American carmakers out of touch?

violadad · July 17, 2008, 6:45pm

My personal opinion is that they should have woken up in the seventies. The car companies are in bed with the oil giants, and they have the politicians in their pockets.

There is no social conscience any more. It’s the bottom line at the expense of all else.

When someone does finally find a way to run a vehicle on a cheap and abundant renewable resource, bet your bottom dollar that Exxon/Mobil and the rest will still charge you $5.00 gallon, even if the fuel is urine. ;)

Just my $.02. Rant over.

collegemom16 · July 17, 2008, 6:54pm

On the Chevrolet Volt due out in 2010
Aren’t You the Guys Who Killed the Electric Car?
We are the guys that developed and launched EV1, the first modern-day electric vehicle, back in 1996. We are also the guys that devoted tremendous resources to design, engineer, and market this vehicle. Although the technical innovation and marketing efforts behind the EV1 were unparalleled, only 800 people were willing to lease the EV1. Yes, the EV1 quickly became the worldwide benchmark for electric vehicles, but its timing wasn’t quite right. When GM launched the EV1, gas was cheap, there wasn’t a war in Iraq, and there was less discussion about global warming. There were far fewer reasons for people to make the trade-offs in their transportation lifestyle to make the EV1 work for them.

“We didn’t kill the electric car; electric vehicle technology is far from dead.”
The good news is that both the technology and the GM team who developed the EV1 live on. Chevy’s next generation of low- and zero-emission vehicles - Tahoe and Malibu Hybrids,(1) Equinox Fuel Cell electric vehicles,(2) and our range-extended electric E-Flex system (found on the concept Volt) - all feature technologies and innovations from the EV1. We didn’t kill the electric car; electric vehicle technology is far from dead.

Jill Banaszynski
Manager of Electric Vehicle Programs
General Motors Corp.

So who was short sighted here? Hind sight is always 20-20

collegemom16 · July 17, 2008, 6:57pm

More on the Volt:
We place a great deal of importance on comprehensive testing of lithium-ion battery cells and packs (which are new to automotive applications) over time and in varying conditions…in both labs and vehicles. So we intend to extensively test the Volt battery to ensure it meets our quality, performance and safety expectations.
We’ve placed a huge priority on getting the Volt to production as soon as possible. Typically, we would develop the battery and propulsion technology BEFORE we kicked off a production program. But the Volt is being developed with a strong sense of urgency.
We have devoted significant resources to this project: Over 200 engineers and 50 designers are working on the Volt alone, and another 400 are working on related subsystems and electric components. That’s how important we think it is, and that’s how much stock we place in the future of extended-range electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt.

Tony Posawatz
Vehicle Line Director - E-Flex Systems and Chevy Volt General Motors Corp.

collegemom16 · July 17, 2008, 7:06pm

GM on hybrid technology
While Chevy is offering hybrid technology on Tahoe (at participating dealers only) and Malibu (very limited availability), General Motors has been in the hybrid business a lot longer … and in a much “larger” market.
The question: How do you get more people to use hybrid vehicles?
The solution: Build vehicles a whole city can use.
Since 2003, GM has applied hybrid technology to the highest fuel-consuming vehicles on the road, including mass-transit buses.

If the U.S. had only 1,000 GM hybrid-powered buses operating in major cities, the cumulative savings would be an estimated 1.4 million gallons of fuel annually, enough to fill 175 tanker trucks.
According to a study conducted in 2006 by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, transit buses with the GM hybrid technology deliver up to 75% better fuel economy than traditional transit buses.
They also reduce:
Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) up to 39%
Particulate matter (PM) up to 97%
Carbon monoxide (CO) up to 60%
Hydrocarbons up to 75%.
Here’s the history of hybrid bus development at GM…
In 2003 …
GM introduces the hybrid-electric bus, helping dramatically reduce engine noise and emissions.
If the U.S. had only 1,000 GM hybrid-powered buses operating in major cities, the cumulative savings would be an estimated 1.5 million gallons of fuel annually.
In 2004 …
Seattle’s local transit authority begins taking delivery of the largest single order for GM hybrid-powered buses ever placed in the U.S. The single fleet is expected to save more than 750,000 gallons of fuel each year … the equivalent of thousands of small hybrid cars.
Transit agencies in California, Nevada and New Mexico place hybrid bus orders, agreeing to purchase up to 157 diesel-electric hybrid buses powered by GM’s advanced hybrid propulsion system.
Today …
Big plans just keep getting bigger. In January 2008, GM delivered its 1,000th bus powered by the GM-Allison hybrid system. GM hybrid-equipped buses operate in 70 cities in the U.S., Canada and Europe, including Austin, Denver, Ft. Lauderdale, Houston, Las Vegas, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Portland, Salt Lake City, Seattle and Tulsa, as well as Yosemite National Park.

Sounds like GM has been doing something.

Hanna · July 17, 2008, 7:30pm

“1/3 ostrich-headed execs
1/3 entitlement-headed unions
1/3 dumb-headed consumers who bought penny-wise and pound foolish”

If you can squeeze another 1/3 of blame in there, I’d say it goes to the U.S. electorate, who have placed the health care burden on employers.

Mr_Payne · July 17, 2008, 7:47pm

GM isn’t diversified? Other than the lack of hybrids (a small portion of cars sold every year), it has a competitor in every segment. The real issue is that GM was incredibly dominant in the truck market and when it contracted GM felt a lot of pain.

So you agree that GM was correct in pursuing the highly profitable truck market?

It seems like the only argument is that GM should have been making better cars. There is no disagreement there. The causes for that are many.

A company that is doing well financially can better invest in its future? I agree.

Vastly overstated.

You are wrong. The UAW has a lot on Korean auto unions. Not only that, but the US labor market has a lot on the Korean labor market.

Mr_Payne · July 17, 2008, 7:51pm

He did not predict that oil would sell at $144/bbl. He wished it would sell at that price. And it was 10 years ago when he said that. If you bet long on oil back then you would have made very little money.

Mr_Payne · July 17, 2008, 7:58pm

Do a model by model comparison of fuel efficiencies and you will see the advantage is simply not that great. The core physical & mechanical properties which govern fuel efficiency do not change between automakers.

mini · July 17, 2008, 8:01pm

“And it was 10 years ago when he said that. If you bet long on oil back then you would have made very little money.”

He and his family have made plenty, and I am sure he praises Allah for showering the U.S.’ blessings on him.

Mr_Payne · July 17, 2008, 8:07pm

Consumers drive demand. There is a reason why horsepower has escalated…because consumers wanted more power, and didn’t care about the mileage losses.

LongPrime · July 17, 2008, 8:20pm

These companies mentioned are intouch with their consumers as Mr P comments above. That is the problem. Intouch manifestation is reflected in Leadership, status quo, safety & security, secrecy, the Now mentality.

coureur · July 17, 2008, 8:21pm

American car buyers are out of touch!

Yeah, but unfortunately after the crisis of the 70s abated the consumers went right back to buying big gas guzzlers and the sales of small, efficient cars dropped way off. Detroit just gave them what they wanted. The SUV and Hummer weren’t even invented until the 1990s. If consumers didn’t buy gas guzzlers carmakers wouldn’t make them. Consumers should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr_Payne · July 17, 2008, 8:24pm

What are you babbling about? It seems like you are against personal freedom.

LongPrime · July 17, 2008, 8:47pm

^ Your tone is distressing. I am agreeing with you, but in another aspect.

Since we are talking about cars: Toyota, does it make demand by making innovative cars? Does GM, Ford, Chrysler follow demand by giving the consumer what consumers currently wants?

How about “technology”? Does Apple make demand? Does Intel, Microsoft follow demand? Which companies does a recent graduate want to join?

k_amp_s · July 17, 2008, 8:58pm

Really? Honda is shifting production at one of their US factories in not much more than a week.

Really? Hyundai’s unionized workers are threatening another strike for higher wages – they just had one (as well as a wage increase) …LAST YEAR.

Ahh, but the Japanese and now, Korean, autos not only have better mileage across the board – but they also are generally considered better autos.

Take, for instance, the Chevy Malibu, which came out about a year ago. Until it came out, there wasn’t a competitive, mainstream mid-size American auto – and it is competitive, not a leader in its class.

So? Consumers drove the dot.com bubble and the mortgage bubble as well.

Does this mean you are for gay-marriages, pot-smoking and littering as well?

There’s personal freedom and then there is smart, govt. policies.

Instead of giving huge tax deductions for purchasing huge SUVs, our govt. should have done what the Japanese govt. did after the ‘70’s oil crisis.

By instilling energy conservation policies – Japan’s factories, for example, have cut their usage of power by 20-30% (hence becoming not only more efficient, but competitive as well) and these technologies are now being shopped all around the world.

Mr_Payne · July 17, 2008, 9:15pm

And we are talking about Toyota. I agree Honda is a much faster moving company.

The UAW had 30 years of a dominant position on the bargaining table. Are you seriously attempting to state that the Korean unions have impeded their auto industries progress more than the UAW?

Do a vehicle by vehicle comparison. After normalizing for power, there is not a big gap.

Korean autos are not generally considered better autos.

I agree. As previously stated, I have said that Japanese makers have made better cars in many classes - however, that’s not because of fuel consumption. It’s generally due to other issues.

State your point, then I can agree or disagree.

Do you think that consumers driving demand is a bad thing?

Ambivalent (personally, the government sponsored concept of marriage is idiotic).
Yes
No (littering on your own property is obviously okay).

The only issue is that one can only predict what a smart government policy is in hindsight.

What, artificially push down their currency in order to stay more competitive? Keep their economy in the doldrums for 15+ years?

Japanese economic success originates from an incredibly smart, studious, & hardworking population. Any government which had a modicum pro-business would make their economy grow.

I’m not even sure what you are talking about. Should I recall a few things that American businesses have done?

kelsmom · July 17, 2008, 9:24pm

Hey, I know the guy the quote is from in post #23! :)

I am NOT anti-American auto companies. In fact, my life has been tied into the auto industry in more ways than you could possibly imagine. I do feel like I know a lot about the inner workings of the industry, and I think that there has been a lack of creativity bred over time that is a problem in our current economic situation. This country has THE most creative talent in the world. However, it is very often stifled in our industries, including our auto industry. I firmly believe that it is possible to think in terms of flexible design, flexible manufacturing, flexible workforce (please don’t tell me the union will stop that … they are not stupid … as the huge recent concessions indicate). Forward planning & flexibility need to be an integral part of business. I don’t think this is a new idea. I just think it’s easier not to do it … but possibly much more difficult not to in the long run.

britbrat1961 · July 17, 2008, 9:48pm

PRIUS owner weighing in here. I have a 2005 Prius that I was lucky enough to buy used in January 2007. I have averaged 43 to 45 mpg in all kinds of traffic in SoCal. Last week I tested it driving from S. Orange Cty, CA to Palm Springs which is a little more than 100 miles each way. Luckily it was on a Sunday and no traffic. At an average of 65 to 70mph, I averaged 52mpg. Now, when my 17 year old son drives it, it only gets an average of 38 to 40mpg. Ya think it might make a difference the way you drive a car to the gas mileage that you can expect? Just a thought!!

cartera45 · July 17, 2008, 9:57pm

Yes, how you drive makes a huge difference. I am on my second Prius - I traded my '03 in on the '05. I consistently get over 50 mpg in all kinds of driving conditions. The only time I get less is in winter when I crank up the heat. The AC doesn’t seem to affect it as much. I don’t poke along either. I drive I95 often and keep up with everyone else and got 52 MPG on the last trip I made to southern Virginia from Maryland. Driving slowly isn’t the key. Driving differently affects all cars though. Monitoring the RPMs in any car makes a difference.

k_amp_s · July 17, 2008, 10:38pm

We were talking about Japanese auto makers in general.

And yes, while it takes Toyota longer, about 6-8 months to switch production, it still is able to do so (switching the production of the Highlander to its Indiana plant in 2009).

The Korean unions will strike a lot more for any variety of reasons (they pretty much have a strike at least once a year – does the UAW do that?)

Nowadays – Hyundais are - look at Consumer Reports (where Hyundais rank near or at the top) or auto magazines such as Motor Trend – where the 4-banger Sonata not only bested American brands, but the Accord and Camry as well.

Putting aside the badge - I’d say that the Genesis has been getting better reviews than the MKS.

But they still have an edge in fuel consumption – add that w/ everything else…

In certain ways – yes.

Is consumers eating junk food or too much in general a good thing? Adding to healthcare expenses that we all pay for.

Besides, consumers didn’t want seatbelts or other safety features (such as softer interiors w/o sharp points) either.

And was it so much “just consumers” or consumers who bought into all the advertising the auto manufacturers splattered across TVs and magazines (just like what the drug companies do nowadays).

But sometimes you can predict what bad govt. policy is from the onset.

What does that have to do w/ energy efficiency?

Japan has become much more energy efficient and energy independent since the ‘70’s.

Japan imports 16% less oil than it did during 1973 – despite the economy more than doubling in size. Instead of $$ going overseas to foreign oil producing nations, the $$ was kept home via the development/purchase of energy-saving technologies.

Sure certain American companies have done stuff, but across the board Japanese companies are more efficient.

For instance, Japanese steel-producers can produce one ton of steel using 20% less energy than American producers.

American carmakers out of touch?

CONNECT WITH US