Now here's a contentious proposal: Let GM go Bankrupt

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by Woodsman If you're having a historical sadism competition, you might like to consider this. The combination of the drop and the knot that breaks the neck in hanging is an innovation...

Ahem! If we are going to discuss engineering, I propose that we take it in another direction.

One more point: I read somewhere that a couple of these CEOs (Ford’s Alan Mulally and Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli) are fairly recent arrivals and are not responsible for the mess. In fact, the article I read argued that Rick Wagoner had done more than his four predecessors at the helm of GM, including quality improvements, car lineup, more efficient factories, and success in China and elsewhere overseas.

Perhaps someone with better connections and knowledge of the trade can comment the veracity of this.

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst I think it likely that none of those apply to many car buyers. They are buying something entirely different: Cadillac = rich and old Buick = old and comfortable Pontiac = young, sporty and exciting Corvette = rich, young, sporty and exciting Chevrolet = working guy and not ashamed of it SUV = semi-rich outdoors type (young, active) Pickup = rugged outdoors, or country/farmer/rancher Fuel efficient = BORING Chrysler and Ford not so different. Now, make a family car that gets 50 mpg and goes from 0-60 in 6 seconds and you got yourself a winner.... but only if it looks cool based on the status group you think best fits you. We have been market segmented.

Perhaps what the USA needs is a crash course aimed at realigning consumers’ priorities?

If it had not been for the dire state of the economy and your unemployment rate skyrocketing -- I would have suggested doubling gas prices to European levels.

Ain’t nuthin’ like de-segmentation of the market!

[Woodsman]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones Perhaps what the USA needs is a crash course aimed at realigning consumers’ priorities?

Not just the USA. In the UK they talk about "Mondeo Man" as if his car tells us what he does, how he talks, what his home looks like and whom he votes for. And the same for other brands. Being a mild Aspie, I don't understand any of this fine social gradation stuff, but I observe that it seems to be how the majority of our horrendously hierarchical species thinks. At such times I wish the planet would get itself an ELE and start over....... (Maybe if the dolphins took over, the computer of the far future would have a logo showing a fish with a bite out of it. The Mackerel.)

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones One more point: I read somewhere that a couple of these CEOs (Ford’s Alan Mulally and Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli) are fairly recent arrivals and are not responsible for the mess.

I doubt they were hired off the street, and I blame top level management as well as the CEO.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones .....One more point: I read somewhere that a couple of these CEOs (Ford’s Alan Mulally and Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli) are fairly recent arrivals and are not responsible for the mess. In fact, the article I read argued that Rick Wagoner had done more than his four predecessors at the helm of GM, including quality improvements, car lineup, more efficient factories, and success in China and elsewhere overseas.

That is correct. And all three when questioned about executive pay indicated they had already frozen bonuses and such for themselves as well as other highly paid executives. (Though obviously they are still making huge salaries and have use of the corporate jet.)

In the US, cars still have a lot to do with status... silly as that is, it is fact.

In 1963 I had a VW bug (40hp), in 1980 I had a Ford Pinto (a hand me down, 2nd car). Never again will I own an under powered vehicle that lacks the zip to safely enter the freeway.... and I don't care how much gas I have to buy to avoid that. VW was fun to drive, though

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by edalzell Who cares if a car is boring. If it is efficient and reliable, you will have more than enough money to be "cool" with something else less important.

Would you pick a wife with the same criteria?

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Never again will I own an under powered vehicle that lacks the zip to safely enter the freeway.... and I don't care how much gas I have to buy to avoid that. VW was fun to drive, though

I think you're confusing current technology with ancient history. From this link:

Quote: Toyota claims a 0-to-60-mph time of 10.1 seconds, a two-second improvement over the last Prius, and a 4.9-second 30-to-50-mph time, which puts it on a par with the four-cylinder Camry.

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Would you pick a wife with the same criteria?

Bad analogy. Wives are more efficient than vehicles. <--- See what I wrote honey?

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam I think you're confusing current technology with ancient history. From this link:

I own a Camry, but I opted for the V-6.

Quote: Bad analogy. Wives are more efficient than vehicles. <--- See what I wrote honey?

Not a bad analogy at all. I would hope the selection of a wife would include criteria like: emotional attachment, adds a little zip to your life, a little pride of ownership (wife doesn't do computers), and a choice that brings a little pleasure and comfort to your life.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst I own a Camry, but I opted for the V-6.

The problem is that while everybody would like a powerful vehicle, nobody can afford one. That's because it isn't a matter of whether or not you can pay for gas now, but whether or not it will be affordable for society to function in the near (< 20 years) future. The decisions we make today profoundly affect that future.

The difference between the 4 and 6 cylinder Camry is more than 10% fuel economy. Imagine what would happen to the price of gas if everyone's mpg went up by 10%! We could burn in 11 years, the same amount of gas we're burning in 10. That's better than getting a year's worth of gas for free, because the gas we'd buy during each of those 11 years would be cheaper than the gas we will buy in the 10 years with lower fuel economy.

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Not a bad analogy at all.

It was a joke.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam ...... It was a joke.

Of course. And I am certainly not the first to equate certain vehicles with "sex appeal."

Reducing an auto purchase to a Vulcan like process kinda misses the point and takes all the fun out of the adventure.

As I have posted earlier, conservation is not a solution. It simply prolongs the inevitable and props up the current system. We will not move to energy efficiency until we have to... conservation pushes that date a few years into the future is all, and extends the reign of the oil cartel.

Have you given up your electric can opener, toaster, ice maker, or electric garage door opener? I'd give those up before I gave in to a car with zero performance.

We will evolve into an energy system with less reliance on oil. We have plenty of coal if we could clean up the emissions. We have plenty of natural gas. Nuclear is clearly a part of our future. A wind farm in Washington DC could prove very productive. Other technologies are on the verge of a break through. We'll be fine; sooner rather than later. I think Obama will move in this direction with government investment and with the added purpose of creating jobs.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst As I have posted earlier, conservation is not a solution. It simply prolongs the inevitable and props up the current system. We will not move to energy efficiency until we have to... conservation pushes that date a few years into the future is all, and extends the reign of the oil cartel.

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that it was the solution. It is the only thing that will work as a stop gap between now and when we develop alternative fuels because it will give us more time to develop them. Drilling/burning more/faster will decrease that time.

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Have you given up your electric can opener, toaster, ice maker, or electric garage door opener?

Yes, yes, no, yes. We can't give up ice, partly because it would make us less efficient. Nobody needs an electric can opener or garage door, and toast usually has butter on it. Most people could do with a lot less of that.

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst We will evolve into an energy system with less reliance on oil.

Yes, but evolution can be a long, painful process or a more gradual, easy transition. We determine how long and how painful with every choice we make.

[Woodsman]

This may be of interest re toxic managers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7745324.stm

[fazstp]

Quote: Originally Posted by Woodsman This may be of interest re toxic managers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7745324.stm

I should thank my boss. My blood pressure is generally the lower side of normal and if I get dehydrated I feel quite faint. Maybe the frustration my boss causes is actually good for me if it's keeping my blood pressure elevated .

[edalzell]

More info on costs: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809320261867867.html

[aehurst]

CEOs to Congress: Give us $25 billion with no strings.

Congress to CEOs: Put some thought into this and tell us how you are going to spend it.

CEOs to Congress: You're right. We need $34 billion.

[aehurst]

Looks like the bailout is on track for $15 billion with the usual restrictions. Money coming out of the $25 already appropriated for them to improve vehicle efficiency.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/...ress_autos_177

Guess this had to be done one way or another... letting a million plus jobs go at this point in time doesn't make a lot of sense.... a time when we're about to spend much bigger bucks to create jobs.

I hope Congress has enough sense to keep out of management. If the Big 3 do exactly what Congress says and still collapses, whose fault is it? Strong oversight to ensure the money is spent exactly as agreed to is, of course, a rational thing to do.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst I hope Congress has enough sense to keep out of management.

And let the current management run things? These are the same people who've been lobbying Congress to keep mileage standards low. The same people advertising 24 mpg as being good!

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Of course. And I am certainly not the first to equate certain vehicles with "sex appeal."

My wife describes this predominantly male behavior as "Look, another guy with a 17-foot extension of his penis".

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Guess this had to be done one way or another... letting a million plus jobs go at this point in time doesn't make a lot of sense.... a time when we're about to spend much bigger bucks to create jobs.

I think you’re right. There are, however, several dark clouds on the horizon. A few thoughts:

• Should the recessions deepen, then people simply won’t be spending money on new cars. If so, there ain’t nuthin’ Congress or anyone else can do to save that industry.
  
• In my opinion, even more important that this bailout, is for The Big Three to ally themselves with financial institutions and come up with some veeerry attractive financing offers.
  
• One thought on management: I don’t think the main problem is the current CEOs, so getting rid of them will have negligible effect. What we’re talking about is an entire, anti-innovative culture. The current CEOs, who now understand the gravity of the situation, may well be the right ones to turn things around.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam And let the current management run things? These are the same people who've been lobbying Congress to keep mileage standards low. The same people advertising 24 mpg as being good!

Don't care if Congress requires a change in leadership, but I don't want us to get into the position of running an auto industry. That would make failure our fault. Think it better to keep the lobbyists controlled Congress out of the board room.

If forcing them to give up the executive jets and take salary cuts doesn't get their attention, we should force them to divorce their trophy wives.