ellives

In one key way, Toyota has been number 1 for a very long time.... profits. Profits drive future success and without them you die. Not to beat a dead horse but until GM gets their labor and legacy costs under control, they'll continue to play second fiddle to Toyota. They've been able to stay ahead of Ford and Chrysler because all three are burdened with the same costs. They need drastic measures to level the playing field. Their great success in China tells you they can compete very well without the albatross around their necks.

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.

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.

Here's the text of the letter: "that's heavy, baby" The GMC Acadia ("Forest for the Trees") needs liposuction with a professional-grade vacuum. A new platform that manages to weigh five thousand pounds (5000!)? Such corpulence is inexcusable. This has to be a typo. But maybe this extreme pudginess explains why the Acadia is slow, handles ponderously, and drinks like a frat boy. Potential buyers of the Ford Edge and GMC Acadia must make a choice: Morbidly obese or grotesquely obese? Potential buyers should keep their Honda Pilots awhile longer. Raymond Evans Greer, South Carolina Sorry to say, it's no typo -- Ed. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I suppose if you really wanted to, you could call Mr. Evans and explain why he's flat out wrong: Raymond Evans (864) 801-2361 | 107 Riverside Chase Cir Greer, SC 29650 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to BCS296 for the use of his copy of MT

I think you mean MPG up.

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.

I think that expression referred to a gun and not a car. (Charlton Heston anyone?)

Rosie, Rosie, Rosie!

Oh hell ya. I'm sure he's already sniffing around the satellite providers... and when he's done he'll be thumbing his nose at all his pundits saying... "Thanks for getting me fired so I can now make TWICE AS MUCH MONEY!!!!!!"

Never mind Gumbel. He's just a narcissist. Sharpton is the one that needs to be fired and ignored. He's said things as bad or worse than Imus and he's still around as the self-appointed spokesman.

Ditto. More lemmings and gutless wonders.

I have plenty of trees on my property and you freakin' skeptics aren't getting ANY of them when the world goes to hell in a handbasket.

Gutless wonders.

GM just piled on with the other sponsors. I'm quite sure they weren't doing it because they were "morally outraged." This was just stupid and shows the bean counters and "suits" continue to run this company and dims their future prospects in my eyes. It's time they grow a pair.

There is a wholesale push to RWD because from a performance standpoint it's far, far superior to RWD. You can't think it terms of a Regal FWD with what 175 HP on the transaxle? Think in terms of a Northstar with 300 HP on the transaxle. When you bury the gas on that car it's tough to even steer straight with all the torque steer caused by the engine's output. When that engine was moved to RWD in 2005 it made a huge difference in the car. With so many engines coming in that 300+ range, torque steer will just ruin the driving experience. Keep in mind the fond memory of a RWD Cutlass doesn't apply now either. Traction control changed the equation for deciding RWD vs. FWD. There's just no reason to buy RWD unless you're trying to buy bargain basement. I see this as an opportunity to one-up ToyMotore because most of their stuff is FWD.

I'm in total agreement with this post. Before Bush came along I was a diehard Republican. He has ruined the party for the next generation and if we're not careful, we'll have a Dem in the whitehouse along with control of congress.... all in kneejerk reaction to Bush and his lies.

Exactly. This is why the whole situation can be managed by controlling the gas tax. If the country legitimately wants to improve fuel economy, just increase the gas tax... not enough to but a crimp in the economy... but just enough to gently nudge people into smaller cars. Those of us who want big engines and high horsepower will have to spend the cash.

... and I suppose your "buddy" operates under controlled conditions, with carefully calibrated measurement devices.... and what would you define as "great" mileage? Everything is relative.

Eyes on the Road By Joseph B. White (WSJ) Amid Fuel-Economy, Emissions Debate, GM's Lutz Says Horsepower Still Sells Product Chief Issues Challenge to Green Critics April 9, 2007 Here in the temporary capital of Horsepower Nation, New York City, Bob Lutz, General Motors Corp.'s vice chairman for product development worldwide, last week painted a bleak picture of the automobile fuel efficiency and global warming debate swirling around the auto industry today. And he had a challenge for the industry's green critics. Mr. Lutz, never one to shy from jousting with the industry's detractors, faces a difficult task in his role as chief product strategist for the world's largest auto maker. On the one hand, he says, "The simple naked fact is every time you come out with a vehicle with more horsepower, it sells better than the old one with less horsepower." 1 Three Chevrolet microcar concepts, from left, the Groove, Beat and Trax That's why GM is eager for the crowds at the New York International Auto Show this week to notice not just the three cute Chevrolet micro-car concepts on display, but also two 300 horsepower Buicks (video2) and a Hummer H3 with a V-8 engine packed under the hood (video3). Other auto makers flaunted high performance creations -- including hybrid gas-electric technology leader Toyota Motor Corp. Even Honda Motor Co., named the greenest automobile company by the Union of Concerned Scientists, used the show to tout what is, for Honda, a hot rod: A special edition of the Honda S2000 sports car that Honda describes as "the closest thing you can get to a Honda-built racecar with license plate holders and a horn." At the same time, leaders of Congress and the president, who agree on very few issues these days, are in harmony in calling for auto makers to do more to cut CO2 emissions and oil consumption, including boost the average fuel economy of new vehicles by 4% a year for the next 10 years. Bolstering the case for more aggressive standards, studies like a recent paper from the Union of Concerned Scientists arguing that auto makers could build a minivan with about $300 in extra equipment that would exhale 43% lower volume of greenhouse gases and generate about $1,300 in savings to consumers over its lifetime -- paying back the extra initial cost in less than two years. "We can have it all," says a UCS online brochure4 explaining the "Vanguard" van's technology. All of this highlights perhaps the most confusing aspect for consumers of the debate over automotive fuel efficiency and its connection to global warming. Everyone is talking past each other. WSJ's Detroit bureau chief Joe White takes a look at some new model highlights at the New York Auto Show, including the Chevy mini, Ford Flex and Hyundai Genesis Concept Car. (April 5) Mr. Lutz says market trends show consumers aren't willing to pay more for vehicles that use expensive new technology to get better mileage. Walter McManus, a researcher at the University of Michigan, says that's just wrong. His analysis of recent vehicle pricing and sales trends is that sales of gas guzzlers have held up since 2002 only because car makers have discounted them heavily. In a recent paper5, he wrote that the average price of a large SUV fell by $2,300 between 2002 and 2005, while gas prices rose by 56% adjusted for inflation during the same period. Auto makers over the past decade have tended to build cars that are faster and heavier. But Mr. Lutz says that's a response to market demand in a country where gas is cheap, and that with modern technology just making cars slower won't make much difference to their fuel intake. "If it were as simple as sacrificing 20% performance to get 20% fuel economy that's the first tradeoff we'd make," he says. His accounting of the cost of improving fuel economy: "Take all of the available technology: Spark-injected direct injection, dual-cam phasing, electric power steering, active battery management -- where the battery only cuts in when the alternator sends a signal that it needs it -- go to lower rolling resistance (tires) ... All of that gets you 4-5% at a cost of $600-$700," he says. Phase two, he says, is hybrid technology such as the starter-alternator system used to extend the mileage of GM's Saturn Vue. "Now you are adding $2,000 on top of that, and that gets you another 7%. You are 14-15% short ... And now we're out of ideas." Out of ideas, he says, unless there's a government subsidized push to transform the current gas-fueled vehicle market into a market in which all vehicles can burn ethanol -- ideally distilled from low-cost materials such as wood chips – and operate in all-electric mode much of the time. Mr. Lutz acknowledges that a lot of people, including political leaders in Washington, don't buy the idea that little can be done to improve on current technology without substantial, costly investments. "I know after you write your article the Union of Concerned Scientists will bombard us with letters saying, 'What Mr. Lutz says is absolutely not true, they're just trying to sidestep the thing again. The technology for achieving these goals is readily available. It costs very little.' "My challenge to them is come to my office, meet with me and my staff. Show us your technology, and if it works and it's cost effective and readily available, we will gladly meet the target using your technology. Gladly. Come to my office. Next week, if at all possible. Run don't walk." As of the time this went to publish, a representative for the UCS couldn't be reached for comment. WSJ's Matt Vella speaks to General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz about the company's new minicars. (April 5) Meanwhile, Mr. Lutz says all these conflicting pressures -- including Wall Street's demand that GM stop losing so much money in its home market -- are forcing GM's management to re-think future product strategy. "Several programs we were embarked on we have elected to put on temporary hold until we figure out how it's going to come out," he says. That includes, potentially, putting on hold plans to produce a rear wheel drive version of the Chevy Impala, he says. "Meeting these accelerated and very, very steep standards would consume the quasi-totality of our investment in engineering resources," Mr. Lutz says. "So there'd literally be nothing left over to work on new architectures. If the choice is: 'You can either spend the money meeting the law, or spend the money to do the cars you'd like to do but you can't do both.' Then you are compelled to meet the law."

The only thing they should legislate and I would find acceptable are ways to cut emissions. They should force the manufacturers to publish on their stickers some kind of emissions metrics and penalize the pricing of individual models based on a ratio of mpg and emissions. It always has to go back to money somehow and consumers won't change their buying decisions based on emissions numbers unless it costs them.

I agree - MPG is going to be all-powerful going forward. Anybody can deliver the horsepower. Doing it with high mpg is the silver bullet.

Say what you will about past efforts and these 3 concepts may not be the answer but GM needs something that competitively beats the Corolla. Figure out a way to get it done. The answer will be a combination of real product and marketing saavy -- neither of which GM currently has today. Saatchi does a nice job for Toyota.

Massive recalls? Toyota already HAS massive recalls. Nobody noticed.

Based on your definitions, wouldn't a car that is durable also be reliable? To me I see these in more simplistic terms. I see reliable as always starting and never stranding me. I see "durable" as meaning it doesn't need to be in the repair shop on a regular basis. Maybe this should be the same definition for reliable. It also brings up the experience of dealing with repair facilities which I have found to be among the most dishoneset. I don't think there's even been one focused on durability. Quality is a tough thing to really define. Some would differentiate say an Avalon and a Corolla based on quality when we all know the Corolla sells primarily on the quality mantra but the Avalon is the better car. In a way your reference to BMW and MB is interesting because my reaction to those brands is they are durable but not reliable. Not many would argue they are not quality products though. It's interesting you used the word "disproven" as isn't this the crux of the Toyota quality argument? They have the reputation for quality. It's not clear whether they're better than anyone else today but until they seriously drop the ball on quality the reputation remains intact. To me the dilemma for GM is Toyota is well organized and well-managed. In their product management they have vehicles for every segment without competiting with themselves and they communicate to those segments they're targeting. They're also building aesthetically pleasing vehicles. No one can argue the current Camry isn't a nice looking car. On the other hand GM builds products within the same brand that seem to overlap themselves and of course there's the whole brand issue overall. Simple is always better and being clear on why brands exist is key. For instance after seeing Saab's March numbers I really question why the brand exists. I'm not sure if you're saying 90% of the people here aren't honest or aren't neutral. Not being neutral here is expected isn't it since it's a GM site?

Well now we get into the crux of the issue. Isn't durability quality? I really don't know. I suppose everyone has their opinion of what quality is. I *will* say my '91 S-10 was reliable but I would not say it was top quality since it rusted to hell in a very short time. Did I take care of the body well? Probably not. Would it have lasted longer if I had taken better care of it? Probably. The old '91 went to the big junk yard in the sky long before it should have been sent, and on the other hand my '97 STS has 130K miles on it and still runs and looks great. I'd hope you'd consider this to be durable. I think it would last another 130k no problem. Personally I think GM should do a commercial spouting off high mileage cars like Toyota. I'm sure they can find plenty. Toyota likes to point to 3 examples in their ads with the implication these small numbers indicate quality and/or set expectation we'd all get these numbers which of course most wouldn't. This is how Toyota skirts the line of dishonesty - and they do it in every ad you see on TV.