GM's "Obama" Model
06-03-2009, 08:29 AM
#1
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM's "Obama" Model From another forum:
The newest offering from Government Motors is "The Obama". It is sleek, shiny, with a huge grill painted white. It runs on 100% pure arrogance and is just a mirage.
The newest offering from Government Motors is "The Obama". It is sleek, shiny, with a huge grill painted white. It runs on 100% pure arrogance and is just a mirage.
06-03-2009, 08:17 PM
#6
Boost - Suppose the price stays the same, the HP stays the same, the style stays the same......as it likely will. If anything the newer cars will be more fuel efficent and they may try to give the SUV's and trucks a little boost in mileage.......which is what they always have been doing by putting in a bigger motor that makes more power and uses less fuel.
So your saying if you were in the market for a big SUV and the next gen Suburban got a larger motor, got 2 mpg more than the older model you wouldnt buy it because it's government backed? GM; under the government is going to do what they were doing before the government intervention. Look at all of the different fuel options GM had before the government stepped in.
The only thing that will change is the old farts who say they have a hang nail, take disability and collect 100% of their pay for years. All of the waste, extra factories, extra manpower will be gones, the vechiles will stay the same.
Everyone has their panties in a wad over this, dont buy into them.
So your saying if you were in the market for a big SUV and the next gen Suburban got a larger motor, got 2 mpg more than the older model you wouldnt buy it because it's government backed? GM; under the government is going to do what they were doing before the government intervention. Look at all of the different fuel options GM had before the government stepped in.
The only thing that will change is the old farts who say they have a hang nail, take disability and collect 100% of their pay for years. All of the waste, extra factories, extra manpower will be gones, the vechiles will stay the same.
Everyone has their panties in a wad over this, dont buy into them.
Trending Topics
06-03-2009, 09:26 PM
#8
Staging Lane
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bel air, md
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. Anything the govt has taken over, they have royally screwed up! Dare I say social security! The reason vehicles are so damn expensive these days is because the govt already has too much pull in the auto industry. You gotta pay a gas guzzler tax because your vehicle doesnt get good enough gas mileage? Give me a friggin break ! I just hope this doesnt mean an end to the new camaro cuz i want one of them bad boys !
06-04-2009, 09:42 AM
#9
Maybe that's why gas is taxed so high, why medicine is so expensive, why health care is so expensive. If you want to live in a country that is safer than most, nice streets, proper waste disposal, nuclear power plants, doctors that are good enough where people fly from around the world to come here, an armed force that is superior, people floating around in outer space and stuff like that, yea your going to have to pay. We could cut A TON of costs if the money was spent properly but that’s what happens when you have a country this size and that much money floating around.
The government stepped in because the unions wouldn’t budge and GM was old power, old money and there were too many people in it for their own greed. The government basically stepped in, bitch smacked everyone and said "since no one can give anything up and wants everything to stay the same (yet somehow magically get out of billions of debt), you’re going to do it our way......shut down these plants, get rid of these brands, fire these people, get rid of these benefits".
If I was the president I would of did the same thing.....a bunch of greedy slobs who don’t want to play together, fine if they don’t want to do what they need to in order to survive then I would of forced them to. Some of the benefits they were getting were plain out stupid; they wouldn’t cut dead brands/models for who knows what reason.
The government isn’t in this to make money; they are in it because it would have hurt the economy too much. Everyone will still have their Camaro's, Corvette and SUV’s....you'll still have your huge *** Suburban that’s a hybrid getting 14 mpg. GM embarrassed themselves the way they handled this situation. They had no pull over the union and they didn’t seem like they cared what happened, as long as they made their money while they were around.
Give it 10 years and GM will be back in debt up to their eyeballs.
The government stepped in because the unions wouldn’t budge and GM was old power, old money and there were too many people in it for their own greed. The government basically stepped in, bitch smacked everyone and said "since no one can give anything up and wants everything to stay the same (yet somehow magically get out of billions of debt), you’re going to do it our way......shut down these plants, get rid of these brands, fire these people, get rid of these benefits".
If I was the president I would of did the same thing.....a bunch of greedy slobs who don’t want to play together, fine if they don’t want to do what they need to in order to survive then I would of forced them to. Some of the benefits they were getting were plain out stupid; they wouldn’t cut dead brands/models for who knows what reason.
The government isn’t in this to make money; they are in it because it would have hurt the economy too much. Everyone will still have their Camaro's, Corvette and SUV’s....you'll still have your huge *** Suburban that’s a hybrid getting 14 mpg. GM embarrassed themselves the way they handled this situation. They had no pull over the union and they didn’t seem like they cared what happened, as long as they made their money while they were around.
Give it 10 years and GM will be back in debt up to their eyeballs.
06-04-2009, 12:03 PM
#10
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dallas, TX / Boston, MA
Posts: 2,169
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Boost - Suppose the price stays the same, the HP stays the same, the style stays the same......as it likely will. If anything the newer cars will be more fuel efficent and they may try to give the SUV's and trucks a little boost in mileage.......which is what they always have been doing by putting in a bigger motor that makes more power and uses less fuel.
you ever hear the song Red Barchetta by Rush? if not, go look up the lyrics online. its about the future, where gas burning cars are illegal. it also describes extremes in safety standards where cars have gotten so big so that they can absorb a 50mph crash.
also, the movie from the early 80's: "Firebird: 2015AD" - "In one of many unpopular and unsupported policy decisions, the US government of the near future outlaws vehicle petrol in an effort to curb the overuse of limited natural resources - except, of course, for official purposes. There are many renegades who oppose the authorities, and will stop at nothing to allow themselves the freedom of burning around the countryside."
yes, both of these are fictitious stories, but doesn't sound like the far too distant future by the way our politicians are imposing more regulations on CAFE and safety standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082381/
06-04-2009, 12:14 PM
#11
CARTEK Racing
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: East Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe that's why gas is taxed so high, why medicine is so expensive, why health care is so expensive. If you want to live in a country that is safer than most, nice streets, proper waste disposal, nuclear power plants, doctors that are good enough where people fly from around the world to come here, an armed force that is superior, people floating around in outer space and stuff like that, yea your going to have to pay. We could cut A TON of costs if the money was spent properly but that’s what happens when you have a country this size and that much money floating around.
The government stepped in because the unions wouldn’t budge and GM was old power, old money and there were too many people in it for their own greed. The government basically stepped in, bitch smacked everyone and said "since no one can give anything up and wants everything to stay the same (yet somehow magically get out of billions of debt), you’re going to do it our way......shut down these plants, get rid of these brands, fire these people, get rid of these benefits".
If I was the president I would of did the same thing.....a bunch of greedy slobs who don’t want to play together, fine if they don’t want to do what they need to in order to survive then I would of forced them to. Some of the benefits they were getting were plain out stupid; they wouldn’t cut dead brands/models for who knows what reason.
The government isn’t in this to make money; they are in it because it would have hurt the economy too much. Everyone will still have their Camaro's, Corvette and SUV’s....you'll still have your huge *** Suburban that’s a hybrid getting 14 mpg. GM embarrassed themselves the way they handled this situation. They had no pull over the union and they didn’t seem like they cared what happened, as long as they made their money while they were around.
Give it 10 years and GM will be back in debt up to their eyeballs.
The government stepped in because the unions wouldn’t budge and GM was old power, old money and there were too many people in it for their own greed. The government basically stepped in, bitch smacked everyone and said "since no one can give anything up and wants everything to stay the same (yet somehow magically get out of billions of debt), you’re going to do it our way......shut down these plants, get rid of these brands, fire these people, get rid of these benefits".
If I was the president I would of did the same thing.....a bunch of greedy slobs who don’t want to play together, fine if they don’t want to do what they need to in order to survive then I would of forced them to. Some of the benefits they were getting were plain out stupid; they wouldn’t cut dead brands/models for who knows what reason.
The government isn’t in this to make money; they are in it because it would have hurt the economy too much. Everyone will still have their Camaro's, Corvette and SUV’s....you'll still have your huge *** Suburban that’s a hybrid getting 14 mpg. GM embarrassed themselves the way they handled this situation. They had no pull over the union and they didn’t seem like they cared what happened, as long as they made their money while they were around.
Give it 10 years and GM will be back in debt up to their eyeballs.
The only problem I see with that whole statement is that there was no need for the government to do anything. No need for a bail out, no need for a take over. Let GM go out of business on its own. Let the market dictate its will over GM and see what happens when the smoke clears.
Those who would not budge or alter their stance in the face of clear failure would fail, the market would dictate it. People would loose their jobs and benefits.
Our "wonderfully socialist" government simple gave billions of our tax payer dollars away to only delay the inevitable. Now GM is in Ch-11 anyway, and we as tax payers, will never see that money again.
Barry needs to get his Marxist hands out off the free market.
06-04-2009, 12:28 PM
#12
What is so wrong with using the profits from selling cars to come out with a motor that makes 400 HP and get 20 MPG instead of a motor that makes 400 HP and gets 15 MPG? We had the technology to put people into outer space 30+ years ago but we can’t make a motor to sip just a little less gas?
If GM can’t improve their gas mileage without changing the style then that is as retarded as it sounds and maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to turn the light switch on without proper supervision. If they chose to not make specific cars rather than improve the gas mileage (as they have been for many years) then so be it, let GM close their doors. I'm sure someone else would gladly take their spot.
I don’t think making 400 HP cars that get 33% better gas mileage is as far fetched and alien as people are making it out to be. There is no way anyone can tell me that human kind has improved gas mileage to the point where we do no posses the knowledge to go any further. Did we max a human's brain capability in this area? So many people are scared of change.
I wish we could fast forward 5 then 10 years from now and look at performance and gas mileage. I am sure the cars of those days would be awesome looking, make great power and have good fuel economy. People in the 50’s and 60’s said electronics would kill the feel of a “real” car. I wouldn’t buy an old p.o.s. car from back then even if someone gave it to me. The cars now are safer, faster, use less gas and are a ton better looking.
If GM can’t improve their gas mileage without changing the style then that is as retarded as it sounds and maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to turn the light switch on without proper supervision. If they chose to not make specific cars rather than improve the gas mileage (as they have been for many years) then so be it, let GM close their doors. I'm sure someone else would gladly take their spot.
I don’t think making 400 HP cars that get 33% better gas mileage is as far fetched and alien as people are making it out to be. There is no way anyone can tell me that human kind has improved gas mileage to the point where we do no posses the knowledge to go any further. Did we max a human's brain capability in this area? So many people are scared of change.
I wish we could fast forward 5 then 10 years from now and look at performance and gas mileage. I am sure the cars of those days would be awesome looking, make great power and have good fuel economy. People in the 50’s and 60’s said electronics would kill the feel of a “real” car. I wouldn’t buy an old p.o.s. car from back then even if someone gave it to me. The cars now are safer, faster, use less gas and are a ton better looking.
06-04-2009, 12:40 PM
#13
WS6 - I see what you’re saying and your right when it comes down to the black and white of it. I would have tried to help GM or at least force my help upon them because of how many lives it would disrupt. Your talking about the sales people in the dealers, the shop techs, dealership owners, plant workers, office admin people and people who supply parts to GM just to name a few. Not just them but their entire families. Personally I think GM was helped out of morals more than necessity. The economy doesn’t have the room right now to absorb all of the people who would have lost their jobs.
Put the human emotion factor in the equation and it can be hard to tell thousands of people (some who were in it for greed and a lot just trying to make a living) that they are going to lose their jobs and they can go pound sand if they can’t afford their house or food. This is the grey area in the black/white opinion you have.
Screwed if you do and screwed if you don’t. I think the pain was intended to be spread to everyone in small doses rather than a smaller amount of people very harshly. A ton of people will lose their jobs and they will have to learn a new trade. Honestly, if GM keeps this up they are going to be about as big/popular as Saturn by itself. What was GM back in the 50’s here in America will be the giants from Asia very soon.
I don’t get the feeling that GM wants to change. All of the old timers made their money and they are on their way out and all of the young gun newcomers are just looking for an angle. The world is pretty completive and these days when working for the common good gets too tough people just look out for their self interests then jump ship. As cliché as it sounds I really do think business was done different many year back, yea sure you had your greed back then but it seems like there was more of a personal factor when people ran business’s. Look at customer service these days, I swear it’s just there to shut people up and advertise that they have such a group. Try to call to get some service as a customer and you feel like the second you made your purchase you had someone kicking you out the door.
Put the human emotion factor in the equation and it can be hard to tell thousands of people (some who were in it for greed and a lot just trying to make a living) that they are going to lose their jobs and they can go pound sand if they can’t afford their house or food. This is the grey area in the black/white opinion you have.
Screwed if you do and screwed if you don’t. I think the pain was intended to be spread to everyone in small doses rather than a smaller amount of people very harshly. A ton of people will lose their jobs and they will have to learn a new trade. Honestly, if GM keeps this up they are going to be about as big/popular as Saturn by itself. What was GM back in the 50’s here in America will be the giants from Asia very soon.
I don’t get the feeling that GM wants to change. All of the old timers made their money and they are on their way out and all of the young gun newcomers are just looking for an angle. The world is pretty completive and these days when working for the common good gets too tough people just look out for their self interests then jump ship. As cliché as it sounds I really do think business was done different many year back, yea sure you had your greed back then but it seems like there was more of a personal factor when people ran business’s. Look at customer service these days, I swear it’s just there to shut people up and advertise that they have such a group. Try to call to get some service as a customer and you feel like the second you made your purchase you had someone kicking you out the door.
06-04-2009, 02:26 PM
#14
CARTEK Racing
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: East Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe,
I agree with you on both counts, the engine efficiency, and morals of closing down GM...
Unfortunately, emotions should play no part in an executive decision of this caliber. Emotions are what prevent us from making a rational decision when ever they are taken into account.
Yes it would be terrible for those people to loose their jobs, and yes it’s perhaps an immoral thing to do if you can avoid it through altruistic measures. Sometimes you have to make a hard decision and tell thousands of people that due to their and their superiors’ greed they are now out of a job. You can not only blame the CEO of GM for his greed, you have to also blame the assembly line worker who collects upwards of $80/Hr when benefits are factored in. For too long they raped the company they worked for until this system could no longer support itself.
I have made a comparison from GM to the USSR before. Both entities ran on an ideal of Socialism, the Soviet Union had its Communist party, GM had the UAW. People refuse to accept it, but a worker’s union is a poorly veiled attempt at Communism in a Capitalist society.
When I was 16 and had my first job as a cashier at the local A&P I had to pay $5/check to the union even though as a part timer I would receive no befits from this union. I asked my boss if I could be excluded from having to pay the premium because I did not want to be part of any Union. To which the whole of the life long cashiers began yelling at me. That day in 1999 I said that unions will be the downfall of this country. 10 years later I may not be wrong, at least unions were the downfall of America’s greatest auto manufacturer.
I am not a finance of business major, but I have taken a lot of finance courses in college, mainly because I would get help from my mom and it would be an easy A. In all the exercises which had to do with similar situations I would always take the emotionally devoid road and eventually be successful at the cost of the average worker. I was always told that I was heart-less. Perhaps I am, but seeing the other extreme of this system while living in the Soviet Union, I can not fathom how anyone could ever make a decision for a socialist bail out, buy out of a company like GM or any other. It is a very slippery slope, one that will only cause you fall further back than you were before you went down that road.
As far as engine efficiency goes; yes I believe we can make an engine run on less fuel and still make power… we all know what A/F we run our cars at. Clearly if we ran at 14.7:1 we would use less fuel AND make more power… but we would have a nice melt down as well.
With today’s readily available materials, and the cost of those materials which would be able to sustain an engine that ran at much higher temperatures in order to give us the efficiency we want with the power we demand, the cost would be infinitely greater that it is today.
Look at a Formula 1 engine… it’s a 2.4ltr V8 that makes 900HP at 18000 RPM [21000 in 2007] but even that bad boy only gives 4miles per gallon of fuel lol
I would imagine that someone can build a ceramic motor that can take ridiculous high temps while running 14.7:1 A/F getting 50mpg and making 500HP… the problem would be the cost with such a technology.
Right now, I honestly believe we are doing as good as we can with the restraints placed upon us by cost. I could be wrong, so if I am, let me know.
Maybe direct injection motors can give us a slight boost, but even they can not run at empirical mixtures because they are still made of materials that can not take those high pressures and or temps. Plus, GM/Chrysler/Ford were never the models of cutting edge technology. Sure they made awesome cars that we all enjoy, but they develop their stuff from NASCAR, a sport so backwards they still use carbureted engines.
There is a reason you do not see GM racing a team in F1, aside for not having the money, they do not have the technology.
I agree with you on both counts, the engine efficiency, and morals of closing down GM...
Unfortunately, emotions should play no part in an executive decision of this caliber. Emotions are what prevent us from making a rational decision when ever they are taken into account.
Yes it would be terrible for those people to loose their jobs, and yes it’s perhaps an immoral thing to do if you can avoid it through altruistic measures. Sometimes you have to make a hard decision and tell thousands of people that due to their and their superiors’ greed they are now out of a job. You can not only blame the CEO of GM for his greed, you have to also blame the assembly line worker who collects upwards of $80/Hr when benefits are factored in. For too long they raped the company they worked for until this system could no longer support itself.
I have made a comparison from GM to the USSR before. Both entities ran on an ideal of Socialism, the Soviet Union had its Communist party, GM had the UAW. People refuse to accept it, but a worker’s union is a poorly veiled attempt at Communism in a Capitalist society.
When I was 16 and had my first job as a cashier at the local A&P I had to pay $5/check to the union even though as a part timer I would receive no befits from this union. I asked my boss if I could be excluded from having to pay the premium because I did not want to be part of any Union. To which the whole of the life long cashiers began yelling at me. That day in 1999 I said that unions will be the downfall of this country. 10 years later I may not be wrong, at least unions were the downfall of America’s greatest auto manufacturer.
I am not a finance of business major, but I have taken a lot of finance courses in college, mainly because I would get help from my mom and it would be an easy A. In all the exercises which had to do with similar situations I would always take the emotionally devoid road and eventually be successful at the cost of the average worker. I was always told that I was heart-less. Perhaps I am, but seeing the other extreme of this system while living in the Soviet Union, I can not fathom how anyone could ever make a decision for a socialist bail out, buy out of a company like GM or any other. It is a very slippery slope, one that will only cause you fall further back than you were before you went down that road.
As far as engine efficiency goes; yes I believe we can make an engine run on less fuel and still make power… we all know what A/F we run our cars at. Clearly if we ran at 14.7:1 we would use less fuel AND make more power… but we would have a nice melt down as well.
With today’s readily available materials, and the cost of those materials which would be able to sustain an engine that ran at much higher temperatures in order to give us the efficiency we want with the power we demand, the cost would be infinitely greater that it is today.
Look at a Formula 1 engine… it’s a 2.4ltr V8 that makes 900HP at 18000 RPM [21000 in 2007] but even that bad boy only gives 4miles per gallon of fuel lol
I would imagine that someone can build a ceramic motor that can take ridiculous high temps while running 14.7:1 A/F getting 50mpg and making 500HP… the problem would be the cost with such a technology.
Right now, I honestly believe we are doing as good as we can with the restraints placed upon us by cost. I could be wrong, so if I am, let me know.
Maybe direct injection motors can give us a slight boost, but even they can not run at empirical mixtures because they are still made of materials that can not take those high pressures and or temps. Plus, GM/Chrysler/Ford were never the models of cutting edge technology. Sure they made awesome cars that we all enjoy, but they develop their stuff from NASCAR, a sport so backwards they still use carbureted engines.
There is a reason you do not see GM racing a team in F1, aside for not having the money, they do not have the technology.
06-04-2009, 02:58 PM
#15
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
Barack "Barry" O'bama
Barack "Barry" O'bama
06-04-2009, 05:28 PM
#16
Confused ramblings!!!! I think one of the biggest public relations hurdles with modern engine technology moving forward is a popular misconception that high hp=high fuel consumption, in that people really do not understand that more hp actually = a higher efficiency. If we could clear this in the public mindset, there wouldn't be so much fear going around, and the conception shouldn't be that the goals of power and efficiency are mutually exclusive.
Then you have another side of the equation where people want everything without compromise and the manufacturer tries to oblige. Take our cars for example....
If you start with an ls1/m6 fbody, what's the first things you do to increase power? Add all of the intake mods...and a carefully selected exhaust, then tune it. Now you've gained probably around 20-40RWHP, and yet at the same time wound up with a car that should net around/maybe more than 30mpg highway when properly driven, an increase of anywhere from 1 to 3 mpg over what the car did from the factory. You traded a bit of noise reduction, and wound up with better power and economy at once.
Now really, has anyone does a lid and then complained that it's to loud? Has anyone done a good, full exhaust system and then said "you know, i just liked the car better when it was weaker, I think i'm going back".
Why were these things not done at the factory? The car would have had higher power and efficiency at the same time. It may have even lowered manufacturing costs given the weight/material savings on the car. Hell, maybe it would have even helped with their fuel economy averages. But the company was busy trying to "tame" the vehicle they had spent so much time researching.
These modifications, the first stuff that we usually do to the car, are basically fixing inefficiencies that GM designed into the car to begin with in order to try and please the wrong crowd. I mean.....who bought a camaro or firebird because they SPECIFICALLY DID NOT WANT to go fast?? Who bought these cars because they wanted to go quiet and unnoticed?
Now I don't think anyone looked at these cars and said "well, it's to quiet, I don't want to buy it." But.....How many of these cars do you think were sold just because someone walked onto the lot, saw a car with the SLP exhaust, heard it fire up once and go "holy ****, that thing sounds insane! i want that car!"
These cars can be legitimate 30+mpg highway cars, but at the newest are still 7 years old, built on extremely established and conventional technology. But misconceptions on the factory's part limited their efficiency, and misconceptions on the public's part limit the ability of manufacturers to continue the development of internal combustion engines in an unrestricted manner.
Sorry about the confused ramblings. I'm a youngun and all scatterbrained right now.
In conclusion, GM Ford and Chrysler should be making the MEAN cars MEANER! Loosening up and letting them have even some basic attitude fro the factory just might give the companies a head start, upping their CAFE averages by a few mpg to start.........
Then you have another side of the equation where people want everything without compromise and the manufacturer tries to oblige. Take our cars for example....
If you start with an ls1/m6 fbody, what's the first things you do to increase power? Add all of the intake mods...and a carefully selected exhaust, then tune it. Now you've gained probably around 20-40RWHP, and yet at the same time wound up with a car that should net around/maybe more than 30mpg highway when properly driven, an increase of anywhere from 1 to 3 mpg over what the car did from the factory. You traded a bit of noise reduction, and wound up with better power and economy at once.
Now really, has anyone does a lid and then complained that it's to loud? Has anyone done a good, full exhaust system and then said "you know, i just liked the car better when it was weaker, I think i'm going back".
Why were these things not done at the factory? The car would have had higher power and efficiency at the same time. It may have even lowered manufacturing costs given the weight/material savings on the car. Hell, maybe it would have even helped with their fuel economy averages. But the company was busy trying to "tame" the vehicle they had spent so much time researching.
These modifications, the first stuff that we usually do to the car, are basically fixing inefficiencies that GM designed into the car to begin with in order to try and please the wrong crowd. I mean.....who bought a camaro or firebird because they SPECIFICALLY DID NOT WANT to go fast?? Who bought these cars because they wanted to go quiet and unnoticed?
Now I don't think anyone looked at these cars and said "well, it's to quiet, I don't want to buy it." But.....How many of these cars do you think were sold just because someone walked onto the lot, saw a car with the SLP exhaust, heard it fire up once and go "holy ****, that thing sounds insane! i want that car!"
These cars can be legitimate 30+mpg highway cars, but at the newest are still 7 years old, built on extremely established and conventional technology. But misconceptions on the factory's part limited their efficiency, and misconceptions on the public's part limit the ability of manufacturers to continue the development of internal combustion engines in an unrestricted manner.
Sorry about the confused ramblings. I'm a youngun and all scatterbrained right now.
In conclusion, GM Ford and Chrysler should be making the MEAN cars MEANER! Loosening up and letting them have even some basic attitude fro the factory just might give the companies a head start, upping their CAFE averages by a few mpg to start.........
06-04-2009, 06:09 PM
#17
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dem's will *ensure* people buy cars!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. congressional Democrats are considering fast-tracking legislation to boost auto sales by offering Americans vouchers to trade in older, less fuel-efficient vehicles for ones that get better mileage, a congressional aide said on Thursday.
The legislation, known as "cash for clunkers," would be added to a pending war funding measure in Congress, but "no final decisions have been made" despite wide support for the voucher program, said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The war funding bill is a must-pass spending bill that is largely for U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. Adding the car program would speed the voucher measure's enactment into law.
Lawmakers have been trying to find new ways to spur auto sales as two of the big three U.S. automakers are in bankruptcy protection, Chrysler LLC and General Motors. President Barack Obama has urged Congress to approve a voucher program.
The Senate proposal would provide up to $4,500 in vouchers to car buyers who participate in the program.
New cars must get at least 22 miles per gallon, while sport utilities and pickups -- the biggest sellers for U.S. manufacturers -- must achieve at least 18 mpg. Vehicles priced at over $45,000 are not eligible.
Leading auto manufacturers also support the plan, a similar version of which has been working its way through the House of Representatives. The program would be in place for a year and proponents hope it would facilitate about 1 million new car purchases.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. congressional Democrats are considering fast-tracking legislation to boost auto sales by offering Americans vouchers to trade in older, less fuel-efficient vehicles for ones that get better mileage, a congressional aide said on Thursday.
The legislation, known as "cash for clunkers," would be added to a pending war funding measure in Congress, but "no final decisions have been made" despite wide support for the voucher program, said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The war funding bill is a must-pass spending bill that is largely for U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. Adding the car program would speed the voucher measure's enactment into law.
Lawmakers have been trying to find new ways to spur auto sales as two of the big three U.S. automakers are in bankruptcy protection, Chrysler LLC and General Motors. President Barack Obama has urged Congress to approve a voucher program.
The Senate proposal would provide up to $4,500 in vouchers to car buyers who participate in the program.
New cars must get at least 22 miles per gallon, while sport utilities and pickups -- the biggest sellers for U.S. manufacturers -- must achieve at least 18 mpg. Vehicles priced at over $45,000 are not eligible.
Leading auto manufacturers also support the plan, a similar version of which has been working its way through the House of Representatives. The program would be in place for a year and proponents hope it would facilitate about 1 million new car purchases.
06-05-2009, 06:35 AM
#18
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gloucester VA
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to love the way the goverment thinks. Whose going to pay for the vouchers..... us with higher taxes. The goverment can not work with any company that sells to public and be a success. Look at DMV, IRS, and Local Goverment, they all lack customer service. The words are not in there vocab because they can not lose there jobs. GM and others have a low profit margin because of Unions (you know the ones who put tons of money into Obama election, that the real reason for the bail out not the auto company), Taxes, and the EPA. Thats stuff other auto makers don't have to deal with in other countrys.
Mr. B for a guy who drives a Cobra me and you think alot alike.
Mr. B for a guy who drives a Cobra me and you think alot alike
.
06-05-2009, 08:13 AM
#19
11 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sutton, MA
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The government has a hard enough time running itself, how in the hell do people think it is going to run a car company?!?!?!
And where the hell in the constitution does it say that the president even has the authority to have the government take a stake in a company????
Hugo Chavez just said that if we keep going the way we are, Venezuela will be further to the right then us!!
And where the hell in the constitution does it say that the president even has the authority to have the government take a stake in a company????
Hugo Chavez just said that if we keep going the way we are, Venezuela will be further to the right then us!!