While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
Smart. Like a rock.
"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:41:31 -0400, "JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com>
wrote:
>While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
>above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
>http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
>Smart. Like a rock.
>"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
Detroit won’t do it cause they work with the oil companies and big oil
loves gas guzzlers cause they drive up demand and hence prices for
oil.
"JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-tqdnXEP7YfkVa3eRVn-rQ@comcast.com…
> While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
> above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
I don’t get it…GM killed off car programs to create what looks and sounds
like a clone of what they are already building? If I saw that Tahoe in the
picture on the road, I doubt I’d realize it was "all new."
Ed
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:35:51 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:41:31 -0400, "JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
>>above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
>>http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
>>Smart. Like a rock.
>>"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
>This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
>Detroit won’t do it cause they work with the oil companies and big oil
>loves gas guzzlers cause they drive up demand and hence prices for
>oil.
Now, the auto makers are in Big Oil’s pockets, too?
Aren’t those pockets getting crowded with Bush and the Enviros in
there, too?
Who else is in there?
–
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:34:43 -0400, "C. E. White"
<cewhi…@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>"JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:-tqdnXEP7YfkVa3eRVn-rQ@comcast.com…
>> While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
>> above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
>> http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
>I don’t get it…GM killed off car programs to create what looks and sounds
>like a clone of what they are already building? If I saw that Tahoe in the
>picture on the road, I doubt I’d realize it was "all new."
>Ed
Well, it’s certainly not "a bold new entry to the market." Instead,
it’s a normal model makeover. All automakets do this. We all know it.
–
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
True, but GM claimed that developing these "new" trucks and SUVs was
the reason they killed a new rear drive car platform. I guess I was
expecting something really new, not jus the same stuff shuffled around
a bit.
Ed
laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:41:31 -0400, "JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
> >above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
> >http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
> >Smart. Like a rock.
> >"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
> This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
> Detroit won’t do it cause they work with the oil companies and big oil
> loves gas guzzlers cause they drive up demand and hence prices for
> oil.
Nonsense. The market, as always, is working. As it says in the
article:
In March, GM noted that sales of generally more fuel-efficient cars
were showing strength due to rising gasoline prices and to the
detriment of SUV sales.
On 21 Sep 2005 06:37:10 -0700, "Ed White" <ce.whi…@gmail.com> wrote:
>True, but GM claimed that developing these "new" trucks and SUVs was
>the reason they killed a new rear drive car platform. I guess I was
>expecting something really new, not jus the same stuff shuffled around
>a bit.
>Ed
Yeah, I understand. True innovation is rare.
–
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:35:51 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:41:31 -0400, "JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
> >>above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
> >>http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
> >>Smart. Like a rock.
> >>"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
> >This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
> >Detroit won’t do it cause they work with the oil companies and big oil
> >loves gas guzzlers cause they drive up demand and hence prices for
> >oil.
> Now, the auto makers are in Big Oil’s pockets, too?
> Aren’t those pockets getting crowded with Bush and the Enviros in
> there, too?
> Who else is in there?
The stupidity is Laura is amazing. I work for a Tier 1 supplier with
major financial troubles BECAUSE of high oil prices. We do plastics,
and raw material costs are killing us.
Auto companies get NOTHING for high oil prices. They get higher
material costs, higher production costs, people not buying as many
cars.
In article <75s1j1lqge15lp0euq6gvanrtkcqr5o…@4ax.com>, xeton2…@yahoo.com
says…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:41:31 -0400, "JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
>>above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
>>http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
>>Smart. Like a rock.
>>"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
>This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
You must be really, really stupid to think the government has any business
telling GM how to run themselves. The governemnt are the folks who screwed
over thousands of folks in the New Orleans area by not being prepared for
the hurrican aftermath. Do you really want to trust them to tell you what
to drive? Also, there is no shortage of small cars for you to buy. Many
people are smart enough to figure that out on their own, unlike yourself. They
just don’t buy SUV’s from GM.
————–
Alex
In article <2sn2j1dbhr3geq6ukg89v8et4h2jeki…@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> Now, the auto makers are in Big Oil’s pockets, too?
I know you are making fun of the troll, but this is a topic in and of
itself. Many folks do think that auto companies make things to profit the
oil the companies. The problem is, both have been going at each other
since the begining. Often it has been that the automakers want better
fuels, the oil companies won’t make them.
If automakers knew how to make a car that was powered by ‘dark energy’
they would do it and charge a ton for it.
Poor fuel economy is often the result of just making the product more
cheaply or just make what people are buying as with any US corporation. Not
some vast conspirsy.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Brent P wrote:
> In article <2sn2j1dbhr3geq6ukg89v8et4h2jeki…@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> > Now, the auto makers are in Big Oil’s pockets, too?
> I know you are making fun of the troll, but this is a topic in and of
> itself. Many folks do think that auto companies make things to profit the
> oil the companies. The problem is, both have been going at each other
> since the begining. Often it has been that the automakers want better
> fuels, the oil companies won’t make them.
> If automakers knew how to make a car that was powered by ‘dark energy’
> they would do it and charge a ton for it.
> Poor fuel economy is often the result of just making the product more
> cheaply or just make what people are buying as with any US corporation. Not
> some vast conspirsy.
The effects of the way the CAFE ratings work leading to SUV’s replacing
the family station wagon in the product lineup has also been a factor.
The automakers found a big loophole and are exploiting the hell out of
it to stay competative. Because of the restrictions we placed on them
they were painted into a corner where they could either sell SUVs and
make a ton of money, or tell their investors they didn’t want to make
money.
The CAFE system could be fixed, and at least help get consumers cars
they want that might pollute a little less.
Dave
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Larry Bud wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:35:51 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>><xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:41:31 -0400, "JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
>>>>above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
>>>>http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
>>>>Smart. Like a rock.
>>>>"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
>>>This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
>>>Detroit won’t do it cause they work with the oil companies and big oil
>>>loves gas guzzlers cause they drive up demand and hence prices for
>>>oil.
>>Now, the auto makers are in Big Oil’s pockets, too?
>>Aren’t those pockets getting crowded with Bush and the Enviros in
>>there, too?
>>Who else is in there?
> The stupidity is Laura is amazing. I work for a Tier 1 supplier with
> major financial troubles BECAUSE of high oil prices. We do plastics,
> and raw material costs are killing us.
> Auto companies get NOTHING for high oil prices. They get higher
> material costs, higher production costs, people not buying as many
> cars.
If it’s killing them (and you), then why do the idiots hype SUV sales
so much?
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article <75s1j1lqge15lp0euq6gvanrtkcqr5o…@4ax.com>, xeton2…@yahoo.com
> says…
>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:41:31 -0400, "JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
>>>above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
>>>http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
>>>Smart. Like a rock.
>>>"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
>>This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
> You must be really, really stupid to think the government has any business
> telling GM how to run themselves. The governemnt are the folks who screwed
> over thousands of folks in the New Orleans area by not being prepared for
> the hurrican aftermath. Do you really want to trust them to tell you what
> to drive? Also, there is no shortage of small cars for you to buy. Many
> people are smart enough to figure that out on their own, unlike yourself. They
> just don’t buy SUV’s from GM.
> ————–
> Alex
You are forgetting that a really big chunk of cars (and 100% of
the safety equipment) are government mandated. Without those
regs cars wouldn’t even have seat belts.
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:10:23 GMT, william lynch <x…@y.z> wrote:
>You are forgetting that a really big chunk of cars (and 100% of
>the safety equipment) are government mandated. Without those
>regs cars wouldn’t even have seat belts.
I hate to break it to you but cars *did* have seat belts before the
government mandates.
Now, I grant you, not ALL cars had them, but to pick one particular
example, the Chevy Corvair that Ralph Nader killed DID have seat
belts.
Seat belts were being discussed at least as early as the 1940s.
In article <dgs038$ac…@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> You must be really, really stupid to think the government has any business
> telling GM how to run themselves. The governemnt are the folks who screwed
> over thousands of folks in the New Orleans area by not being prepared for
> the hurrican aftermath. Do you really want to trust them to tell you what
> to drive?
You don’t understand the mindset. It’s one of people who think elites
(because they are elites or too lazy/dumb to do anything themselves)
should decide everything for us, run everything, etc through a powerful
centralized government. When there is a failure of the massive, powerful,
centralized government to them that is an arguement that the government
doesn’t have enough power and isn’t yet big enough. If it were only more
powerful it could have done better is their arguement.
In article <3ugYe.797$G64….@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, william lynch wrote:
> You are forgetting that a really big chunk of cars (and 100% of
> the safety equipment) are government mandated. Without those
> regs cars wouldn’t even have seat belts.
False. Ford and other makes were trying to sell these safety devices
years before the mandates. Practically all mandated items were available
before being mandated. Some failed to achieve market acceptance and were
mandated for better or worse. Those that achieved market acceptance were
often not mandated.
Automakers even have sought bad ideas to become mandated "safety" items.
Case in point, GM and high beam DRLs.
In any case, had ford’s safety marketing been successful seatbelts would
have been in every car long before the mandates.
In article <1127322484.563688.220…@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Dave wrote:
> The effects of the way the CAFE ratings work leading to SUV’s replacing
> the family station wagon in the product lineup has also been a factor.
As one of those who first put forth this connection, I agree. CAFE vastly
changed the market forces towards SUVs.
> The automakers found a big loophole and are exploiting the hell out of
> it to stay competative.
Actually buyers found it. Automakers responded. The executives at the big
three aren’t that bright as we can see by their decision history. The
sales figures should bear me out on this. The rise of small trucks
occured right after the ~1985/6 demise of most of the large passenger
cars and wagons. Back when what are now called SUVs were still designed
as niche market vehicles with hose-out vinyl interiors.
> The CAFE system could be fixed, and at least help get consumers cars
> they want that might pollute a little less.
CAFE should be repealed. If we want to discourage gasoline use income
taxes should be lowered and gasoline taxes increased. This shift in
taxation method would encourage conservation.
"David Long" <nos…@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
cc63j11jopvclg3f666jn0qgrbai6g9…@4ax.com…
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:10:23 GMT, william lynch <x…@y.z> wrote:
>>You are forgetting that a really big chunk of cars (and 100% of
>>the safety equipment) are government mandated. Without those
>>regs cars wouldn’t even have seat belts.
> I hate to break it to you but cars *did* have seat belts before the
> government mandates.
I remember hearing a story then Ford had seat-belts for the 1956 models,
also Rambler putted some head-rest seats in 1958-59 in the Rebel/Ambassador
> Now, I grant you, not ALL cars had them, but to pick one particular
> example, the Chevy Corvair that Ralph Nader killed DID have seat
> belts.
> Seat belts were being discussed at least as early as the 1940s.
Stéphane Dumas
On 21 Sep 2005 08:01:18 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2…@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>> >This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
>> >Detroit won’t do it cause they work with the oil companies and big oil
>> >loves gas guzzlers cause they drive up demand and hence prices for
>> >oil.
>> Now, the auto makers are in Big Oil’s pockets, too?
>> Aren’t those pockets getting crowded with Bush and the Enviros in
>> there, too?
>> Who else is in there?
>The stupidity is Laura is amazing. I work for a Tier 1 supplier with
>major financial troubles BECAUSE of high oil prices. We do plastics,
>and raw material costs are killing us.
>Auto companies get NOTHING for high oil prices. They get higher
>material costs, higher production costs, people not buying as many
>cars.
Of course!
Higher oil (and gas) prices hurt auto makers, as buying goes down.
–
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:08:42 GMT, william lynch <x…@y.z> wrote:
>Larry Bud wrote:
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:35:51 GMT, laura bush – VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
>>><xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:41:31 -0400, "JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
>>>>>above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
>>>>>http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
>>>>>Smart. Like a rock.
>>>>>"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
>>>>This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
>>>>Detroit won’t do it cause they work with the oil companies and big oil
>>>>loves gas guzzlers cause they drive up demand and hence prices for
>>>>oil.
>>>Now, the auto makers are in Big Oil’s pockets, too?
>>>Aren’t those pockets getting crowded with Bush and the Enviros in
>>>there, too?
>>>Who else is in there?
>> The stupidity is Laura is amazing. I work for a Tier 1 supplier with
>> major financial troubles BECAUSE of high oil prices. We do plastics,
>> and raw material costs are killing us.
>> Auto companies get NOTHING for high oil prices. They get higher
>> material costs, higher production costs, people not buying as many
>> cars.
>If it’s killing them (and you), then why do the idiots hype SUV sales
>so much?
You really can’t figure it out?
It’s called MONEY!
The profit on an SUV is higher than on an econobox.
You didn’t know that?
–
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:01:43 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVET…@yahoo.com
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
(Brent P) wrote:
>In article <2sn2j1dbhr3geq6ukg89v8et4h2jeki…@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> Now, the auto makers are in Big Oil’s pockets, too?
>I know you are making fun of the troll, but this is a topic in and of
>itself. Many folks do think that auto companies make things to profit the
>oil the companies. The problem is, both have been going at each other
>since the begining. Often it has been that the automakers want better
>fuels, the oil companies won’t make them.
>If automakers knew how to make a car that was powered by ‘dark energy’
>they would do it and charge a ton for it.
>Poor fuel economy is often the result of just making the product more
>cheaply or just make what people are buying as with any US corporation. Not
>some vast conspirsy.
Of course.
Take the 90mpg carb.
If Ford could have come up with one, they would have sold a TON of
cars with it.
Then, after a few years, they would have licensed it to other makers,
and made even more.
Would the oil companies have minded? Of course not. It’s Economics
101.
But it makes for such a nice conspiracy theory.
–
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:10:23 GMT, william lynch <x…@y.z> wrote:
>Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>> In article <75s1j1lqge15lp0euq6gvanrtkcqr5o…@4ax.com>, xeton2…@yahoo.com
>> says…
>>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:41:31 -0400, "JohnH" <johnhar…@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>While other manufacturers are selling fuel efficient vehicles at a premium
>>>>above sticker price, here’s GM’s idea of a bold new entry to the market:
>>>>http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/20/news/fortune500/gm/index.htm
>>>>Smart. Like a rock.
>>>>"AWW, LIIKE A ROOOOCK!"
>>>This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
>> You must be really, really stupid to think the government has any business
>> telling GM how to run themselves. The governemnt are the folks who screwed
>> over thousands of folks in the New Orleans area by not being prepared for
>> the hurrican aftermath. Do you really want to trust them to tell you what
>> to drive? Also, there is no shortage of small cars for you to buy. Many
>> people are smart enough to figure that out on their own, unlike yourself. They
>> just don’t buy SUV’s from GM.
>> ————–
>> Alex
>You are forgetting that a really big chunk of cars (and 100% of
>the safety equipment) are government mandated. Without those
>regs cars wouldn’t even have seat belts.
Personal opinion: if the government *really* wanted to reduce crash
rates, they would mandate much stricter licensing criteria.
This would go much farther towards that goal than by trying to make
cars crash-proof.
Seat belts are really nice. Not needing them would be even nicer (and
far less expensive overall).
–
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
"Bill Funk" <BigB…@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
news:n9r2j110rtl8qvobgf91tigttts91trq8b@4ax.com…
> On 21 Sep 2005 06:37:10 -0700, "Ed White" <ce.whi…@gmail.com> wrote:
>>True, but GM claimed that developing these "new" trucks and SUVs was
>>the reason they killed a new rear drive car platform. I guess I was
>>expecting something really new, not jus the same stuff shuffled around
>>a bit.
>>Ed
> Yeah, I understand. True innovation is rare.
See
http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/press_kits/07gmt900/GMT%20900%20Ove... .
I was just looking for them to copy a few good ideas. They still don’t have
fold flat third row seats and a solid rear axle! The only good feature is
the engine selection. Nobody offers the sort of power you can get in a large
GM SUVs. 400 horsepower! Unreal (and yeah, I agree, unnecessary). So as I
see it hey wrapped a great engine and transmission combo in a slightly
refreshed wrapper with only trivial new features – heated 2nd row seats,
automatic wipers, and a heated washer fluid reservoir seem to be the big
hitters. I guess they really are learning from the Japanese.
Ed
> This is why the govt needs to step in and mandate smaller cars.
> Detroit won’t do it cause they work with the oil companies and big oil
> loves gas guzzlers cause they drive up demand and hence prices for
> oil.
You do not need government holding your hand to tell you what you cant buy.
If the prices of fuel are too high, people wont buy. Obviously even $3 a
gallon is not too high, as demand has only dropped off a few percentage
points.