<p>Honda built a plant in Alabama for the Acura MDX, Honda Ridgeline, Honda Pilot, and Honda Odyssey. All four vehicles use the same power package, and substantially the same platform. To go from producing one of these 4,000-pound-plus behemoths to – for example – Civic hybrids would take w-a-y more than a week. The plant was designed from scratch to build one of these four similar vehicles (just as GM, Ford, and other manufacturers do) with minimal downtime. To build something completely different would take the same sort of time it takes any other factory to retool and restart.</p>
<p>Bin Laden predicted this oil price a few years ago, and everyone laughed at him. And two or three years ago we had cars in Germany with 40 MPG ratings. It wouldn’t have been necessary to design new cars from scratch. The cars were already there, and it would have taken only a few minor adjustments to make them ready for the American market.</p>
<p>No, I don’t. I’ve always been a Honda fan. It might take “10 days” to switch over the plant, but they aren’t shutting down Ridgeline production and going to Civics for six months. So, “10 days” means “in 10 days after six months of preparation.” It’s still impressive, just not miraculous. For what it’s worth, they don’t say that converting from the Ridgeline (a slow seller even in times of lower gas prices) to the Civic will take 10 days – they say that they can change a factory over “in as little as 10 days.” There’s a distinct difference between “it can be done” and “it can be done every time.” The hardpoints on the Civic and Ridgeline are completely different, so it takes longer to prepare and change over. Also, the supply chain to Ontario now is full of Ridgeline/Odyssey/MDX/Pilot parts. They can’t change that in ten days no matter how fast they can move the machines. </p>
<p>I would love an auto manufacturing expert to make an appearance here and share some mid-level details.</p>
<p>Maybe consumers as a whole, but not my family. The spouse and I have never bought a domestic car because the Japanese did a much better job of providing what we want (excellent fuel efficiency and reliability). We’ve never had a gas guzzler, never wanted one, so Detroit has never given me what I want. For that matter, car manufacturers as a whole haven’t given me what I want. I want 50 mpg cars to be the standard for econoboxes even without hybrid technology. In the 70’s and 80’s, I would have bet that cars like that would be a no-brainer within 20 years. I couldn’t have been more wrong. </p>
<p>I’m rooting for GM and the Volt to be our first domestic car.</p>
<p>DISCLAIMER: I sell Chevys. My job. Paying for college.</p>
<p>I’m glad to see someone who sees the good that GM is doing. The Tahoe hybrid is currently the most advanced hybrid on the market with its two mode hybrid propulsion (versus the prius, which is either completely gas or electric, it can’t be half and half). The volt is going to completely change the american commute. Find me a japanese company with something like that in the pipeline. What americans want and thus what the market will support means that the current technology WILL NOT SELL. Like the EV that GM killed. Too expensive, why bother? We had an opportunity to purchase a franchise cheaply for all electric vehicles under 20 grand. Tops out at 30 MPH. Wouldn’t sell. In general, the american economy has not dictated pouring money into things like that. In germany, where gas is 10 dollars a gallon, it makes sense to have your 30 mph electric cars. Here? Speed is something the average american won’t give up. Anyways, it’s the market that dictates what happens. Detroit builds what will sell. No one predicted this. Again, why Toyota and Nissan invested a huge amount of money into their truck plants. We can have the volt running yesterday, it would just be several hunderd thousand dollars for the battery technology. </p>
<p>Anyways, frustrates me to see ‘my cars’ picked on. I really believe in what I sell. Couldn’t do it otherwise. To whomever mentioned the chevy malibu, you really ought to drive one. If I were buying right now, I’d go for their light hybrid. Just a really fabulous car.</p>
You said Toyota, I was responding with Toyota. Honda is very flexible, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Toyota are not.</p>
<p>
That is not that flexible. That is basically reworking the entire production line.</p>
<p>
The price difference between a US worker & a Korean worker is massive.</p>
<p>
J.D. Powers & Associates does not agree. Korean brands, on the whole, do not have the reputation to back them up.</p>
<p>
So I guess I would say to prove it. In comparable models, the difference in fuel efficiency is maybe 1-2 mpg (and not biased towards Japanese).</p>
<p>
I believe healthcare companies should be able to fully discriminate among all characteristics.</p>
<p>
If government regulations didn’t make it mandatory insurance surely would have.</p>
<p>
I wouldn’t know. I don’t watch TV.</p>
<p>
And sometimes you can’t. My point is that consumers generally are a much better predictor of market demands than the government. This is why capitalism is far superior to communism.</p>
<p>
Energy efficiency is not the main issue. Energy <em>prices</em> are the issue. We do not tax energy like other countries, that means we use more of it. One of the main reasons the US has had a better standard of living than those peer countries is because we have not taxed energy as they have. I can’t see why this is a bad thing.</p>
<p>
And if energy was taxed the same in both countries this might be relevant. It is not. Of course businesses will adapt to what conditions are laid before them. I personally don’t think energy use is that big of a deal. In terms of international competitiveness the biggest factor is the devaluation of the dollar. This has to do with things other than oil.</p>
<p>My husband is a strategist for a large energy-intensive multinational. When we were living overseas in the late 90s, he was privy to reports predicting oil could have a huge spike in the late 2000s. Instead of planning for a future of ever-increasing energy prices, his company ignored the reports. My husband is currently overseas dealing with fallout from supplier price increases of 20-40% during the past two weeks. </p>
<p>In 2004, respected energy analyst Jeff Rubin of CIBC jumped on the peak oil bandwagon, saying: Given these facts, where will oil prices be a year from now–$75 a barrel? $100? He also forecast the development of a significant global shortage of oil beginning in 2007. His price target was $100 a barrel by 4Q 2007. FWIW, Mr. Rubin predicts oil prices will double from current prices in the next few years as production stalls. (Other analysts believe slower economic growth will drag oil prices below $100 barrel later this year.)</p>
<p>Along with Mr. Rubins’s forecast, other well-known peak oil theorists have been shouting from the mountaintops since the early 2000s that oil would peak around 2005-2008. Unfortunately, theyve been dismissed as fringe whackos until now. One theorist is Robert L. Hirsch, a Department of Energy insider who is a former senior energy program advisor for SAIC and who was a senior researcher at Rand. Another is Matthew Simmons, who served on Cheneys energy task force. At the behest of Cheney, Mr. Simmons examined hundreds of internal documents from Saudi Aramco and came to the conclusion that Saudi Arabia was close to peaking.</p>
<p>Others include Kenneth Deffeyes, a Princeton professor and geologist who once worked with M. King Hubbard; T. Boone Pickens, a respected oil and gas investor; Samsam Bakhtiari, former Iranian National Oil Company planner; and Colin Campbell, a retired British petroleum geologist and energy adviser. Back in 1995, Petroconsultants–one of the worlds most respected oil industry analysis and consulting firms-- predicted that global oil production would peak around the year 2000 and decline to 25% by 2025. </p>
<p>Although the peakists didnt forecast specific price targets, they all predicted that oil prices would skyrocket into the triple digits when oil peaked.</p>
<p>Last month, within the span of just one week, it was announced here in Ontario that GM would be closing their truck plant in 2009 and that Ford was adding a third shift to handle the demand for the Ford Flex. The situations were so diametrically opposed, seeing the news reports of extremely upset GM workers in contrast to the big event at Ford, complete with balloons and Wayne Gretzky in attendance.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, you are the rare exception to the general trend. Drive up and down most suburban streets and see what is parked in the driveways. It is one Expedition SUV and Dodge Ram pickup after another. </p>
<p>As your own purchasing pattern has shown, neither Detroit nor anybody else can force consumers to buy gas guzzlers against their will. If consumers find themselves stuck driving big, inefficient tanks, it’s their own fault for making that choice at the showroom.</p>
<p>I can fault Detroit for being myopic and unimaginative and for pushing back against mandated fuel mileage standards, but I only fault the consumers themselves for the popularity of big gas guzzlers.</p>
<p>It wasn’t Detroit that failed to learn the lessons of the 70s gas crunch. It was the consumers.</p>
<p>^^ I don’t know which comes first, the consumer demanding gas guzzlers or the big three keep promoting gas guzzlers. All I know is, big three is in deep trouble and Toyota, Honda are not. Toyota & company are increasing market share at the expense of big three. The decision makers at those companies are responsible.</p>
<p>Uhh, the Volt’s expected price for consumers has risen to $40k – notwithstanding the Vette, wouldn’t you call that “too expensive” for the typical Chevy car buyer?</p>
<p>And Nissan and Toyota are working on “plug-in hybrids” as well (they just happen to be the series-parallel hybrids rather than a series hybrid like the Volt).</p>
<p>As for the current technology not “selling” – Toyota currently can’t make enough Priuses to meet demand.</p>
<p>As for the Chevy Malibu, it is a fine family sedan. The problem was (1) that it was so long in coming and (2) it is competitive, but not a leader in its class.</p>
<p>The problem for Chevy, aside from the ancient Impala, is its rather lackluster small car offerings – the Aveo and Cobalt. Chevy needs the in-development Beat now, not a year or two from now. Same goes for the Cobalt replacement, the Cruze.</p>
<p>Aside from the Malibu and Chevy’s version of the Enclave crossover (putting aside large body-on-frame SUVs such as the Suburban), Chevy’s mainstream lineup isn’t exactly at or near the top of each of its respective class (the Trailblazer simply isn’t going to cut it) - that’s a big problem when the “hot cars” nowadays are compacts and subcompacts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mazda and Mitsu are role players (and actually, Mazda is pretty flexible considering that it doesn’t use too many different platforms).</p>
<p>As for Toyota, while it isn’t as flexible as Honda, it still more flexible than GM or Ford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The salary is not as “massive” as you think – a worker at a Hyundai factory in Ulsan w/ 20+ years experience makes $65,000 in wages (and this is for 4-5 years ago).</p>
<p>And there’s a reason why Hyundai has built a couple of plants in the US – factoring in all the costs, and esp. transportation, nowadays, it really isn’t that much more advantageous to build in Korea.</p>
<p>Anyway, I was talking about the frequency of strikes – which leads to interrupted productions which can cost into the hundreds of millions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, JD Powers does agree (tho, the whole rep thing is another thing altogether). </p>
<p>Hyundai autos are ABOVE the industry average w/ regard to initial quality.</p>
<p>W/ regard to long-term quality, Hyundai is currently around the industry average (and higher than the likes of Nissan, Mazda and VW) – and mind you, this takes into account Hyundai models before the quality initiative was fully put in place around 2005-6.</p>
<p>W/o at least a fair reliability rating, Consumer Reports would not have placed the majority of Hyundai models on its recommended list as it has.</p>
<p>Are the new Hyundais the most reliable autos on the market? Probably not - but they are closing the gap quickly w/ Honda and Toyota (tho, Toyota has been having problems w/ quality, esp. on the V-6 Camry).</p>
<p>Anyway, I wasn’t just talking about reliability but things like the quality of interior fabrics, plastics, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahh, while consumers do share a big chunk of the blame, don’t ignore the power of all the advertising pushing SUVs as the “cool” mode of transport.</p>
<p>There’s a reason why we are willing to pay so much for bottled water and why pharmaceutical companies spend so much on advertising.</p>
<p>“Uhh, the Volt’s expected price for consumers has risen to $40k – notwithstanding the Vette, wouldn’t you call that “too expensive” for the typical Chevy car buyer?”</p>
<p>Does that include dropping coverage or refusing to offer coverage in the 1st place? (So where are those people supposed to turn to?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How so? And esp. not back during the 70’s and 80’s. Heck, insurers don’t even require helmets for bikers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t read magazines as well, or see billboards as you drive or walk, or get advertising banners while online, etc.?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OMG – not THIS insipid capitalism vs. communism argument.</p>
<p>Do you really think “capitalism” as it is practiced here and in most places is free of govt. regulation or incentives?</p>
<p>Let’s see – the US govt. helped the development of the RR industry by giving RR companies valuable land rights. Later, the govt. ended up aiding the auto industry by building the US highway network, while at the same time, letting the rail lines fall into disrepair.</p>
<p>Gee, I guess Brazil would have reached energy-INDEPENDENCE w/o aiding the development of the sugar-ethanol industry w/ low-interest loans, tax incentives, etc.</p>
<p>And oh, I guess the dot.com bubble, the Enron fiasco and the sub-prime mess are indications of consumers really “knowing” what they are doing (even conservative economists admit that unfettered capitalism is not desireable - esp. since deregulation helped cause those bubbles).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do we really have a better standard of living than many living in the EU?</p>
<p>It’s not like the taxes on petrol goes towards nothing beneficial. It’s used towards building and maintaining a mass transit system.</p>
<p>Who do you think is hurt more by the rise in oil – the lower class here (which has to drive longer to get to work, run their errands, etc.) or those in Europe?</p>
<p>Heck, if anything, we needed a higher gas tax to pay for all the maintenance and repairs that are desperately needed on infrastructure here (the quick-fix repair jobs or infrastructure that hasn’t been maintained or upgraded costs this economy Billions in lost time).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what will probably amount to a Trillion dollars for a couple of “adventures” in the Middle East (I’m not counting Afghanistan) hasn’t impacted the dollar? Or the huge outlay of wealth from the US to the oil producers of the world?</p>
<p>You do realize even at $35,000 (this is the estimated price I have seen) the waiting list is 10,000+ people? I dont think they are hurting themselves at all by charging so much. This is the first generation for this vehicle and the price will come down later.</p>
<p>You need to charge a higher amount for a product to recoop for research and development expenses. Thats why GM says that at $35,000 they wont be making a profit. They will be paying for the R&D however. Remember 5-10 years ago when flat screen TV’s came out and they cost up to $10,000. Who could afford one of those when they first came out? Wealthy people that wanted to be the first to have the new item, that’s who. Now you can get a 42" LCD for $1000. New things cost more and the people that can afford them want what they want. This is why GM is including premium sound and other cool options while developing the Volt. They arent marketing the first generation Volts to poor people (this isn’t Henry Fords GM ). It has already been anounced that other CHEAPER models will be coming out in the near future.</p>
<p>^ True, but back then all plasmas or LCDs cost that much and it was only the more affluent who ended up buying them at that price.</p>
<p>I really hope the Volt does well - but you’re assuming that there wouldn’t be other cheaper alternatives (such as the 2nd gen hybrids from Toyota and Honda) or that people who can afford to pay at that price (Lutz said $40k - I’d think he would know) want to drive a Chevy.</p>
<p>It may have been better for GM to introduce the Volt as a Buick model and once prices come down, introduce a cheaper Chevy version.</p>
<p>“True, but back then all plasmas or LCDs cost that much and it was only the more affluent who ended up buying them at that price.”</p>
<p>Exactly my point. As I already stated the waiting list for the Volt is 10,000+ people.</p>
<p>You do understand that what’s unique about the Volt is that the engine never mechanically drives the wheels. It drives the generator which recharges the battery, so it’s always operating as an electric vehicle. Nick Zielinski, the chief Engineer for the Chevy Volt doesn’t consider it a hybrid. He considers it an electric vehicle that has range extension.</p>