1ltcap

didn't someone already cover in another thread about how you'll not get on the street what the ratings are?

the new gt's are rated at 17/26, whereas the new camaros are rated at 16/24(both of those are 6 speed manuals)

fiesta and focus are both rated at 29/40mpg. the fusion hybrid is rated at 41/36.

does the volt top 40 only when it's on fire?

BOBS99SS

iTrader: (2)

why cant he drive, i mean who is going to yell at him lol

jimmy169

I can't tell if it's hate or blind stupidity. Probably a mix of both.

jimmy169

I think he was just making a joke.

This reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

J LT1 TA

iTrader: (6)

I'm pretty sure it's so he doesn't get shot/killed. There is plenty of crazy people out there that would like to see him dead.

1ltcap

i wouldn't have to worry about driving. someone'd shoot me on my first day. or possibly the second day, after they saw what i was doing to their pet programs....as in eliminating a shitload of the unnecessary ones.

1ltcap

he's in full campaign mode.

1ltcap

until i just read that, my understanding was that ford took money in the process of selling loans to the govt.
to be honest, i'm gonna need more than some guys blog to be convinced though.
i'm also under the impression...i thought i'd read it a couple years ago.....that gm thought of bringing production of the camaro back to the usa, but chose otherwise, in order to save canadian jobs. personally, i'd have screwed the canadian jobs, and brought the camaro home where it belongs.

It'llrun

You're kidding, right? The entire line of full size trucks doesn't average 20mpg, period. Only 1 version could, that being the HYBRID. I did NOT list 3 cars that get better than 40mpg (highway)... I can only find 2 possibilities: VOLT(only in full electric mode) and Cruze(42)...

The highest gasoline rating for ANY GM I could find is 42mpg HIGHWAY and NONE average 40 or more overall, period. According to GM and the EPA, that is.

The point I made is, however, that you stated the average is just much higher than it really is because you didn't take into consideration a single "city economy" rating before you made the statement. You based it all on only the typically higher mileage rating and for most people, the highway doesn't really make up the majority of their fuel use.

If you call 26mpg "upper 20's," okay then...

Including all versions of GM vehicles, the overall mileage rating is apparently somewhere around 24mpg, a FAR cry from 35, let alone 40 anything.

Why would you suppose GM bought in the Cruze? The SONIC? Why would you suppose GM is bringing the Chevrolet "Spark" from Europe, other than to improve overall economy? That car is something along the lines of the M-B "SMART CAR," which isn't exactly what the entire public is seeking. It's tiny, boxy, low on everything except hype, and coming to dealerships near you in 2012! Powered by a wildly exciting 1.2L I-4 with a 5spd manual, this car is sure to set sales goals on fire nation-wide! Probably a bit better than VOLT sales.

Think these combined ratings over: Camaro V6 =22, V8 =18.5(M6/S6 =A6) using regular gas.
Volt= 37mpg(premium gas) Elec= 94
Sonic 1.8L= 28.5mpg(S6/M5) 1.4L Ecotec turbo= 33mpg(6M)
Camaro V8 with premium fuel= 15mpg (S6/M6)

The above list includes models the EPA considers "Compact" vehicles.

Using only the above models, GM's average combined rating is 35.43mpg by my crude calculations... Ya think for even a moment that if we add in all the other GM's, that average will stay at 35? Ya think it'll climb to 40 plus? No, of course you don't. The reason is, it won't do either.

Adding in just 1 "full size" model, the Impala... 3.6L auto/manual combined rating= 22mpg, regular gasoline... Factor in E85 and its 16mpg combined, things only look worse.

Add in the "mid-size" Cruze, with it's top rating of 33 combined with the massive 1.4L and we see where things are heading.

Including other GM's, like the Regal and LaCrosse, with their combined ratings(excluding eASSIST) NOT reaching 25mpg and you just might get the point! Let's not even begin to add in pickup trucks here.

NOTE: I'm not saying GM overall economy is offensive, or even bad. I think it's pretty darned good considering that the government forces such nonsense for each vehicle built. "Nonsense" includes gadgets which add several hundred pounds and worse, mileage STEALING things, like emissions equipment and garbage fuels.

Still, the reality is, GM is nowhere NEAR a 40mpg average and it's not real close to 35 either. I'd honestly hope for an average of somewhere between 25 and 30, overall.

Heater

The Canadian government gave money to GM also.

It'llrun

HEY... slow down a bit now. I'm stil laughing out loud that people think the meager standard loan Ford got is remotely like the bailout GM and Dodge got. It was a loan, yes. It was not a bailout loan, however, and Ford didn't have to give stock shares to the government for the amount it got because Ford evidently had enough value to back the loan in a more standard way.

Whatever though... Each company is making vehicles worth looking into.

TORK?

iTrader: (27)

I believe the President is allowed to drive at Camp David.

I remember seeing video of Lyndon Johnson driving around there. Also, He would get in his boat and drive away from the SS.

2cat95ta

Ford took bailout money a long time before GM did
BMW and Toyota have also taken bailout money, so why bash GM?

Latch

iTrader: (8)

^ Looks like someone has been paying attention. When foreign car companies were first looking to build assembly plants in America, many Southern states gave BILLIONS to them in tax breaks and other benefits in order to attract them to their states. Why not bash the foreign car companies for taking taxpayer money to build their plants? Well simple, GM auto workers are union, and the right-wing hates unions because they fund Democrats.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

It'llrun

Don't just say it... show your proof. Anyone who's really and truly been paying attention already knows it wasn't a bailout like GM and Dodge got. Those two were claiming to be bankrupt and Ford was not in that position. All these companies have had loans in the past, but NEVER, did GM or Ford take a "bailout" loan till recently, when GM did. Chrysler, on the other hand, actually did take a bailout from the government, leading to the military using countless crappy Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth vehicles for nearly 2 decades. When the company has to fork over market shares, it's VERY different than showing equity valuable enough to get a loan. Had it not been for the bailout, GM and Chrysler both said they'd be bankrupt. Ford didn't do that because it was in a better position. Huge difference.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/for...n-on-bailouts/
http://useconomy.about.com/od/critic...to_bailout.htm

Instead of wasting the time to create some large post about actual facts, I'll say 2 things. #1, BMW and Toyota were not part of the "bailout" at all(it's a Congressional Bill and you can read it). #2 More importantly, most of us here aren't buying a new Toyota or BMW and their "competitive" cars are very expensive as compared to the "Big 3" offerings, so we're not really thinking of them much.

X-ray

iTrader: (6)

Getting a tax break is taking taxpayer money? Hahahaha, you're just pissed because the Japanese can run their car companies better than GM. Not to mention those assembly plants create lots of jobs and revenue for the state, so giving them a tax break to attract them is quite logical.

And Ford took out loans which they will pay back. The government bought shares of GM which will never be worth enough for the taxpayers to profit, or even break even on the GM bailout, which means GM actually took taxpayer money. That's quite a bit different than a loan.

Latch

iTrader: (8)

Arguing over which giant corporation took public money or not is pretty pointless. They ALL have been on the government tit at some point or another, whether it's subsidies, loans, bailouts, whatever. Capitalism in America is not the so-called "free market" that people love to think it is, it's highly subsidized by the government, hell it was taxpayer funded investment that allows us to be using computers and the Internet right now.

If people are so concerned about businesses taking taxpayer dollars then among other things they'll have to stop buying gas (oil subsidies) and stop buying food (farm subsidies). Good luck with that boycott, I imagine it'll last until the next time you're hungry and go drive to get food.

Latch

iTrader: (8)

A tax break is more money in your pocket, less money in the government's pocket. Fiscally it is identical to a welfare payment, we just don't call it welfare because... well that's what poor people get right?

I'm not out to defend GM and bash the Japanese. GM was mismanaged for a long time no doubt about that. But in your criticism of GM, you need to be fair. Part of the reason GM went broke was paying for health care and retirement. Auto workers in Germany and Japan have their health care paid for by their governments, which takes a huge burden off of the businesses. In addition they fewer retired workers to pay pensions too.

And as far as the states giving tax breaks in order to create jobs and generate revenue, yes it absolutely makes sense. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, to the contrary, it's the right thing to do. But let's not pretend that GM and Chrysler are Obama's evil socialized car companies and Ford and the foreign companies are perfectly fine capitalist enterprises.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

True.


Which also saved (and more recently, even created) lots of jobs as well, let's not overlook that part.
Employed people increase tax dollars. Unemployed people drain tax dollars.