Is a 1.4L Turbo the right answer?

[Guest aatbloke]

Not true at all, I belong to an online UK gaming clan. I'm in game with my UK friends about 10% of my free time, and when we are in game together, we use a software program to speak to each other while we are in game together, I am helping them learn American. I also will be in Scotland in September for a wedding, and have been in the UK many times, even have been to Wales. Hate all things British you say? Once again you are incorrect. :AH-HA_wink:

Give me a break, you have nothing good to say about the UK. I've even e-mailed colleagues some of your comments regarding Vauxhall and the UK at large, and their conclusion about you was the same as mine ... that said, I wouldn't tell you the full extent as to what I think by hiding behind a computer on here, I'd sooner fly over to the States and tell you directly to your face. If I remarked the same about Americans I'd be immediately branded as anti-American. You're as anti-British as they come.

Edited July 13, 2008 by aatbloke

[Oracle of Delphi]

Anti British hardly, just anti-aatbloke! There's a big difference.

[Guest aatbloke]

Anti British hardly, just anti-aatbloke! There's a big difference.

Hey I don't care what you think of me, I'm never going to ever meet you! Your remarks are certainly anti-British and the industry colleagues I've directed your comments to about Vauxhall and England to in the past - the one about Luton was classic I recall - think the same.

Like I said, if you think that by chastising Vauxhall you're having a pop at me - which is what today's outlandish claims were all about, weren't they after all - then you're truly wasting your time. I don't even remotely think in the same way as you do.

Edited July 13, 2008 by aatbloke

[Oracle of Delphi]

Hey I don't care what you think of me, I'm never going to ever meet you! Your remarks are certainly anti-British and the industry colleagues I've directed your comments to about Vauxhall and England to in the past - the one about Luton was classic I recall - think the same.

Like I said, if you think that by chastising Vauxhall you're having a pop at me - which is what today's outlandish claims were all about, weren't they after all - then you're truly wasting your time. I don't even remotely think in the same way as you do.

Wot u on about Governor?

[Blake Noble]

I'd find that more disconcerting for the British car industry.

What British car industry? It's all been virtually bought by and assimilated into other non-British automakers. Vauxhall are under the total control of the friendly folks at Opel und GME, Jaguar and Land Rover are property of Tata and then Ford before that, Lotus are owned by the Malaysians, Jensen is pretty much dead, Triumph is dead, Austin is a memory and the only notable car to come from that automaker, the Mini, is now under control of BMW, TVR is owned by a Russian kid with too much money ... it goes on and on. The U.K. has a few plants and that hardly makes up a thriving automotive industry in my opinion. It's just what's left over, for the most part.

Edited July 15, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[haypops]

What British car industry?

The U.K. has a few plants and that hardly makes up a thriving automotive industry in my opinion. It's just what's left over, for the most part.

I thought the component and engineering end of the business was doing better. Also the compaines you listed still employ people.

[Blake Noble]

When it comes to people blankly saying that a small car with less than 120bhp is a "joke", all that tells me is that they have precious little experience of such vehicles ...

One-hundred and twenty raging brake horses would be the output of the 2.2L four-cylinder found under hood of my Sonoma and the S-10 I had before it. I can say that I've had experience with that power output and, honestly, it is a little on the pathetic side and it shows painfully in Interstate conditions.

There are ways and available technology that we can use to achieve decent power ratings that reach past the 150bhp mark and still get decent fuel economy. Why not use them?

[Blake Noble]

I thought the component and engineering end of the business was doing better. Also the compaines you listed still employ people.

Yes they do, but the way I see it, for example, Vauxhall employees are not employed by Vauxhall, as if were it's own singular corporation, they are employed by GM. Vauxhall employees are the same as Opel employees or Chevrolet employees and not much different, as it is all GM, if I am making sense here.

Edited July 15, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Guest aatbloke]

What British car industry? It's all been virtually bought by and assimilated into other non-British automakers. Vauxhall are under the total control of the friendly folks at Opel und GME, Jaguar and Land Rover are property of Tata and then Ford before that, Lotus are owned by the Malaysians, Jensen is pretty much dead, Triumph is dead, Austin is a memory and the only notable car to come from that automaker, the Mini, is now under control of BMW, TVR is owned by a Russian kid with too much money ... it goes on and on. The U.K. has a few plants and that hardly makes up a thriving automotive industry in my opinion. It's just what's left over, for the most part.

The British car industry that is Nissan, Honda, Toyota, PSA, Ford, Vauxhall (GM), Jaguar, Land Rover and BMW, not to mention the suppliers, the design and engineering centres and distribution networks. A country's car industry is not determined by the domicile of holding or parent companies.

The British car industry currently builds roughly 1.6 million cars a year, of which some 70% are exported. In addition, it builds a quarter of a million commercial vehicles, of which more than half is exported. It generates the equivalent of US$100 billion in revenue, employs some 852,000 people and its exports (roughly US$50 billion per annum) contribute a significant sum to this country's trade balance.

Ten years ago, when Rover was in existence, the British car industry built only 100,000 more cars than it does now. that figure fell to a low of 1.4 million in 2001, but has been gradually rising ever since. Ten years ago, the UK industry exported only 55% of what it built, so the increase to 75% since then has had a more positive impact on the country's balance of trade.

I've spent almost all of my working life working within and in connection with the British car industry. Its indigenous industry has indeed seen better days; however the UK companies building cars here which are subsidiaries of foreign parents make a substantial contribution to this country's economy.

It's important to understand that the domicile of the shareholders is almost completely irrelevant to the economic contribution a country's motor industry. What is important is productivity. Take the Chevrolet Cruze for example: developed in Korea, chassis designed and engineered in Germany, and will be built at various plants in Europe, Asia and also Lordstown, Ohio. What's important to the US economy - from employment to suppliers to taxation - is that a version of the car will be built there.

Edited July 15, 2008 by aatbloke

[Blake Noble]

The British car industry that is Nissan, Honda, Toyota, PSA, Ford, Vauxhall (GM), Jaguar, Land Rover and BMW, not to mention the suppliers, the design and engineering centres and distribution networks. A country's car industry is not determined by the domicile of holding or parent companies.

The British car industry currently builds roughly 1.6 million cars a year, of which some 65% are exported. In addition, it builds a quarter of a million commercial vehicles, of which almost half are exported. It generates the equivalent of $100 billion in revenue, employs some 852,000 people and its exports contribute a significant sum to this country's trade balance.

I've spent almost all of my working life working within and in connection with the British car industry. Its indigenous industry has indeed seen better days; however the UK companies building cars here which are subsidiaries of foreign parents make a substantial contribution to this country's economy.

It's important to understand that the domicile of the shareholders is almost completely irrelevant to the economic contribution a country's motor industry. What is important is productivity. Take the Chevrolet Cruze for example: developed in Korea, chassis designed and engineered in Germany, and will be built at various plants in Europe, Asia and also Lordstown, Ohio. What's important to the US economy - from employment to suppliers to taxation - is that a version of the car will be built there.

Indeed I do recognize your point. It's just when a particular industry of a country is owned by other businesses from other countries, I tend to see it as no longer belonging to that country but of those who have ownership of it. I suppose it is a matter of perception, yes?

Edited July 15, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Guest aatbloke]

Yes they do, but the way I see it, for example, Vauxhall employees are not employed by Vauxhall, as if were it's own singular corporation, they are employed by GM. Vauxhall employees are the same as Opel employees or Chevrolet employees and not much different, as it is all GM, if I am making sense here.

That isn't true. Vauxhall employees are employed by Vauxhall Motors Limited - which is a limited company and legal entity in its own right. Vauxhall, as a corporation, has its own issued share capital; it has to draw up accounts for UK corporation tax purposes, and it has to be audited. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary company of General Motors in America, however in any country - including the United States - you must have a legally domestic registered and domiciled corporation to employ people in that country. As such, it is the legal employer of its employees and owns its own pension scheme.

Chevrolet is not a corporation in its own right; it does not have issued ordinary shares, has no audit requirement, nor does it draw up its own accounts. It is a brand name owned by GM.

In commenting on issues such as this, it's really important to have a solid understanding of how corporations are structured and their legal implications. It's nothing like as simple as being "all part of GM".

Edited July 15, 2008 by aatbloke

[Guest aatbloke]

Indeed I do recognize your point. It's just when a particular industry of a country is owned by other businesses from other countries, I tend to see it as no longer belonging to that country but of those who have ownership of it. I suppose it is a matter of perception, yes?

It's actually a matter of reality. Vauxhall Motors Limited is a British company. It is registered in England & Wales, it must draw up accounts in UK Sterling, it must pay UK taxes. It has subsidiary companies of its own. But as an entity itself, it's also a foreign private subsidiary company of an American parent company.

Likewise, Charter One Bank in Ohio is an American banking corporation. It is owned by Citizens Bank, which is another American-domiciled banking corporation. Citizens Bank is owned by RBS plc, a public company registered in Scotland (which has different company laws to England & Wales). That doesn't mean Charter One is owned by RBS, because it isn't - Charter One is still owned by another American company. But it is part of the RBS Group by virtue of the corporate structure.

This kind of structure does not determine domicile. GMM Luton Ltd, a private subsidiary company of Vauxhall Motors Ltd, has its shares wholly-owned by Vauxhall, a British company. But GMM is British because it is registered in England & Wales. Vauxhall Motors Ltd is a private company, and also British because it too is registered in England & Wales, even though its shareholder (GM) is American. Its parent company - GM - is American, but it is American because it is registered in the United States. GM is a public company, and its shareholders are multinational, not just American. If a company's domicile was based upon that of its owners (ie shareholders) then GM itself would not be American.

Edited July 15, 2008 by aatbloke

[Blake Noble]

Vauxhall might be a company on paper, and perhaps a British one at that, but when you look at the simple facts, it is treated the same as any other brand at General Motors.

Honestly, Vauxhall hasn't been building a wholly British car for quite some time now. You can't honestly say a Vectra is a British car, regardless of who is building it; any layman could tell you it's a German car that is only remotely British in name.

One could point out that the relationship of Vauxhall to Opel (and occasionally Holden as well) isn't much different from the relationship of GMC to Chevrolet Trucks. There are a few changes made and a new name applied to the vehicle, nothing more. In fact, a GMC is better differentiated from it's Chevrolet counterpart than a Vauxhall is to it's Opel equivalent any more. There are no vehicles which are Vauxhall-exclusive nor are there any GM vehicles which are sourced from or originate from a Vauxhall design.

Vauxhall is a shell, an outlet for Opel cars, like Saturn is here in America. Don't fool yourself. It's not some tired rhetoric. Vauxhall is Opel and Opel is GM.

Edited July 15, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Guest aatbloke]

Vauxhall might be a company on paper, and perhaps a British one at that, but when you look at the simple facts, it is treated the same as any other brand at General Motors.

Honestly, Vauxhall hasn't been building a wholly British car for quite some time now. You can't honestly say a Vectra is a British car, regardless of who is building it; any layman could tell you it's a German car that is only remotely British in name.

One could point out that the relationship of Vauxhall to Opel (and occasionally Holden as well) isn't much different from the relationship of GMC to Chevrolet Trucks. There are a few changes made and a new name applied to the vehicle, nothing more. In fact, a GMC is better differentiated from it's Chevrolet counterpart than a Vauxhall is to it's Opel equivalent any more. There are no vehicles which are Vauxhall-exclusive nor are there any GM vehicles which are sourced from or originate from a Vauxhall design.

Vauxhall is a shell, an outlet for Opel cars, like Saturn is here in America. Don't fool yourself. It's not some tired rhetoric. Vauxhall is Opel and Opel is GM.

It isn't treated like "any other brand." A subsidiary company is a different kettle of fish to a mere brand. Furthermore, there's no "perhaps" about it - Vauxhall Motors Limited is a British company, registered at Companies House in Cardiff and headquartered in Luton.

Who does build a wholly domestic vehicle these days? The Vectra isn't a British car, nor is it a German one. Its chassis was developed mainly in Germany but also in the United States; its mechanicals are sourced all over Europe; it's built in the UK and in Germany.

You're viewing the entire situation based on the badge on the front of the product. That's completely different from the legal framework in which these companies operate. GMC and Chevrolet are brand names owned by GM. Vauxhall, Holden and Opel are all separate legal entities in their own right, and each has its own legal obligations separate from GM as a parent.

Vauxhall is not Opel, even though these days the vehicles are essentially the same. Both Vauxhall and Opel are GM Europe - it makes all product decisions and most of the development is done at Opel. Vauxhall and Opel however both have individual boards of directors, and both handle their own domestic manufacturing and distribution networks under the auspices of GM Europe.

In addition, Vauxhall has its own contracts with Holden to import a variant of the Holden Commodore HSV, which itself was re-engineered by British engineering company TWR. Vauxhall also has a joint venture contract via GME with Renault to build one of two models of light commercial vehicle. This is carried out by one of Vauxhall's own subsidiary companies, and also exported wearing Opel badges. The other model is built by Renault for Vauxhall and Opel.

The Saturn Sky's design is said to be heavily influenced by the Vauxhall VX Lightning, one of the original four Kappa-platformed concept cars. The VX Lightning's design didn't conform to EU pedestrian anti-impaling legislation and therefore did not make production. The VX220 production car before it was the result of a Vauxhall deal with Lotus - LHD versions were primarily badged as Opels, and a few as Daewoos.

I'm not fooled - I'm an accountant with almost 25 years of dealing with the legal framework of corporations, and I've been connected with the European industry for much of that time.

Edited July 15, 2008 by aatbloke

[Oracle of Delphi]

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, same old swan song. An accountant huh? That explains so much. As for Vauxhall's subsidiary status, the same could be said for GM Hughes - On December 31, 1985 General Motors merged Hughes Aircraft with its Delco Electronics unit to form Hughes Electronics Corporation, an independent subsidiary. The group then consisted of: Delco Electronics Corporation, Hughes Aircraft Company, and Hughes Space and Communications Company. The stock was issued under (GM H), speaking of which, where can I buy Vauxhall stock? and look today, it's no longer part of GM, same could be said for Electronic Data Systems (EDS), Stock was issued under (GM E), where can I buy Vauxhall stock again? Anyway EDS is no longer part of GM, so to hide behind Vauxhall's subsidiary status as being it's saving grace is a foolhardy proposition, as GM could pull the plug tomorrow and replace the name with Opel, and I doubt a tear would be shed over it's demise.

[Blake Noble]

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, same old swan song. An accountant huh? That explains so much. As for Vauxhall's subsidiary status, the same could be said for GM Hughes - On December 31, 1985 General Motors merged Hughes Aircraft with its Delco Electronics unit to form Hughes Electronics Corporation, an independent subsidiary. The group then consisted of: Delco Electronics Corporation, Hughes Aircraft Company, and Hughes Space and Communications Company. The stock was issued under (GM H), speaking of which, where can I buy Vauxhall stock? and look today, it's no longer part of GM, same could be said for Electronic Data Systems (EDS), Stock was issued under (GM E), where can I buy Vauxhall stock again? Anyway EDS is no longer part of GM, so to hide behind Vauxhall's subsidiary status as being it's saving grace is a foolhardy proposition, as GM could pull the plug tomorrow and replace the name with Opel, and I doubt a tear would be shed over it's demise.

Exactly my point. Vauxhall is GM, and is nothing more than another brand in the GM hierarchy, make no mistake about it.

[Guest aatbloke]

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, same old swan song. An accountant huh? That explains so much. As for Vauxhall's subsidiary status, the same could be said for GM Hughes - On December 31, 1985 General Motors merged Hughes Aircraft with its Delco Electronics unit to form Hughes Electronics Corporation, an independent subsidiary. The group then consisted of: Delco Electronics Corporation, Hughes Aircraft Company, and Hughes Space and Communications Company. The stock was issued under (GM H), speaking of which, where can I buy Vauxhall stock? and look today, it's no longer part of GM, same could be said for Electronic Data Systems (EDS), Stock was issued under (GM E), where can I buy Vauxhall stock again? Anyway EDS is no longer part of GM, so to hide behind Vauxhall's subsidiary status as being it's saving grace is a foolhardy proposition, as GM could pull the plug tomorrow and replace the name with Opel, and I doubt a tear would be shed over it's demise.

You can't buy shares in Vauxhall Motors Ltd - it isn't a public company, nor has it ever been. If you'd bother to have read or understand my posts, you'd see that I said that it is a wholly-owned private subsidiary company. Just as GMM Luton Ltd is a wholly-owned private subsidiary company of Vauxhall Motors Ltd. The share ownership isn't in question - what I was disputing was the other poster's domiciliary claims, for the reasons I explained. Subsidiaries tend to be private companies in order for the parent company to have the necessary controlling interest; wholly-owned subsidiaries by their nature cannot be public companies.

I don't understand what is getting your goat PCS. I'm not hiding behind anything. If GME wishes to change Vauxhall Motors Ltd to Opel Motors Ltd, that's fine with me - that reqires a simple change of name application with Companies House in Cardiff. However, as I said before the associated costs would be enormous in the rebranding process and there would be little difference in brand perception to UK buyers - whether Vauxhall or Opel, the product will remain a repmobile which permanently resides in Ford's shadow, but which will sell in bucketloads to fleets and face horrific depreciation once the vehicles moved into private hands. The company as a legal entity itself wouldn't change though, only the name.

If GME wished to completely dissolve Vauxhall Motors Ltd and its subsidiaries, that would be another matter entirely. There would be contractual and union issues to negotiate, and of GME wanted to do any business in the UK again - such as selling cars - it would need to set up a new UK subsidiary company to deal with the distribution. If Vauxhall was aggressively dissolved by GME, it would all but kill off its second-largest market in Europe (not to mention the largest company car market in the world) by burning such an enormous bridge. So, not exactly a wise move.

Does anyone really care what you would or wouldn't shed any tears over? Certainly not I, I assure you!

Edited July 15, 2008 by aatbloke

[Guest aatbloke]

Exactly my point. Vauxhall is GM, and is nothing more than another brand in the GM hierarchy, make no mistake about it.

Vauxhall Motors Limited is a British company, registered in England & Wales with issued ordinary shares. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary company of General Motors, an American company registered in the United States.

It really isn't rocket science.

Edited July 15, 2008 by aatbloke

[Guest aatbloke]

If there are any professionals who contribute to these boards, please let me know!

[Blake Noble]

Vauxhall Motors Limited is a British company, registered in England & Wales with issued ordinary shares. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary company of General Motors, an American company registered in the United States.

It really isn't rocket science.

Look beyond what's printed on a piece of paper and then tell me what you see.

A Vauxhall is a right-drive Opel with an altered grille, nothing more, nothing less. It's about as British as me moving to Liverpool and speaking with a faux-accent. Your tactical facts might say Vauxhall is a company, but the hard-pressed truth says different. Vauxhall is treated like any other brand from GM, by GM. I mean, the last shred of signs of Vauxhall's independence, their design studios, have long since been shut down.

And not to be rude or anything, but that last post does make you sound quite conceded.

Edited July 15, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Guest aatbloke]

Look beyond what's printed on a piece of paper and then tell me what you see.

A Vauxhall is a right-drive Opel with an altered grille, nothing more, nothing less. It's about as British as me moving to Liverpool a speaking with a faux-accent. Your tactical facts might say Vauxhall is a company, but the hard-pressed truth says different. Vauxhall is treated like any other brand from GM, by GM. I mean, the last shred of signs of Vauxhall's independence, their design studios, have long since been shut down.

And not to be rude or anything, but that last post does make you sound quite conceded.

Look beyond Vauxhall Motors Limited's Articles of Association? I see a company with an annual turnover of the equivalent of some US$8 billion employing roughly 4,200 employees. I see a company with a board of directors headed by MD Bill Parfitt, operating two car plants in the UK and a dealer network. I see its finance and insurance arms, plus its Network Q near-new sales scheme which Vauxhall supply direct. Like Opel, it builds RHD Vauxhall models, as well as RHD and LHD Opel models, and has in the past built RHD Holden badged models. It builds Vauxhall and Opel badged commercial vehicles under and joint venture with Renault. Vauxhall also have their own engineering centre in Millbrook which was opened seven years ago. It has performed work on the Corsa, the Insignia, as well as modifying the Holden HSV Commodore for the UK market with the assistance of TWR.

Since GME was formed in 1978, the models of Vauxhall and Opel have gradually become one and the same, although the process began in the early 1970's. Since 1986 the models have been near identical and since 1991, have shared even the same names. GME develops the cars, using Opel's resources primarily.

Vauxhall is a British company. It's registered as a company with issued ordinary shares in England & Wales out of Companies House in Cardiff. It draws up annual accounts, which it pays corporation tax on. It has a board of paid directors. It gets audited every year. Those are the facts. Plain. Simple. Black & white. How do I know this? They've been a client I have worked on during my career.

Did you mean "conceited" or "conceded"? Because if having to deal with the sheer complete and utter bollocks coming from a number of Americans on these boards makes me conceited, then so be it. And I certainly won't stand for some spotty arrogant teenager who hasn't even left high school trying to tell me how things work in my profession which I have spent almost a quarter of a century working in when it is obvious to ANY professional that the said teenager hasn't a clue.

Edited July 15, 2008 by aatbloke

[haypops]

A. The conversation at one point was beginning to discuss some of the independent (of major manufacturers) engineering firms of Great Briton. That was informative.

B. 90% of the time no one around here has anything nice to say about accountants. The exception is when some one wants to berate Saturn. How about some consistency!

[CARBIZ]

Three days of the same old crap.

General Motors of Canada is a registered Canadian company, headquartered in Oshawa, Ontario. Ford Motor Company of Canada is a registered Canadian company, headquartered in Oakville, Ontario.

Are either of these companies truly Canadian? Yeah, right.

What I like about certain 'professionals' is that irony is totally lost on them. Most accountants and lawyers that I have met spew 95% pure crap. I see nothing here to change my opinon on that. Nearly 3 pages of thread dedicated to whether Vauxhall is 'British' or American. Sad, very sad.

[Blake Noble]

Look beyond Vauxhall Motors Limited's Articles of Association? I see a company with an annual turnover of the equivalent of some US$8 billion employing roughly 4,200 employees. I see a company with a board of directors headed by MD Bill Parfitt, operating two car plants in the UK and a dealer network. I see its finance and insurance arms, plus its Network Q near-new sales scheme which Vauxhall supply direct. Like Opel, it builds RHD Vauxhall models, as well as RHD and LHD Opel models, and has in the past built RHD Holden badged models. It builds Vauxhall and Opel badged commercial vehicles under and joint venture with Renault. Vauxhall also have their own engineering centre in Millbrook which was opened seven years ago. It has performed work on the Corsa, the Insignia, as well as modifying the Holden HSV Commodore for the UK market with the assistance of TWR.

Since GME was formed in 1978, the models of Vauxhall and Opel have gradually become one and the same, although the process began in the early 1970's. Since 1986 the models have been near identical and since 1991, have shared even the same names. GME develops the cars, using Opel's resources primarily.

Vauxhall is a British company. It's registered as a company with issued ordinary shares in England & Wales out of Companies House in Cardiff. It draws up annual accounts, which it pays corporation tax on. It has a board of paid directors. It gets audited every year. Those are the facts. Plain. Simple. Black & white. How do I know this? They've been a client I have worked on during my career.

Did you mean "conceited" or "conceded"? Because if having to deal with the sheer complete and utter bollocks coming from a number of Americans on these boards makes me conceited, then so be it. And I certainly won't stand for some spotty arrogant teenager who hasn't even left high school trying to tell me how things work in my profession which I have spent almost a quarter of a century working in when it is obvious to ANY professional that the said teenager hasn't a clue.

Fine, think what you want. It's not just me who will tell you that Vauxhall is more of a brand than it is a company.

And I do know about the history of Vauxhall models, thanks.

And perhaps "elitist" was the word I was really searching for. It was late and I've had a very stressful past few days and I didn't exactly choose my words wisely.

Edited July 15, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Guest aatbloke]

Three days of the same old crap.

General Motors of Canada is a registered Canadian company, headquartered in Oshawa, Ontario. Ford Motor Company of Canada is a registered Canadian company, headquartered in Oakville, Ontario.

Are either of these companies truly Canadian? Yeah, right.

What I like about certain 'professionals' is that irony is totally lost on them. Most accountants and lawyers that I have met spew 95% pure crap. I see nothing here to change my opinon on that. Nearly 3 pages of thread dedicated to whether Vauxhall is 'British' or American. Sad, very sad.

Ford and GM's Canadian subsidiaries are Canadian companies. That's where they're domiciled and their Articles will state as such. That's the rule of thumb as far as company law is concerned. Vauxhall isn't American either, nor would any company registered in England & Wales that could conceivably replace it. Still, you either understand how it works, or you don not.

What's sad is that your mentality is so narrow minded you truly believe the world is out to solely doom American companies. Sorry, but in the business world, cash is usually king and shareholders will invariably be attracted to the highest bidder. Victors and victims in the past have been of all nationalities.

The American car industry is in trouble only because of its own short-sighted avarice. Whilst the Japanese were carefully placing their economy car markers in place in the US market over the past ten years, the American big three practically ignored everything lower than D-segment and instead concentrated on those good 'ole highly profitable leviathan SUVs and trucks. They didn't have the foresight to think of how to deal with a surge in energy prices that we've seen, despite numerous warnings over the past decade, such as the summer spikes of 2000 and 2003, and the wake of Katrina in 2005.

Do I really give a toss? Yes, because I'm a car enthusiast and I don't like to see any car industry in trouble. Unlike you, I'm not judgemental as to peoples' vocations within that industry affected by such problems.

[Guest aatbloke]

Fine, think what you want. It's not just me who will tell you that Vauxhall is more of a brand than it is a company.

It's a company. If you like, fly on over here and I'll take you to Companies House in Cardiff to corroborate that fact. I used to work on its annual audit, for crying out loud!

Do you know what an audit is and its purpose?

The sheer arrogance of young American males is truly amazing. Little wonder they are subjected to one of the highest rates of divorce in the world.

Edited July 15, 2008 by aatbloke

[Blake Noble]

Do you know what an audit is and its purpose?

In a nutshell, that would be the verification of financial-related records of a company. Your point? It's like I said earlier, some tactical facts might suggest Vauxhall is a company, but in all honesty GM treats it as pretty much the same as it would any other brand.

Besides, that wasn't my original point anyway; what I was saying way earlier is that the British car industry is wholly foreign-owned and pretty much has been for a large majority since the collapse of British Leyland, if not totally since the fall of MG Rover Group not too long ago. The only British thing about it would be the workforce that builds the cars and little else. There is really no such thing as a totally British car (meaning totally, 100 percent British-designed, British-engineered, British-built, and British-branded) anymore.

The sheer arrogance of young American males is truly amazing. Little wonder they are subjected to one of the highest rates of divorce in the world.

Good thing marriage is of little interest to me right now!

Edited July 15, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Drew Dowdell]

Get back on topic. Only warning.

[Guest aatbloke]

In a nutshell, that would be the verification of financial-related records of a company.

Two purposes to a company audit:

a) To ensure that the accounts show a true and fair view; and

b) To ensure the accounts comply with prevailing Companies Acts.

Your point?

That Vauxhall is a legal entity in its own right.

It's like I said earlier, some tactical facts might suggest Vauxhall is a company, but in all honesty GM treats it as pretty much the same as it would any other brand.

It treats Vauxhall as any parent company treats a subsidiary.

Besides, that wasn't my original point anyway; what I was saying way earlier is that the British car industry is wholly foreign-owned and pretty much has been for a large majority since the collapse of British Leyland, if not totally since the fall of MG Rover Group not too long ago. The only British thing about it would be the workforce that builds the cars and little else. There is really o such thing as a totally British car (meaning totally, 100 percent British-designed, British-engineered, British-built, and British-branded) anymore.

You asked ''what British car industry?" and I gave you a response. I said that the indigenous car industry has all but disappeared, but despite the loss of MG Rover, the UK car industry now builds almost as many cars as it did 10 years ago, earns more, makes more money, and exports more. What matters the most in industry is employment, productivity and profitability - whoever owns the shares in all reality makes little difference unless there are severe financial difficulties. Vauxhall has been a British private subsidiary company now for the past 82 years. It's had its ups and downs during the time and seen many changes, but combined with sister company Opel, it's a key player in the European mainstream arena, and critical to the UK's company car market.

[regfootball]

Don't worry CARBIZ, he won't be so smug when GME closes Vauxhall down and changes every assembly plant, car dearler and car name back to Opel in the UK, as it should be. Because it is under discussion as we speak. Muuuhahahahahaha!

what, that hasn't occured yet already? what is a vauxhall anyways? is that like that Indian Jag-u-lar?

[regfootball]

Don't worry CARBIZ, he won't be so smug when GME closes Vauxhall down and changes every assembly plant, car dearler and car name back to Opel in the UK, as it should be. Because it is under discussion as we speak. Muuuhahahahahaha!

what, that hasn't occured yet already? what is a vauxhall anyways? is that like that Indian Jag-u-lar?

a 1.4 turbo is an ok solution, but not for everyone. the turbo solution only works in a light weight car. look at mazda and honda with their heavy cx-7 and rdx. major fuel drinkers. as long as the car its propelling is sufficiently light, then a small trubo will make sense and only then as an option. a larger non turbo base engine makes more fiscal sense for the owner where the turbo is a nice trick to up the cafe chart.

the US isn't europe. small and tiny. people will take 1500 mile road trips. I have a friend who averages 50k a year on his company vehicles, like many other business folks. these folks demand making fast time over large distances.

the 'small' solution is not the best one for everyone.....plus during the week small might not work, but on the weekends you need to tote everyone and use your vehicle. are you supposed to buy an extra vehicle just for commuting during the week? don't think so.

Edited July 15, 2008 by regfootball

[Guest aatbloke]

what, that hasn't occured yet already? what is a vauxhall anyways? is that like that Indian Jag-u-lar?

In your world, it wouldn't make any difference.

[Guest aatbloke]

the US isn't europe. small and tiny. people will take 1500 mile road trips. I have a friend who averages 50k a year on his company vehicles, like many other business folks. these folks demand making fast time over large distances.

The average annual mileage in the UK for Inland Revenue purposes is 12-18K miles for business motorists - the same as the IRS deems for the US. I know British sales reps who clock up 40-50K miles per annum too.

Edited July 16, 2008 by aatbloke

[Guest aatbloke]

the 'small' solution is not the best one for everyone.....plus during the week small might not work, but on the weekends you need to tote everyone and use your vehicle. are you supposed to buy an extra vehicle just for commuting during the week? don't think so.

I spent seven years Stateside and vehicle choices were the same as Europe - a C/D-segment saloon car for trips, etc and a B-segment hatchback for commuting. Cheaper to run, fewer CO2 emissions, easier to park.

[Drew Dowdell]

what, that hasn't occured yet already? what is a vauxhall anyways? is that like that Indian Jag-u-lar?

a 1.4 turbo is an ok solution, but not for everyone. the turbo solution only works in a light weight car. look at mazda and honda with their heavy cx-7 and rdx. major fuel drinkers. as long as the car its propelling is sufficiently light, then a small trubo will make sense and only then as an option. a larger non turbo base engine makes more fiscal sense for the owner where the turbo is a nice trick to up the cafe chart.

the US isn't europe. small and tiny. people will take 1500 mile road trips. I have a friend who averages 50k a year on his company vehicles, like many other business folks. these folks demand making fast time over large distances.

the 'small' solution is not the best one for everyone.....plus during the week small might not work, but on the weekends you need to tote everyone and use your vehicle. are you supposed to buy an extra vehicle just for commuting during the week? don't think so.

Again. 3 gay guys + luggage + 900km trip across Germany and France + Alps + 100hp VW Touran <same size as a Mazda 5>

We did just fine at 130kmh.

[Drew Dowdell]

the 'small' solution is not the best one for everyone.....plus during the week small might not work, but on the weekends you need to tote everyone and use your vehicle. are you supposed to buy an extra vehicle just for commuting during the week? don't think so.

Who said the 1.4 would be for everyone? The 1.4 would probably propel the Cruze, the HHR replacement, and anything below that. We're not going to see it in a Malibu or Impala.

[ehaase]

Who said the 1.4 would be for everyone? The 1.4 would probably propel the Cruze, the HHR replacement, and anything below that. We're not going to see it in a Malibu or Impala.

I have read rumors we may well see the 1.4 turbo in the Malibu.

[Drew Dowdell]

With a BAS, 6-speed and $5.00 a gallon gas, people may learn to like it.

[Guest aatbloke]

When you're paying $5, $6, $7, $8 and $9+ a gallon, as many countries do, economics take great precedent over a few more horsepower or whether or not it takes a car to take that extra "crucial" second or two to reach 60mph ...

[dwightlooi]

When you're paying $5, $6, $7, $8 and $9+ a gallon, as many countries do, economics take great precedent over a few more horsepower or whether or not it takes a car to take that extra "crucial" second or two to reach 60mph ...

The problem is that I am not convinced that a 1.4 liter turbo is more economical than say a 1.8 NA with the same hp output.

My point was that engine displacement is pretty low in the order of factors which lead to high consumption figures. Weight is the #1 factor. This is especially true when you are reducing displacement by adding forced induction which introduces lower compression ratios, sub-optimum intakes and high back pressure exhausts -- all of which saps cruise economy when boost is NOT being made.

The question is whether the same amount of money spent on the turbocharger, its plumbing and intercooler is better spent on other technological content that improves economy, increases performance or enhances vehicle maintanability, or all of the above.

Case and point... The 20v 1.8 liter turbo engine used in the previous generation VW Passat/Jetta/Golf/Audi A4, etc was no more economical than 150~180hp class 2.3~2.5 liter 4-cylinder engines deployed by other makes in vehicles of the same weight. The 30v 2.7 liter turbo making 250hp was no more economical than 3.5~3.6 liter V6es from Nissan, Honda and, yes, GM making the same output. The 286 hp 2.0 liter turbo in the Lancer Evolution is demonstrably less economical (owing for the most parts to ridiculously low gearing) than large V6es making again the same approximate output in other cars. When I say ECONOMICAL I mean BOTH in terms of engine cost and in terms of fuel consumption.

[Guest aatbloke]

The problem is that I am not convinced that a 1.4 liter turbo is more economical than say a 1.8 NA with the same hp output.

Volkswagen's Golf is a pretty good example to go by in comparing its new 1400cc TSI units with others in the Golf range, its own older 1.8T and some rivals:

113bhp 1.6 litre NA/50.9mpg highway/42.0mpg average/32.1mpg urban/161g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1285kg)

120bhp 1.4 litre turbo/54.3mpg highway/44.8mpg average/34.4mpg urban/ 149g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1285kg)

123bhp 1.8 litre NA/50.1mpg highway/40.3mpg average/29.7mpg urban/167g-km CO2 (Ford Focus 1311kg)

138bhp 1.4 litre turbo/49.8mpg highway/39.7mpg average/29.8mpg urban 169g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1285kg)

138bhp 1.8 litre NA/48.5mpg highway/38.5mpg average/28.5mpg urban 175g-km CO2 (Vauxhall Astra 1239kg)

141bhp 1.8 litre NA/46.3mpg highway/36.6mpg average/27.2mpg urban 183g-km CO2 (Mitsubishi Lancer 1322kg)

147bhp 1.8 litre turbo/46.1mpg highway/36.0mpg average/186g-km CO2 (VW Polo 1174kg)

168bhp 1.4 litre supercharged turbo/48.7mpg highway/38.7mpg average/28.5mpg urban 174g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1285kg)

197bhp 2.0 litre turbo/45.2mpg highway/35.2mpg average/25.0mpg urban/189g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1285kg)

All mpg figures in imperial gallons (approx 1.2 US gallons).

Edited July 27, 2008 by aatbloke

[Satty]

When you're paying $5, $6, $7, $8 and $9+ a gallon, as many countries do, economics take great precedent over a few more horsepower or whether or not it takes a car to take that extra "crucial" second or two to reach 60mph ...

You're just not in tune with the American mindset. We're a nation of impatient fatasses, so we need thee extra power to propel us to the nearest McDonalds without wasting precious seconds. If you an your immediate family all gain 40 pounds, then cram into a typical European car, you'll see what I mean.

[Robert Hall]

Volkswagen's Golf is a pretty good example to go by in comparing its new 1400cc TSI units with others in the Golf range, its own older 1.8T and some rivals:

113bhp 1.6 litre NA/50.9mpg highway/42.0mpg average/32.1mpg urban/161g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1265kg)

120bhp 1.4 litre turbo/54.3mpg highway/44.8mpg average/34.4mpg urban 149g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1265kg)

138bhp 1.4 litre turbo/49.8mpg highway/39.7mpg average/29.8mpg urban 169g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1265kg)

138bhp 1.8 litre NA/48.5mpg highway/38.6mpg average/28.5mpg urban 175g-km CO2 (Vauxhall Astra 1226kg)

141bhp 1.8 litre NA/46.3mpg highway/36.7mpg average/27.2mpg urban 183g-km CO2 (Mitsubishi Lancer 1350kg)

147bhp 1.8 litre turbo/46.1mpg highway/36.0mpg average/186g-km CO2 (VW Polo 1164kg)

168bhp 1.4 litre supercharged turbo/48.7mpg highway/38.7mpg average/28.5mpg urban 174g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1265kg)

197bhp 2.0 litre turbo/45.2mpg highway/35.2mpg average/25.0mpg urban/189g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1265kg)

All mpg figures in imperial gallons.

Some nice numbers there...unfortunately, in the US the Golf/aka Rabbit is available only with a 2.5L 5 cyl. I wonder why they don't sell 4cyl versions in the US anymore.

[Guest aatbloke]

Some nice numbers there...unfortunately, in the US the Golf/aka Rabbit is available only with a 2.5L 5 cyl. I wonder why they don't sell 4cyl versions in the US anymore.

I know, I was just highlighting that these new-generation 1.4 litre turbocharged petrol units do offer all-round fuel savings in addition to extra performance without paying the extra charged for diesel variants. I think VW will significantly realign their small-car line up in North America in the next few years.

Edited July 27, 2008 by aatbloke

[Robert Hall]

I know, I was just highlighting that these new-generation 1.4 litre turbocharged petrol units do offer all-round fuel savings in addition to extra performance without paying the extra charged for diesel variants. I think VW will significantly realign their small-car line up in North America in the next few years.

Hopefully so...I'm wondering if they will bring a smaller to the US in the next few years, like the Polo or Fox.

[dwightlooi]

Volkswagen's Golf is a pretty good example to go by in comparing its new 1400cc TSI units with others in the Golf range, its own older 1.8T and some rivals:

... omitted ...

168bhp 1.4 litre supercharged turbo/48.7mpg highway/38.7mpg average/28.5mpg urban 174g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1285kg)

197bhp 2.0 litre turbo/45.2mpg highway/35.2mpg average/25.0mpg urban/189g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1285kg)

All mpg figures in imperial gallons (approx 1.2 US gallons).

I don't know where you get the numbers from, perhaps it's the European cycle which I am not familiar with.

The Rabbit (Golf) GTi 197hp 2.0T FSI is EPA rated at 21City/31Hwy here (w/DSG gearbox) on Premium 91 Octane.

The Honda Accord EX 190hp 2.4 is rated at 21City/31Hwy here (w/5-spd Auto) on 87 Octane.

... back to GM's offerings, let's look at the 260hp 2.0 DI-Turbo (LNF) in the Cobalt SS/Solstice GXP/HHR SS/Sky/etc and a 3.6 liter V6 of similar output.

The 260hp 2.0 liter DI/VVT-Turbo in the Solstice GXP (5A) is rated at 19City/26Hwy on premium.

The 252hp 3.6 liter VVT in the Malibu LTZ is listed at 17City/26Hwy. FWD is lower loss and the 6A helps, but this is also a heavier car, the engine is missing direct injection and this is a Regular fuel engine.

The same (or similar rather) 2.0 liter LNF engine in the FWD Cobalt SS is 22/30 on a 5M (the only tranny available). But how much of that is from the 500 lbs weight advantage, the Manual transmission, and not to mention Direct Injection and the smaller drag from the smaller car? Could be most, if not all of it! And we are talking about a 2.0 vs a 3.6 liter here; a whopping 80% increase in displacement!

In short I am not convinced that going lower displacement yields substantial, if any, economy gains. Basically, for a given horsepower rating, vehicular weight and technological content the fuel economy you can expect is pretty much the same regardless of displacement. Hence, the won't it be better to spend the money expended on the turbocharger and its supporting accessories on additional technological content with a larger displacement powerplant of the same output?

[Guest aatbloke]

I don't know where you get the numbers from, perhaps it's the European cycle which I am not familiar with.

Those are official UK government figures - all vehicles concerned are manual gearboxes. Highway mpg assumes a constant 56mph; urban assumes 30mph town work, while average mpg is a combination, or extra-urban, cycle. All figures quoted are in imperial gallons, which is 1.2 times larger than a US gallon. All use standard 95 RON unleaded (similar to 90-91 RON+MON/2 in the States).

The point being that the 1.4 litre turbo is beneficial, in VW's case.

Edited July 27, 2008 by aatbloke

[dwightlooi]

Those are official UK government figures - all vehicles concerned are manual gearboxes. Highway mpg assumes a constant 56mph; urban assumes 30mph town work, while average mpg is a combination, or extra-urban, cycle. All figures quoted are in imperial gallons, which is 1.2 times larger than a US gallon. All use standard 95 RON unleaded (similar to 90-91 RON+MON/2 in the States).

The point being that the 1.4 litre turbo is beneficial, in VW's case.

I see. Thanks for the clarification on the numbers.

138bhp 1.4 litre turbo/49.8mpg highway/39.7mpg average/29.8mpg urban 169g-km CO2 (VW Golf 1265kg)

138bhp 1.8 litre NA/48.5mpg highway/38.6mpg average/28.5mpg urban 175g-km CO2 (Vauxhall Astra 1226kg)

But let's look at the above...

Notice that in two cars weighing in the same ballpark and two engines both making 138hp, the 1.4 liter Turbo (in the Golf) is just a tad over 1 mpg more efficient than the 1.8 liter NA (in the Astra). Now, let's say the turbo and it's intercooler adds about $1000 to the vehicle. That $1000 can easily go into Direct Injection on the 1.8 liter which would have yielded probably more than 1.3mpg on the freeway if not anything from the 10% increase in static compression ratio alone.

[Guest aatbloke]

I see. Thanks for the clarification on the numbers.

But let's look at the above...

Notice that in two cars weighing in the same ballpark and two engines both making 138hp, the 1.4 liter Turbo (in the Golf) is just a tad over 1 mpg more efficient than the 1.8 liter NA (in the Astra). Now, let's say the turbo and it's intercooler adds about $1000 to the vehicle. That $1000 can easily go into Direct Injection on the 1.8 liter which would have yielded probably more than 1.3mpg on the freeway if not anything from the 10% increase in static compression ratio alone.

In the UK, with fuel at roughly $9 a US gallon, that 1-2mpg (imperial) difference is a more sizable cost. At British prices, every 1mpg (imperial) makes a difference of roughly US$200 per annum in fuel costs assuming an average 12-15K miles per annum. Then the most importance difference in Europe is that it emits fewer carbon dioxide emissions than many 1.8 litre units, and both road tax and company car tax are based in vehicle emissions in many European jurisdictions. In the UK, the legislation over CO2 emissions is becoming more punitive. For example, the 1.4 litre twincharger offers 20bhp more than VW's own old 1.8 litre turbo, is 10% more fuel efficient, yet emits 12g/km of CO2 less - enough to put it into a lower road tax band saving the equivalent of some US$80 a year in registration fees. It all adds up.

The 120bhp 1.4 litre Golf turbo offer 3bhp shy of the European Focus' 1.8 unit, yet is 4.5mpg (imperial) more economical on average, representing annual fiuel savings of roughly the equivalent of US$900 per annum at UK prices. It also emits 18g/km less CO2 than the Focus also, enough to send it down a further tax bracket, saving US$50 a year in tax compared with the Focus and some $130 a year compared to the old 1.8T used in VW's Polo GTi.

On top of all this, the Golf depreciates less than either the Astra or Focus.

My opinion is these engines make sense, and given booming Golf sales in the UK (not to mention booming fuel prices) despite their relatively high prices compared to Ford and Vauxhall rivals, I suspect many buyers also think so.

In the UK, the Golf with the 1.4 litre turbo in 120bhp guise weighs in at roughly £13.5K, with the 138bhp model costing another £3K more. The 168bhp twincharger adds a further £1K onto that, while to stump to the 197bhp 2.0 turbo unit adds a whopping £5K onto the twincharger's price.

[dwightlooi]

In the UK, with fuel at roughly $9 a US gallon, that 1-2mpg (imperial) difference is a more sizable cost. At British prices, every 1mpg (imperial) makes a difference of roughly US$200 per annum in fuel costs assuming an average 12-15K miles per annum. Then the most importance difference in Europe is that it emits fewer carbon dioxide emissions than many 1.8 litre units, and both road tax and company car tax are based in vehicle emissions in many European jurisdictions. In the UK, the legislation over CO2 emissions is becoming more punitive. For example, the 1.4 litre twincharger offers 20bhp more than VW's own old 1.8 litre turbo, is 10% more fuel efficient, yet emits 12g/km of CO2 less - enough to put it into a lower road tax band saving the equivalent of some US$80 a year in registration fees. It all adds up.

The 120bhp 1.4 litre Golf turbo offer 3bhp shy of the European Focus' 1.8 unit, yet is 4.5mpg (imperial) more economical on average, representing annual fiuel savings of roughly the equivalent of US$900 per annum at UK prices. It also emits 18g/km less CO2 than the Focus also, enough to send it down a further tax bracket, saving US$50 a year in tax compared with the Focus and some $130 a year compared to the old 1.8T used in VW's Polo GTi.

On top of all this, the Golf depreciates less than either the Astra or Focus.

My opinion is these engines make sense, and given booming Golf sales in the UK (not to mention booming fuel prices) despite their relatively high prices compared to Ford and Vauxhall rivals, I suspect many buyers also think so.

In the UK, the Golf with the 1.4 litre turbo in 120bhp guise weighs in at roughly £13.5K, with the 138bhp model costing another £3K more. The 168bhp twincharger adds a further £1K onto that, while to stump to the 197bhp 2.0 turbo unit adds a whopping £5K onto the twincharger's price.

Your math doesn't seem to add up...

Price of gas: $9/gal

Annual mileage: 13500 miles

1.8 liter NA (138hp) Avg mpg: 44.8

1.4 liter Turbo (120hp) mpg: 38.6

Fuel savings: 13500/38.6 - 13500/44.8 = 349.7 - 301.3 = 48.4 gallons

Fuel Bill savings: 9 x 48.4 = $435.6

Hence, even with a 6.2 mpg difference, you are looking at a $435 savings per annum. I don't know how you are getting $900 on a 4.5mpg difference.

BTW, it looks like you British folks are buying into the Global Warming scam even more than the environmental lemmings here in the USA. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with our climate, nothing unusual with the changes observed in the past century and ZERO evidence that androgeneous CO2 has any tangible effect on the global climate cycles. We are smack right in the middle of historical norms and we are actually running cooler climates than in the 1200s or 5000BC which are way before industrialization. In fact over the past year we have seen so much cooling that it wiped out 15 years worth of so called "warming". In short there is no such thing as "Global Warming".

Edited July 29, 2008 by dwightlooi