bush, I worry what the Dems would do in the name of saving the environment... they've done it before and it triggered a recession and one could argue the beginning of the decline of Detroit.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Isn't China still using leaded fuel? They were a few years back, but Asia is not my thang as they say, so I don't keep up on what goes on there.

[regfootball]

Would someone like to present an explanation as to how RWD automatically translates to poor gas mileage, because I'm not seeing the correlation. There is no reason to assume that every RWD car is going to be V8 powered. I want to see what the new CTS and STS will get with the DI 3.6 and 6 speed. Even better, I'd like to see what the V6 G8 will get.

V8 or not, RWD offers a better driving experience. Traction control, stability control, and *gasp* SNOW TIRES defeat the argument for FWD. If you live in an area where snow is a concern for you, you should have snow tires or at least good all seasons anyway. Think I don't know? Check my location.

first part of your quote, agree. all we need to do is check real world mpg of current CTS. fueleconomy.gov reports 23.6 mpg avg and a range of 21-28 mpg from 4 users on the 2005 CTS with auto and 3.6.

second part, RWD is a better drive, but the markets in snow states and canada have proven over and over that FWD or AWD is what consumers want day in and day out for all weather practicality. Go ask car salesmen or the sales manager/guy that orders inventory.

the best way for carmakers to cover the wants of consumers is to offer all platforms.....FWD and RWD and make them so they can also sell AWD variants of either. electronannys do not make up for inherently more winter friendly drive setups. don't believe that hype about trac on a RWD car being exactly as good as a more climate friendly drive setup. I do agree that snow tires help tremendously and have had them myself on RWD car in the past, but FWD/AWD with snows is still better than RWD w/ snows and in the end the customers do not want the added expense and hassle of tire changeovers each year anyways.

Even tho RWD is a better 'experience' most folks in car shopping land would rather have better basic functionality and convenience over a better experience. Only 'enthusiasts' care enough if their handling is incrementally better with RWD. And that's a small group.

and most folks find doing 'smoky burnouts' on a RWD car to be juvenile in this day and age anyways.

Edited April 14, 2007 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

For the record, most of the world is paying $8-$10 a gallon. Other than the nutjob in Iran, the biggest wild card never before played is China. Their middle class is already bigger than the entire population of the U.S. They are already cozying up to West African countries, Indonesia, etc.

All I am saying is that if Washington knows (or is actually looking 10-15 years ahead) something is up, let's get off this addiction to oil as quickly as we can - without going into a recession to do it.

[regfootball]

Then the issue is not whether or not there will be RWD cars, but instead how many LARGE cars will be around. No 4 cylinders are going to power a Zeta.

Once again, the automakers are being punished because Americans like big cars. Large cars != good gas mileage... This is simple physics. Advance technology all you want, small cars will get better mileage.

The only way Americans are going to buy small cars is if they have to, and they only reason they would have to is if they couldn't afford filling up large cars.

No automaker is going to stop making large cars and lose sales because the government wants them to.

people are always so misled on size and cylinders being the big factor in mpg.

its not.

two things are primarily responsible for what your real world mpg will be. ok, 3.

-the WEIGHT of your car

-aerodynamics

-your driving style and whether its city or highway driving.

aside from that, there is not much any automaker can do to get mpg down. someone driving a small 1.8l turbo 4 passat that weighs the same as a larger but light v6 car is gonna get about the same mpg. MPG will not come down with traditional drive systems unless we move away from using heavy but cheap steel and go to light weight aluminum and carbon fiber which is spendy. and even then, some folks would be scared to drive a light car no matter how large it is because a light car feels skittish on the road to them and would make them perceive it as unsafe.

any effort to reduce car weight would have to be made up for with even more safety equipment. we all want 5 star crash tests so that is why car weights are going up. no manuf. can sell a car with poor crash ratings, or a real light expensive car, but they can sell a heavy fuel sucking car with great crash ratings.

Edited April 14, 2007 by regfootball

[Flybrian]

Reg is right about driving style and how it is probably the single most decisive factor in achieving good fuel economy in the real world. Of course, vehicles have a general range (your Suburban will never get 40mpg), but your driving characteristics determine where you fall. If I flog the everloving piss out of a 4cyl Camry, idle for long periods with the a/c on, and get caught by every redlight, I'll probably be well into the teens. However, driving reasonably in a large, heavy car can still net you respectable fuel economy.

Last night, I topped off and drove ~50 miles to New Port Richey and back to get a stereo. I had the cruise on occasionally, windows up and down, a/c use at low fan speeds in moderate traffic conditions with a mix of greens and reds. Averaged 26.2mpg, off ~.2 confirmed by a fillup on return. From an eleven year-old 4,000+lb V8 sedan that's paid for, I can't see why I'd get a smaller, more uncomfortable, less fun car.

[ellives]

people are always so misled on size and cylinders being the big factor in mpg.

its not.

two things are primarily responsible for what your real world mpg will be. ok, 3.

-the WEIGHT of your car

-aerodynamics

-your driving style and whether its city or highway driving.

aside from that, there is not much any automaker can do to get mpg down. someone driving a small 1.8l turbo 4 passat that weighs the same as a larger but light v6 car is gonna get about the same mpg. MPG will not come down with traditional drive systems unless we move away from using heavy but cheap steel and go to light weight aluminum and carbon fiber which is spendy. and even then, some folks would be scared to drive a light car no matter how large it is because a light car feels skittish on the road to them and would make them perceive it as unsafe.

any effort to reduce car weight would have to be made up for with even more safety equipment. we all want 5 star crash tests so that is why car weights are going up. no manuf. can sell a car with poor crash ratings, or a real light expensive car, but they can sell a heavy fuel sucking car with great crash ratings.

I think you mean MPG up.

[bcs296]

Maybe a Camry, but that's a relatively heavy, midsize car. On summer gas, I could "flog the everloving piss out of [my 97 Civic], idle for long periods with the a/c on, and get caught by every redlight" and I would be hard pressed to get 25mpg or less. Then I could fill up, drive like a calm, reasonable driver and get 36-37 on the highway.

Anyway, there's too much hair splitting here.

Europe. 'Nuff said.

[aldw]

Would an Alpha-type platform be good with regards to MPG (RWD with smaller mass)?

[ehaase]

Would an Alpha-type platform be good with regards to MPG (RWD with smaller mass)?

Yes, but isn't the main reason most of us want RWD is for the powerful V8 engines that are feasible with RWD?

[dwightlooi]

Yes, but isn't the main reason most of us want RWD is for the powerful V8 engines that are feasible with RWD?

Actually, no. The main reason I want a RWD is the superior handling dynamics. In fact, I specifically hope that the Alpha will be made small and light and be designed specifically around 4-cylinder engines such that it will not even accept a V6. For a 3000 lbs car the size of the contemporary Civic with RWD, I believe that the best power plant offerings will be a 150hp 2.0 liter inline-4 with direct injection and VVT and a 260~300hp version of the same engine with a turbocharger. The a 2.0 turbo will make more torque starting from a lower RPM than a 3.6 liter V6, it will also put less weight over the front axle making a 50/50 weight distribution a practical reality. The 2.0 liter swept volume and its associated pumping losses at cruise will also yield better economy numbers overall.

In fact, even for larger, heavier cars, I find the V8 configuration unrefined for vibration purposes. I'll much rather see a G8 carry a turbocharged version of the 4.2 liter Vortec 4200 Inline-6 to the tune of about 400~450 hp which is easily achievable at relatively modest boost and stress levels (@10~12 psi boost). At this boost level and with twin turbochargers, response will be pretty much immediate and a maximum torque of about 400~450 lb-ft shoulb be reached by about 1500~2000 rpm. A 4.2 liter I-6 should be able to support up to ~630hp (~150hp/liter) on 91 octane pump gas and with regular factory reliability @ about 20~22 psi of boost pressure (~34.7 to 36.7 psi absolute pressure). As a bonus, turbocharged cars will also not lose power as you climb up a mountain although they may get slightly more laggy respnse wise.

[ehaase]

Actually, no. The main reason I want a RWD is the superior handling dynamics.

I don't think you're representative of most RWD fans.

[Camino LS6]

Sure he is, if rwd fans just wanted V8s, we'd just buy trucks and FWD v8s.

ANY powerplant is more fun in RWD configuration

Do I want my Zeta witha V8? Yes, of course I do. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy an inline6 BMW or a Solstice with a four.

[Camino LS6]

And here is a promise:

I will never, ever, buy a new FWD car. This is not negotiable in any way - period.

[Robert Hall]

For me, the appeal of RWD is all about the handling...esp. a well-balanced RWD car. Power is nice, but power without handling is useless, IMHO. I have no intrerest in trucks..for performance and luxury cars, I prefer RWD. FWD is fine for subcompacts and family sedans, though.

Edited April 17, 2007 by moltar

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Hyundai's effectively gets a pass because it's imported, as is the G8, so it's balanced by the Accent. The G8 is balanced by the Aveo, but a NAFTA-built G6, Impala or Lucerne wouldn't get that benefit.

GM is waiting to see which way the wind blows, but it could spell the end of anything larger than a lwb Epsilon (maybe 2.9 m wb for the next gen), except as a low-volume niche product (4000 a month or less for all of GM), with a lot of very expensive technology to aid economy and CO2 emmisions, which could restrict it to Cadillacs, and a very expensive LaCrosse.

And right there is the problem... The market will LITERALLY be handed to the imports. Hell, no need to worry about the competition anymore. Detroit looks poised to get screwed by their own country. And who's to say that isn't one of the goals anyway? We all know how the liberal greenies hate Detroit made automobiles.

If this passes, kiss Pontiac and Buick goodbye.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The whole disgusting propogation of this is that the federal government is mandating consumer choice. If I choose to waste on expensive, rare foods or clothing material, its okay, but if I choose to waste money on gasoline, its not. Even if gas peaked $5.00/gal, the larger cars and trucks would simply be un-bought out of the market; no need for legislation. People would simply choose.

FACT:

The reason the government seeks to regulate gas is the "fear culture" that has been built around it.

It started with the "foreign oil supports terroism" rhetoric, then it moved to the "Oh my god, gas prices will be the death of us all" spiel and now it's "the inconvenient truth"

What has happened is that ourt capitalist media is selling the SENSATION of the story. That combined with the overall cultural effects of 9/11 and promoted by the media after it (Trust no one/terrorism affects everyone/get prepared to be attacked) has prompted scared politicians into action. The scared politicians who are feeding off of the SENSATIONAL story portrayed by the media as opposed to the actual facts seek to gain the support of the rapidly conforming public (prompted by media/pop culture) in order to get votes, because we all know MORE VOTES=MORE $$$

Unfortunately, it's the story of america these days... Everything revolves around money, not facts. This society is VERY similar to the last days of the Roman Empire... It's cynical, dark, corrupt and apathetic. Just like the Roman Empire, this society will fall, except it will not be through traditional warfare.

MY OPINION

It will instead be through economics as many believe that China and other emerging superpowers have already declared "financial" war on america by buying our currency and assets. Our own ignorance as a nation only makes it worse as we 1) run up the debt and 2) create a HUGE trade imbalance.

So now we're faced with our eventual downfall one way or the other... Either we can regulate the F**K out of gasoline now and prompt a recession because our economy is petroleum based, or we can simply rot until were bought and surpassed by emerging superpowers such as China and India

Edited April 17, 2007 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[dwightlooi]

And right there is the problem... The market will LITERALLY be handed to the imports. Hell, no need to worry about the competition anymore. Detroit looks poised to get screwed by their own country. And who's to say that isn't one of the goals anyway? We all know how the liberal greenies hate Detroit made automobiles.

If this passes, kiss Pontiac and Buick goodbye.

OK... OK... there is a misconception here. No imports are NOT given a pass. Here is the problem...

CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy is a rule which penalizes car manufacturers if the total sum of the tested fuel economy number of each of their vehicles divided by the total produced (hence average) exceeds the guideline for that year. Manufacturers pay a fine of $5.50 per 1/10th on an mpg under the CAFE standard times their total production volume. So if you make 2,000,000 cars and your CAFE is 24.2 mpg when the standard is 26 mpg, you pay a fine of $198 million. Ouch!

For passenger cars, each manufacturer is considered to have two fleets which are counted separately. One is the import fleet and one is the domestic fleet. Any care that does not have a 75% US and/or Canadian content is considered an import. So all the cars GM sells which are made in Korea by Daewoo, in Australia by Holden and in Belgium by Opel or whatever is counted in one fleet. Everything made in th USA is counted in the other fleet. Both have to meet the same CAFE standard and fines -- if applicable -- are assessed separately. This means that no matter how economical one fleet is, it cannot offset the gas guzzlers in the other fleet. On the same note all the fines on one fleet is levied only based on the volume of that fleet and does not carry over to the other in any way.

This applies to Toyota, Hyundai and GM alike. The problem is that Hyundai practically makes nothing here and Toyota has exceeded CAFE expectations in both their US and foreign produced fleets. GM on the other hand makes many of their small, efficient cars overseas where labor is cheaper, while they make most of their big, heavy, luxury models here in the USA. This means that improving and selling more small cars will not make any difference in increasing their CAFE for the domestically produced fleet. Hence, an Impala if economical can offset a Cadillac which is not, but a Korean built Aveo cannot. GM has lots of models which are under CAFE and needs to be offset. That is GM's problem. And for the most parts it is the result of them choosing to build their small and efficient cars abroad.

SUVs and light trucks are in their own fleet class, so no car can offset an SUV or truck or vice versa. SUVs and light trucks ARE given a pass because the CAFE standard is LOWER for them. This also applies to both import and domestic makers. However, it can be argued that having a separate standard for light trucks is giving domestic makers a pass because they make most of the SUVs.

[ellives]

OK... OK... there is a misconception here. No imports are NOT given a pass. Here is the problem...

CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy is a rule which penalizes car manufacturers if the total sum of the tested fuel economy number of each of their vehicles divided by the total produced (hence average) exceeds the guideline for that year. Manufacturers pay a fine of $5.50 per 1/10th on an mpg under the CAFE standard times their total production volume. So if you make 2,000,000 cars and your CAFE is 24.2 mpg when the standard is 26 mpg, you pay a fine of $198 million. Ouch!

For passenger cars, each manufacturer is considered to have two fleets which are counted separately. One is the import fleet and one is the domestic fleet. Any care that does not have a 75% US and/or Canadian content is considered an import. So all the cars GM sells which are made in Korea by Daewoo, in Australia by Holden and in Belgium by Opel or whatever is counted in one fleet. Everything made in th USA is counted in the other fleet. Both have to meet the same CAFE standard and fines -- if applicable -- are assessed separately. This means that no matter how economical one fleet is, it cannot offset the gas guzzlers in the other fleet. On the same note all the fines on one fleet is levied only based on the volume of that fleet and does not carry over to the other in any way.

This applies to Toyota, Hyundai and GM alike. The problem is that Hyundai practically makes nothing here and Toyota has exceeded CAFE expectations in both their US and foreign produced fleets. GM on the other hand makes many of their small, efficient cars overseas where labor is cheaper, while they make most of their big, heavy, luxury models here in the USA. This means that improving and selling more small cars will not make any difference in increasing their CAFE for the domestically produced fleet. Hence, an Impala if economical can offset a Cadillac which is not, but a Korean built Aveo cannot. GM has lots of models which are under CAFE and needs to be offset. That is GM's problem. And for the most parts it is the result of them choosing to build their small and efficient cars abroad.

SUVs and light trucks are in their own fleet class, so no car can offset an SUV or truck or vice versa. SUVs and light trucks ARE given a pass because the CAFE standard is LOWER for them. This also applies to both import and domestic makers. However, it can be argued that having a separate standard for light trucks is giving domestic makers a pass because they make most of the SUVs.

This is exactly why the dirtbags in Washington can't use CAFE to legislate less fuel consumption. Consumers should be allowed to buy what they want and what they can afford.

[gm4life]

Screw 'em. We need a balance of RWD/FWD products. I think this is crazy.

[dwightlooi]

I'll tell you something though... CAFE is really not much of a problem unless we get silly about it.

In the previous example where 2 million cars miss the CAFE standard by 1.8 mpg and the manufacturer pays a $198 million fine, well guess what? That is $99 per car. Miss it by a whopping 10 mpg and its still "only" $550 per car. If you really want performance so bad, you can always speak with your wallet and simply have the manufacturer pass the cost down to you!

If you run a car company and you are not castrated by political correctness, you can also declare yourself as the self-proclaim "bad boy" car maker, give the environmentalists the finger and give EPA the finger. Tell them that you will totally disregard CAFE and make gas guzzlers because that is what your customers want. As a corporation you can declare hostility towards the enviroment movement and the government if you want, there is nothing illegal about it! You can also put a sticker on every car indicating the CAFE fine your are passing on to them with the banner...

"$298 CAFE penalty -- This is the government and reaping you off. Don't bitch to us; unelect the representatives who passed this law. For a list of congressmen and senators who voted yes on CAFE, please consult the back of this car's brochure."

Hey, you may even get a rabid cult following amongst car enthusiasts as the bad ass, politically incorrect brand with gigantic balls.

This IS a free country. The reason a lot of things are happening is because we let it happen. Why is GM caving to the Global Warming scam artists why they shut the door on you? Because, the environmental activists yell very loud, get a lot of attention and do a lot to lobby their causes. Why aren't YOU doing as much? The same thing goes for the illegal aliens amnesty problem and everyone seeming to cave in to activism from racist organizations like La Raza. If you really believe in something speak up. If you shut up, you deserve to be shoved into the corner and ignored.

[Camino LS6]

I'll tell you something though... CAFE is really not much of a problem unless we get silly about it.

In the previous example where 2 million cars miss the CAFE standard by 1.8 mpg and the manufacturer pays a $198 million fine, well guess what? That is $99 per car. Miss it by a whopping 10 mpg and its still "only" $550 per car. If you really want performance so bad, you can always speak with your wallet and simply have the manufacturer pass the cost down to you!

If you run a car company and you are not castrated by political correctness, you can also declare yourself as the self-proclaim "bad boy" car maker, give the environmentalists the finger and give EPA the finger. Tell them that you will totally disregard CAFE and make gas guzzlers because that is what your customers want. As a corporation you can declare hostility towards the enviroment movement and the government if you want, there is nothing illegal about it! You can also put a sticker on every car indicating the CAFE fine your are passing on to them with the banner...

"$298 CAFE penalty -- This is the government and reaping you off. Don't bitch to us; unelect the representatives who passed this law. For a list of congressmen and senators who voted yes on CAFE, please consult the back of this car's brochure."

Hey, you may even get a rabid cult following amongst car enthusiasts as the bad ass, politically incorrect brand with gigantic balls.

This IS a free country. The reason a lot of things are happening is because we let it happen. Why is GM caving to the Global Warming scam artists why they shut the door on you? Because, the environmental activists yell very loud, get a lot of attention and do a lot to lobby their causes. Why aren't YOU doing as much? The same thing goes for the illegal aliens amnesty problem and everyone seeming to cave in to activism from racist organizations like La Raza. If you really believe in something speak up. If you shut up, you deserve to be shoved into the corner and ignored.

Absolutely fantastic post!!!!

And, I'd be willing to pay the fee.

I just want to be able to buy a car that I like.

Damn the ninnies, I will live as I choose.

[knightfan26917]

Sure he is, if rwd fans just wanted V8s, we'd just buy trucks and FWD v8s.

Hmmm...trucks, yes. FWD, hecka no.

I've contemplated getting a truck ... but, I'd rather have a coupe or sedan car............preferably, of course, coupe .

Cort:33swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve.pacemaker

PICS:lego.HO.model.MCinfo.RT.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

my radio show:CD SHOWCASE.7:30p central.Friday/April 20 = www.wrmn1410.com

[dwightlooi]

Hmmm...trucks, yes. FWD, hecka no.

I've contemplated getting a truck ... but, I'd rather have a coupe or sedan car............preferably, of course, coupe .

Cort:33swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve.pacemaker

PICS:lego.HO.model.MCinfo.RT.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

my radio show:CD SHOWCASE.7:30p central.Friday/April 20 = www.wrmn1410.com

You can get a Honda Ridgeline! Its a FWD fullsize pickup!

[bcs296]

FACT:

The reason the government seeks to regulate gas is the "fear culture" that has been built around it.

It started with the "foreign oil supports terroism" rhetoric, then it moved to the "Oh my god, gas prices will be the death of us all" spiel and now it's "the inconvenient truth"

What has happened is that ourt capitalist media is selling the SENSATION of the story. That combined with the overall cultural effects of 9/11 and promoted by the media after it (Trust no one/terrorism affects everyone/get prepared to be attacked) has prompted scared politicians into action. The scared politicians who are feeding off of the SENSATIONAL story portrayed by the media as opposed to the actual facts seek to gain the support of the rapidly conforming public (prompted by media/pop culture) in order to get votes, because we all know MORE VOTES=MORE $$$

Unfortunately, it's the story of america these days... Everything revolves around money, not facts. This society is VERY similar to the last days of the Roman Empire... It's cynical, dark, corrupt and apathetic. Just like the Roman Empire, this society will fall, except it will not be through traditional warfare.

MY OPINION

It will instead be through economics as many believe that China and other emerging superpowers have already declared "financial" war on america by buying our currency and assets. Our own ignorance as a nation only makes it worse as we 1) run up the debt and 2) create a HUGE trade imbalance.

So now we're faced with our eventual downfall one way or the other... Either we can regulate the F**K out of gasoline now and prompt a recession because our economy is petroleum based, or we can simply rot until were bought and surpassed by emerging superpowers such as China and India

True story.

[dwightlooi]

FACT:

The reason the government seeks to regulate gas is the "fear culture" that has been built around it.

It started with the "foreign oil supports terroism" rhetoric, then it moved to the "Oh my god, gas prices will be the death of us all" spiel and now it's "the inconvenient truth"

What has happened is that ourt capitalist media is selling the SENSATION of the story. That combined with the overall cultural effects of 9/11 and promoted by the media after it (Trust no one/terrorism affects everyone/get prepared to be attacked) has prompted scared politicians into action. The scared politicians who are feeding off of the SENSATIONAL story portrayed by the media as opposed to the actual facts seek to gain the support of the rapidly conforming public (prompted by media/pop culture) in order to get votes, because we all know MORE VOTES=MORE $$$

Unfortunately, it's the story of america these days... Everything revolves around money, not facts. This society is VERY similar to the last days of the Roman Empire... It's cynical, dark, corrupt and apathetic. Just like the Roman Empire, this society will fall, except it will not be through traditional warfare.

MY OPINION

It will instead be through economics as many believe that China and other emerging superpowers have already declared "financial" war on america by buying our currency and assets. Our own ignorance as a nation only makes it worse as we 1) run up the debt and 2) create a HUGE trade imbalance.

So now we're faced with our eventual downfall one way or the other... Either we can regulate the F**K out of gasoline now and prompt a recession because our economy is petroleum based, or we can simply rot until were bought and surpassed by emerging superpowers such as China and India

Nah, I disagree with most of it.

(1) Firstly, the reason countries like China is buying up US currency is not to topple us with financial attacks. The purpose is to keep the Dollar overvalued and the Yuan undervalued by artificially shorting the dollar supply. The reason this is done is to increase their export competitiveness and prolong the trade imbalance.

(2) The USA was 50% of the world economy at one point post WWII. If this is what we are trying to hold on to -- or bring back rather -- we can forget about it. There is nothing we can do to stop others from developing. The global economic landscape will even out and we will be less of the pie than we are today. This is inevitable unless the other guys screw around and not develop. Even if they did screw around like morons -- like China did with dubious dictatorial leaderships running a command economy from 1949 through the 70s -- it is only a matter of time before they get back on track.

(3) Can the world overtake the USA? Of course it can. Will it? We don't know. China and India's problem is that they have more population than their land mass really supports. This means that they'll always have the encumbrance of excessive mouths to feed and not enough use of excessive hands. This will get worse as the parents of their one child generation ages and create a massive dependent class situation.

(4) The US national debt is actually very reasonable despite what some people will have you believe. US national debt is about 8.9 trillion right now. It is roughly 67% of our 13.3 trillion GDP. It is like owing $67,000 in mortagage and/or other long term debts when you make $100,000 a year. Most hoome buyers owe three to four times their annual income in mortages. This is also relatively low compared to just about every developed country. Japan for instance owes $8.24 trillion on a $4.85 trillion GDP -- a whopping 170%. France owes $1.5 trillion on a $2.1 trillion economy or 74% of its GDP and their debt is rising faster than any other country in the world including the USA.

(5) The problem we have is not national debt. The problem is all the socialist entitlement programs we have allowed to creep into our national commitments over the years. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Bush's prescription drug benefit, welfare, you name it. None of these things should have existed in the first place as they do nothing but breed dependency and discourage individual responsibility. Not only that, but tax financed wealth redistribution schemes like these basically punish success, competence and diligence, while they reward failure, incompetence and bum-ism. I suppose all successful countries with good quality of life will have some bleeding heart tendencies, but the degree to which we are spending on these entitlement rackets WILL bankrupt us like no war and no trade imbalance ever will. Do you know for instance that we spend about 16.7% of the government budget on defense but 61% on social services? Not only that, but about half of that 61% are entitlement payouts and this is expected to DOUBLE in a decade and a half to three decades?

(6) Our economic problems can only be solved by de-socialization and a reversion to a more purely capitalistic economic model -- which is what China has today while we slide towards the chasm of euro-socialism under the pinks like Pelosi, Hillary, Boxer and yes to some extent Bush. And the reason we are sliding that way is simple. This nation, like Europe, has been afflicted by a mental disease epidemic called Liberalism. Forget breast cancer and heart disease, if we don't find a cure for Liberalism in the next few decades this country is finished.

(7) The energy issue is much simpler. I can tell you exactly where we'll go right now because there is only ONE route to go -- Nuclear. Oil won't disappear suddenly and for the next deacde or two it will continue to be the cheaper solution despite the fact that a lot of it comes from a$$-hole territories like the Middle east and Venezuela. But at some point it'll become expensive enough that alterntive energy sources will make sense. And I'll tell you this there isn't enough solar, hydro-electric, tidal, geo-thermal or wind power to meet even 10% of our energy needs. We can't grow enough corn for ethanol either and the ethanol making process right now doesn't yield energy at all because the amount of energy put into the growing, harvesting and processing of corn into ethanol is roughly the same as the energy content we get out of ethanol fuel! This leaves only ONE option - whole scale Nuclear adoption for electric generation. Vehicles will at some point transition to electric power. Hydrogen is nothing but an energy carrier and while we can use nuclear generated electricity to make hydrogen and then use hydrogen for propulsion I don't think It'll happen. It won't happen because Hydrogen is a horrible energy carrier. It is extremely hard to keep liquid and even when it is liquid it is 1/5 as dense as gasoline. In otherwords, batteries of a similar volume will store similar energy without the need for extreme pressurization, cryogenic refrigeration or a fuel cell stack to convert it back to electric power. Combustion engines also won't go away. I forsee alchohol or fossil fuel based evapourate fuel (similar to gasoline) being used in applications where energy density is paramount. For instance electric airplanes won't get you to tokyo so jets will need to burn something -- if not JP10 then some other combustible equivalent. Also, if we all go with battery powered cars we won't be able to make 1000 mile drives from San Francisco to Las Vegas for instance since realistically batts will last at best 200 miles. Hence, while the typical commute can be battery powered, most cars will need to retain a combustion engine for long trips which they will only use sparingly because combustible fuel will be costly. My bet is on micro gas turbine generators for on board generation running on an evaporate fuel. But that is still way more practical than trucking in and storing either a -423 degrees liquid or lighter than air gas at service stations, then filling cars with it.

[CARBIZ]

This guy is making too much sense....get him off this board right now!

I would agree with a lot of what dwightlooi says, except that what is happening in the "emerging markets" and the debacle in the Middle East are two wild cards that no political pundits can call right now. The U.S. regaining its former glory is futile...and pointless, just like GM trying to hold onto 50%. However, future compeitition for resources (not just energy) between China and the U.S., is going to be scary. Europe has to some extent seen the light and realized that it has the most to lose and is scrambling to reduce its energy dependence.

Right now, China is more interested in feathering the bed of its own emerging middle class, and it can fuel all its growth for the forseeable future on that new market, but wait until that gravy train ends for them.

Then there is Iran and Iraq. What about the billiions the U.S. is spending there and how little return it is getting?

I totally agree about nuclear. I would also add that fusion looks even more promising, so perhaps Bush should be spending some money there, too.

"This IS a free country. The reason a lot of things are happening is because we let it happen" I had to repost that. Personally, I feel like I am surrounded by idiots in my city. People that are so blinded and so selfish that they can't see beyond their next paycheque about what Ottawa's policies are doing to destroy our future. About diluting our laws and our country to suit people who don't even like us as a people. About bone-headed decisions that are all about politics but nothing about what is actually good for this country.

But if people are only going to whine, yet DO nothing about it, then all is lost.

[ellives]

Nah, I disagree with most of it.

(1) Firstly, the reason countries like China is buying up US currency is not to topple us with financial attacks. The purpose is to keep the Dollar overvalued and the Yuan undervalued by artificially shorting the dollar supply. The reason this is done is to increase their export competitiveness and prolong the trade imbalance.

(2) The USA was 50% of the world economy at one point post WWII. If this is what we are trying to hold on to -- or bring back rather -- we can forget about it. There is nothing we can do to stop others from developing. The global economic landscape will even out and we will be less of the pie than we are today. This is inevitable unless the other guys screw around and not develop. Even if they did screw around like morons -- like China did with dubious dictatorial leaderships running a command economy from 1949 through the 70s -- it is only a matter of time before they get back on track.

(3) Can the world overtake the USA? Of course it can. Will it? We don't know. China and India's problem is that they have more population than their land mass really supports. This means that they'll always have the encumbrance of excessive mouths to feed and not enough use of excessive hands. This will get worse as the parents of their one child generation ages and create a massive dependent class situation.

(4) The US national debt is actually very reasonable despite what some people will have you believe. US national debt is about 8.9 trillion right now. It is roughly 67% of our 13.3 trillion GDP. It is like owing $67,000 in mortagage and/or other long term debts when you make $100,000 a year. Most hoome buyers owe three to four times their annual income in mortages. This is also relatively low compared to just about every developed country. Japan for instance owes $8.24 trillion on a $4.85 trillion GDP -- a whopping 170%. France owes $1.5 trillion on a $2.1 trillion economy or 74% of its GDP and their debt is rising faster than any other country in the world including the USA.

(5) The problem we have is not national debt. The problem is all the socialist entitlement programs we have allowed to creep into our national commitments over the years. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Bush's prescription drug benefit, welfare, you name it. None of these things should have existed in the first place as they do nothing but breed dependency and discourage individual responsibility. Not only that, but tax financed wealth redistribution schemes like these basically punish success, competence and diligence, while they reward failure, incompetence and bum-ism. I suppose all successful countries with good quality of life will have some bleeding heart tendencies, but the degree to which we are spending on these entitlement rackets WILL bankrupt us like no war and no trade imbalance ever will. Do you know for instance that we spend about 16.7% of the government budget on defense but 61% on social services? Not only that, but about half of that 61% are entitlement payouts and this is expected to DOUBLE in a decade and a half to three decades?

(6) Our economic problems can only be solved by de-socialization and a reversion to a more purely capitalistic economic model -- which is what China has today while we slide towards the chasm of euro-socialism under the pinks like Pelosi, Hillary, Boxer and yes to some extent Bush. And the reason we are sliding that way is simple. This nation, like Europe, has been afflicted by a mental disease epidemic called Liberalism. Forget breast cancer and heart disease, if we don't find a cure for Liberalism in the next few decades this country is finished.

(7) The energy issue is much simpler. I can tell you exactly where we'll go right now because there is only ONE route to go -- Nuclear. Oil won't disappear suddenly and for the next deacde or two it will continue to be the cheaper solution despite the fact that a lot of it comes from a$$-hole territories like the Middle east and Venezuela. But at some point it'll become expensive enough that alterntive energy sources will make sense. And I'll tell you this there isn't enough solar, hydro-electric, tidal, geo-thermal or wind power to meet even 10% of our energy needs. We can't grow enough corn for ethanol either and the ethanol making process right now doesn't yield energy at all because the amount of energy put into the growing, harvesting and processing of corn into ethanol is roughly the same as the energy content we get out of ethanol fuel! This leaves only ONE option - whole scale Nuclear adoption for electric generation. Vehicles will at some point transition to electric power. Hydrogen is nothing but an energy carrier and while we can use nuclear generated electricity to make hydrogen and then use hydrogen for propulsion I don't think It'll happen. It won't happen because Hydrogen is a horrible energy carrier. It is extremely hard to keep liquid and even when it is liquid it is 1/5 as dense as gasoline. In otherwords, batteries of a similar volume will store similar energy without the need for extreme pressurization, cryogenic refrigeration or a fuel cell stack to convert it back to electric power. Combustion engines also won't go away. I forsee alchohol or fossil fuel based evapourate fuel (similar to gasoline) being used in applications where energy density is paramount. For instance electric airplanes won't get you to tokyo so jets will need to burn something -- if not JP10 then some other combustible equivalent. Also, if we all go with battery powered cars we won't be able to make 1000 mile drives from San Francisco to Las Vegas for instance since realistically batts will last at best 200 miles. Hence, while the typical commute can be battery powered, most cars will need to retain a combustion engine for long trips which they will only use sparingly because combustible fuel will be costly. My bet is on micro gas turbine generators for on board generation running on an evaporate fuel. But that is still way more practical than trucking in and storing either a -423 degrees liquid or lighter than air gas at service stations, then filling cars with it.

Obviously another right winged wacko. Nuclear is not an option until you can explain what to do with the waste. Once this problem is resolved I'm happy to consider it. Until then you better conserve energy.

The right likes to talk budget percentages and particularly how the military budget compares to the "entitlement" programs. Wrong answer. Social Security and Medicare/-aid SHOULD be a net zero discussion and not included in the US government "budget" when these programs should be self-funding and not made available to the criminals running congress. I just LOVE the ads the pharmaceutical companies are running on TV now under the auspices of http://www.phrma.org/ trying to scare retirees into telling their congressman to turn back any of the Dems' attempts to allow the Federal Government to negotiate with the drug companies.... Check out the web site and you'll see our "friend" Billy Tauzin (who was instrumental getting part D passed) out in front again helping his benefactors and padding his wallet at the same time. This is the benefit of having Bush and his buddies in office for the last term and a half with no oversight.

As I've said on this board before, this is the problem with you Limbaugh humpers... everything is so extreme conservative and "we're right and you're wrong." The concept of being moderate is foreign and of course will prevent anything from ever being accomplished.

[97regalGS]

And here is a promise:

I will never, ever, buy a new FWD car. This is not negotiable in any way - period.

and here's the rub. you and people like you are a very insignificant share of the market. that's not a personal shot, just a comment that enthusiasts don't carry enough buying power to have a significant impact in the market, hence any 'enthusiast' car (V8, 500hp, 500ft-lb, 6spd manual, huge wheels/tires) that GM would craft up needs to have decent base model in order for the business case to work.

[Camino LS6]

and here's the rub. you and people like you are a very insignificant share of the market. that's not a personal shot, just a comment that enthusiasts don't carry enough buying power to have a significant impact in the market, hence any 'enthusiast' car (V8, 500hp, 500ft-lb, 6spd manual, huge wheels/tires) that GM would craft up needs to have decent base model in order for the business case to work.

No argument there, I have no problem with a decent base model. Why should I? I don't even have a problem with FWD cars being offered, unless it is to the exclusion of RWD cars.

EDIT: Life is too short to drive a car you don't like.

[97regalGS]

EDIT: Life is too short to drive a car you don't like.

amen to that. (i've got to get rid of that minivan. wonder if I can squeeze the wife and kids and all the camping gear into a G8???)

[Robert Hall]

and here's the rub. you and people like you are a very insignificant share of the market. that's not a personal shot, just a comment that enthusiasts don't carry enough buying power to have a significant impact in the market, hence any 'enthusiast' car (V8, 500hp, 500ft-lb, 6spd manual, huge wheels/tires) that GM would craft up needs to have decent base model in order for the business case to work.

I don't need 500hp.... 250-300 is plenty enough...the G35 and 3-series are good examples of enthusiast RWD sport sedans that sell well... GM could do well with a mass-market RWD model...not everyone wants to be a generic FWD-driving sheep...

[Camino LS6]

amen to that. (i've got to get rid of that minivan. wonder if I can squeeze the wife and kids and all the camping gear into a G8???)

I'd find out if I were you, especially if you are stuck driving a minivan.

[Robert Hall]

I'd find out if I were you, especially if you are stuck driving a minivan.

Heh-heh... those power sliding doors on some vans are pretty slick, though... one of my coworkers has a Windstar Limited...it's easy to pile in and out of to when doing the lunch run...

[knightfan26917]

You can get a Honda Ridgeline! Its a FWD fullsize pickup!

*raises eyebrow sharply*

The explanation for why I would buy a FWD fullsize pickup is going to be very entertaining.

Life is too short to drive a car you don't like.

AMEN!

Sadly, I insulted myself for 6 LONG years ... with a 1997 Corsica (er, malibu) and a 2000 2-door Lumina (er, monte carlo).

*shudders*

NEVER again......................

Cort:33swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve.pacemaker

PICS:lego.HO.model.MCinfo.RT.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

my radio show:CD SHOWCASE.7:30p central.Friday/April 20 = www.wrmn1410.com

[dwightlooi]

Obviously another right winged wacko. Nuclear is not an option until you can explain what to do with the waste. Once this problem is resolved I'm happy to consider it. Until then you better conserve energy.

The right likes to talk budget percentages and particularly how the military budget compares to the "entitlement" programs. Wrong answer. Social Security and Medicare/-aid SHOULD be a net zero discussion and not included in the US government "budget" when these programs should be self-funding and not made available to the criminals running congress. I just LOVE the ads the pharmaceutical companies are running on TV now under the auspices of http://www.phrma.org/ trying to scare retirees into telling their congressman to turn back any of the Dems' attempts to allow the Federal Government to negotiate with the drug companies.... Check out the web site and you'll see our "friend" Billy Tauzin (who was instrumental getting part D passed) out in front again helping his benefactors and padding his wallet at the same time. This is the benefit of having Bush and his buddies in office for the last term and a half with no oversight.

As I've said on this board before, this is the problem with you Limbaugh humpers... everything is so extreme conservative and "we're right and you're wrong." The concept of being moderate is foreign and of course will prevent anything from ever being accomplished.

(1) Nuclear waste will have to be buried, stored or otherwise quarantined. It'll be a problem, but you deal with it. On the bright side, they are relatively compact and hence relatively easy to store and quarantine. The storage of nuclear waste is a problem that can be dealt with. The inability of non-nuclear energy sources to produce anywhere near enough power for contemporary human civilization is not a problem that can be dealt with.

(2) Conservation is not a solution. It is at best a mitigating measure. Nobody wants to go back to having one lamp in the house, crossing oceans on sailing ships, riding bicycles or using manual labor in factories instead of machinery. Any reasonable degree of conservation will not cut our energy needs by 90% and it will not change the inevitable nuclear future. At the very best it'll reduce the number of nuclear power plants we need.

(3) My view is that welfare, social security, socialized health care and public education should be eliminated. Individuals should save for their own retirement, get their own health insurance and education should be provided by the private sector. None of these things should be a communal affair funded by taxation. The government should not be engaged in social services providence at all. The government should only engage in national defense, public safety and in activities that provide a safe and orderly environment where individuals and companies can compete. The capable will be rewarded, the meek will not. Life will be good if you have ability, it'll suck if you don't. And that is the way it should be.

The opposite of Right is not Left. The opposite of Right is Wrong.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

OK... OK... there is a misconception here. No imports are NOT given a pass. Here is the problem...

CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy is a rule which penalizes car manufacturers if the total sum of the tested fuel economy number of each of their vehicles divided by the total produced (hence average) exceeds the guideline for that year. Manufacturers pay a fine of $5.50 per 1/10th on an mpg under the CAFE standard times their total production volume. So if you make 2,000,000 cars and your CAFE is 24.2 mpg when the standard is 26 mpg, you pay a fine of $198 million. Ouch!

For passenger cars, each manufacturer is considered to have two fleets which are counted separately. One is the import fleet and one is the domestic fleet. Any care that does not have a 75% US and/or Canadian content is considered an import. So all the cars GM sells which are made in Korea by Daewoo, in Australia by Holden and in Belgium by Opel or whatever is counted in one fleet. Everything made in th USA is counted in the other fleet. Both have to meet the same CAFE standard and fines -- if applicable -- are assessed separately. This means that no matter how economical one fleet is, it cannot offset the gas guzzlers in the other fleet. On the same note all the fines on one fleet is levied only based on the volume of that fleet and does not carry over to the other in any way.

This applies to Toyota, Hyundai and GM alike. The problem is that Hyundai practically makes nothing here and Toyota has exceeded CAFE expectations in both their US and foreign produced fleets. GM on the other hand makes many of their small, efficient cars overseas where labor is cheaper, while they make most of their big, heavy, luxury models here in the USA. This means that improving and selling more small cars will not make any difference in increasing their CAFE for the domestically produced fleet. Hence, an Impala if economical can offset a Cadillac which is not, but a Korean built Aveo cannot. GM has lots of models which are under CAFE and needs to be offset. That is GM's problem. And for the most parts it is the result of them choosing to build their small and efficient cars abroad.

SUVs and light trucks are in their own fleet class, so no car can offset an SUV or truck or vice versa. SUVs and light trucks ARE given a pass because the CAFE standard is LOWER for them. This also applies to both import and domestic makers. However, it can be argued that having a separate standard for light trucks is giving domestic makers a pass because they make most of the SUVs.

An original part of the plan was to allow imported makes acquired "credits" for fuel mileage over the years. I was posting on that basis, which I guess might've changed now? (Which I'm happy if it did)

Either way, it's not good for the domestics simply because they cannot make small efficient cars in this country and turn anything close to a decent profit.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Nah, I disagree with most of it.

(1) Firstly, the reason countries like China is buying up US currency is not to topple us with financial attacks. The purpose is to keep the Dollar overvalued and the Yuan undervalued by artificially shorting the dollar supply. The reason this is done is to increase their export competitiveness and prolong the trade imbalance.

(2) The USA was 50% of the world economy at one point post WWII. If this is what we are trying to hold on to -- or bring back rather -- we can forget about it. There is nothing we can do to stop others from developing. The global economic landscape will even out and we will be less of the pie than we are today. This is inevitable unless the other guys screw around and not develop. Even if they did screw around like morons -- like China did with dubious dictatorial leaderships running a command economy from 1949 through the 70s -- it is only a matter of time before they get back on track.

(3) Can the world overtake the USA? Of course it can. Will it? We don't know. China and India's problem is that they have more population than their land mass really supports. This means that they'll always have the encumbrance of excessive mouths to feed and not enough use of excessive hands. This will get worse as the parents of their one child generation ages and create a massive dependent class situation.

(4) The US national debt is actually very reasonable despite what some people will have you believe. US national debt is about 8.9 trillion right now. It is roughly 67% of our 13.3 trillion GDP. It is like owing $67,000 in mortagage and/or other long term debts when you make $100,000 a year. Most hoome buyers owe three to four times their annual income in mortages. This is also relatively low compared to just about every developed country. Japan for instance owes $8.24 trillion on a $4.85 trillion GDP -- a whopping 170%. France owes $1.5 trillion on a $2.1 trillion economy or 74% of its GDP and their debt is rising faster than any other country in the world including the USA.

(5) The problem we have is not national debt.

Ok, you had me until there...

The problem is all the socialist entitlement programs we have allowed to creep into our national commitments over the years. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Bush's prescription drug benefit, welfare, you name it. None of these things should have existed in the first place as they do nothing but breed dependency and discourage individual responsibility. Not only that, but tax financed wealth redistribution schemes like these basically punish success, competence and diligence, while they reward failure, incompetence and bum-ism. I suppose all successful countries with good quality of life will have some bleeding heart tendencies, but the degree to which we are spending on these entitlement rackets WILL bankrupt us like no war and no trade imbalance ever will. Do you know for instance that we spend about 16.7% of the government budget on defense but 61% on social services? Not only that, but about half of that 61% are entitlement payouts and this is expected to DOUBLE in a decade and a half to three decades?

I agree and disagree here.... I agree that far too many people "depend" on the system that have no reason to. But, as of now, I am trying to apply for Medicaid because I can no longer afford insurance. I work very hard (Usually full time while being a full time student) but I have school and school expense. I was recently hospitalized and have a few thousand dollars in expense that I cannot pay, so what else am I supposed to do?

All I'm saying is that I used to agree entirely, with what you said here. But now, after being on the flipside of the coin, I'm not so sure that some of these programs are a completely bad thing.

(6) Our economic problems can only be solved by de-socialization and a reversion to a more purely capitalistic economic model -- which is what China has today while we slide towards the chasm of euro-socialism under the pinks like Pelosi, Hillary, Boxer and yes to some extent Bush.

Depends on the capitalism.... Corporate capitalism, as in where oligopolies like the oil companies price set and control the market, then ABSOLUTELY NOT. Consumer capitalism, where the market is highly competitive and serves (basically) the need of the public instead of making a few fat white guys richer, then yes, ABSOLUTELY. Because that kind of capitalism is a catalyst for innovation.

And the reason we are sliding that way is simple. This nation, like Europe, has been afflicted by a mental disease epidemic called Liberalism. Forget breast cancer and heart disease, if we don't find a cure for Liberalism in the next few decades this country is finished.

I am VERY anti-liberalism. BUT not all of the ideas behind liberalism are bad. I think we need a blend of conservativism and liberalism. This country SORELY NEEDS leaders who are moderate and who have the best interests of the PEOPLE in mind as opposed to the best interests of the P.A.C.T.s and party affiliation in mind. They can sit on the hill and piss and moan republican/democrat all they want, but in the long run, having this constant bickering isn't helping ANYONE.

Edited April 18, 2007 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[CARBIZ]

As with all problems, the solutions generally are in the middle. Pure capitalism rewards greed and promotes selfishness; pure socialism encourages laziness. The trouble is that unbridled capitalism (Standard Oil, Bell 35 years ago, perhaps MS today) can get out of control, and what happens when the powerful become so powerful that they literally "railroad" (where do you think that term came from) their competition out of existence?

C'mon, we are a social species. The government has to provide common roads, schools as well as police, military, etc. Do you expect a return to the ways of 300 years ago? Medical costs are another modern problem. One hundred years ago, you had your babies at home, if you had the flu you prayed, if you got an infection you probably died. Who could have invisioned the myriad of tests, equipment and medicines that we have today, to say nothing of the research behind it?

I agree that social welfare APPEARS to reward the lazy, but $h! happens and not everyone is born lucky. I have seen people work very hard and do all the right things, but still have bad things happen to them. We live in a society where a single lawsuit can cost a person their house and life savings - is that necesarily right?

I get just as angry as the next person when someone sucks the system dry, but the problem lays more with lazy civil servants, corrupt politicians, fat union leaders and others involved in a system of entitlement and distorted views of the world they live in.

Frankly, the entire democratic process is corrupt and rotting on the vine. Do we blame the politicians? Do we blame the lazy middle class for not bothering to vote or get involved? Do we blame the media for creating news? Do we blame ourselves for our own narrow-mindedness and looking at the world only through our own eyes?

[gm4life]

Alot of posts here have made sense to me. If I was in a mini-van I would try that too man. I wonder if you put a trailer hitch on the G8 (hid-a-way of course) if you could tow a small trailer to carry extra gear??? It is RWD after all just a thought.

[dwightlooi]

I agree and disagree here.... I agree that far too many people "depend" on the system that have no reason to. But, as of now, I am trying to apply for Medicaid because I can no longer afford insurance. I work very hard (Usually full time while being a full time student) but I have school and school expense. I was recently hospitalized and have a few thousand dollars in expense that I cannot pay, so what else am I supposed to do?

All I'm saying is that I used to agree entirely, with what you said here. But now, after being on the flipside of the coin, I'm not so sure that some of these programs are a completely bad thing.

You have my sympathies. But there are two vantages here.

The first is yours. If you had insurance when you got hospitalized, the most you will be hit with will be the maximum yearly deductible. Usually its between $500 and $5000 depending on your policy for PPOs or practically zero for HMOs (Homicide Management Organizations). But in your specific case, the presence of an available public assistance program certainly benefits you. And in your case it is a good thing. BTW, if you did not have insurance at the time, did you ever consider why that is the case? I mean health insurance is not that expensive even with our pretty screwed up system right now. It is about $100~250 a month for most people depending on what you buy and how old you are. Even if you work at Taco Bell and make $1400 a month, it is not a heavenly sum. It is a notable burden yes. But so is rent and utilities. Why is it that people tend to prioritize rent and utilities over health insurance even when these are all essentials? In fact, many prioritize getting a car or buying nicer clothes or getting a cell phone over health insurance! Because they KNOW that they'll get care regardless. You don't pay rent you get evicted. You don't pay the electric company you can mull around in the dark. You don't get health insurance, they treat you anyway. Don't you think people in general will prioritize differently if not having insurance means that you can DIE and the hospital will maybe help put you in a bodybag? Even more than poverty or stingy employers, the leading reason we have so many uninsured is that the consequence of not having insurance is... well... quite tolerable.

The second is the contax of the healthcare system as a whole -- which is pretty darn broken. It is broken for two reasons. To start with most paying customers in healthcare consume under what is best called an indirect payment system. That is the consumer pay some relatively insignificant co-payment or deductible regardless of the price of the service/goods provided. This basically eliminates price competition in the medical industry. Imagine shopping for a car, a TV or chocolate bars and paying some fixed co-payment or deductible and what do think is going to happen? Will you even care how much they cost? Secondly, you have a situation where most hospitals are required by law to treat first and bill later. Basically, if you use the ER as your defacto source of care and then never ever pay your bill. The Hospital is basically screwed. They can't do much other than write you letters which you'll ignore anyway and perhaps ding your credit report which may been so bad you don't give a damn anyway. So what happens is that they have to eat the cost pass it on to the paying patients (or rather their insurance companies). The combination of these two factors caused a ridiculous situation -- there is no direct price competition hence no market mechanism to reduce pricing, the presence of a mechanism by which the socially responsible are being ripped off by the socially irresponsible and lastly the availability of a dead beat avenue by which people CAN get by while acting as total and deliberate parasites.

Socializing health care WILL NOT introduce price competition, all it'll do is change the way an uncompetitive industry is paid -- through taxation and bureaucratic wrangling. It will also transform a situation where the responsible are ripped off to subsidize the irresponsible, to one where everybody gets to be completely irresponsible with regard to health care. What you will create is a situation where costs remain high but and taxes need to be higher than it already is to fund it. It'll also make it yet more attractive to be a total bum and let your working and tax paying neighbors take care of this addition one thing in life, while making it ever more unattractive to become an highly paid professional because the IRS will take more than half of what you earn and you are still oging to get the same $h!ty socialized medicine as the homeless bum. In the end, the country bankrupts herself over time and everyone gets $h!ty, expensive care paid for indirectly by a tax bill which takes 7 months of work a year to pay. Everyone loses, although the capable and diligent loses more than the bums.

If you choose to be endlessly compassionate to the barbarian, in the end you'll become a endlessly barbaric to the compassionate.

[Oracle of Delphi]

WOW, RWD to Healthcare! :rotflmao:

[dwightlooi]

WOW, RWD to Healthcare! :rotflmao:

LOL... yeah. I guess we got carried away.

[gm4life]

Good ideas tho.

[Chicagoland]

People say "i only buy RWD", and get a 1998 Crown Vic, 96 Caprice, or any Fox era Stang. Used car buyers have no say in waht gets made brand new.

[Camino LS6]

People say "i only buy RWD", and get a 1998 Crown Vic, 96 Caprice, or any Fox era Stang. Used car buyers have no say in waht gets made brand new.

Since 2001, I have purchased 4 new GM vehicles.

All were RWD or 4WD.

In fact, every new vehicle that I have ever purchased has been RWD or 4WD. I have never, and will never, buy a new FWD vehicle.

But I will be buying at least one Zeta-based vehicle.

So I guess that makes your assertions incorrect, huh?