Obama sat in the 2013 GT500 and said this is what he needs.
#41
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?
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?
#44
I took his comment to mean the car would only appeal to juvenile irrational people. Basically I think he's saying that this car is useful for a high school kid but adults have no business in it. Kind of like saying "yeah this would be cool....if i was 16." I know I'm kind of making a jump here but politicians speak very indirectly and everything Obama has said and done leads me to believe that at no point in his life did he want a car like a gt500.
This reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis
#45
#46
True. And that's why I can't be president (as if that's the only reason LOL). I'd get in, go through the inauguration, get back to the White House and start the briefing process:
Staff member: "Oh and Mr President you do know that while in office you CANNOT drive a car, at all."
Me: "Ummm, wait, what?! Oooooh hell no, I'm outta here!"
#47
#48
For the love of ******* god, you need to read the papers or at least listen to some intelligent news for once. This **** gets old, FAST.
This was even posted on LS1tech a year ago and you still missed it. FORD TOOK MONEY....PERIOD
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...ilout-of-ford/
Also, if you're implying the GM used gov't money to fund the Volt you are again full of ****, Lutz just wrote an article in Forbes two days ago that clearly stated the car was developed before the bailout even occurred.
This was even posted on LS1tech a year ago and you still missed it. FORD TOOK MONEY....PERIOD
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...ilout-of-ford/
Also, if you're implying the GM used gov't money to fund the Volt you are again full of ****, Lutz just wrote an article in Forbes two days ago that clearly stated the car was developed before the bailout even occurred.
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.
#49
Congratulations, you listed 3 cars that get better than 40MPG on the highway. Now if we factor in the Malibu that gets 34, the Impala that gets 30, the V6 Camaro that gets 30, the Equinox that gets 33, then you only have a couple of cars holding it back. The Camaro SS and the line of trucks, the Vette gets in the upper 20's I believe.
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.
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.
#50
On The Tree
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wilmywood NC
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
The Canadian government gave money to GM also.
#51
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.
Whatever though... Each company is making vehicles worth looking into.
#53
On The Tree
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#54
TECH Fanatic
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.
#55
^ 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?
#56
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.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/for...n-on-bailouts/
http://useconomy.about.com/od/critic...to_bailout.htm
BMW and Toyota have also taken bailout money, so why bash GM?
#57
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (6)
^ 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.
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.
#58
TECH Fanatic
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.
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.
#59
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
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.
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.
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.
#60
Employed people increase tax dollars. Unemployed people drain tax dollars.