General motor crisis

They are greedy and get kick backs for oil companies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ditto @ Oct 6 2006, 02:57 PM) [snapback]329155[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. Greedy and heads up their tailpipes.

 

To add to Tony's description:

hydrogen
the way this works in cars is actually pretty neat - just pop in the fuel cell and you're off. There are many benifits to it, as well (such as no need for batteries), but there are drawbacks (for example, they do very poorly in cold weather). As Tony said, producing hydrogen solely for the sake of producing it is rather wasteful when it comes to energy. However, there are some industries (can't remember what) that produce hydrogen as an unwanted by-product. There's a company in Pittsburgh that is producing hydrogen power plants for these companies, the idea being that they can produce all or most of their energy off this by-product. it's a plus for industrial hydrogen, but doesn't help auto hydrogen.

Gas Guzzlers
Everyone asks why Detroit makes all these guzzlers while toyota doesn't. It's actually rather simple... rewind the earth back 10-15 years - Guzzlers were all the rage. The bigger the SUV, the better. Gas was cheep back then. Large cars implied weath, prestige, etc. Fast forward to today, and you see that, at the time, Detroit had made the winning bet. Now, it doesn't look so hot, and Toyota, etc seems to be making the winning bet with Hybrids. If we fast forward another 10 years, it may seem that detroit made the winning bet with hydrogen and toyota's lagging behind with their hybrids.

The basic difference between the companies is one of philosophy. Toyota tries to sell cars by offering something that is effecient and practicle (for the most part). Detroit tries to sell cars by appealing to your ego and upselling every feature imaginable. Both strategies work, one just works better in different environments.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 9 2006, 02:57 PM) [snapback]330140[/snapback]</div>

Yup, and back then there was a mad scramble by luxury automobile manufacturers to incorporate SUVs into their lineup because the SUVs sold by the American manufacturers were cutting deeply into the luxury car market. People were spending their $30,000 to $50,000 on SUVs instead of on luxury sedans and the luxury manufacturers were hurting big time.

That's why just about every automaker that sells in the US has SUVs in their vehicle lineup. Even Porsche has an SUV these days.

At the time, it was the foreign manufacturers that had been caught with their pants down. Now it's the US automaker's turn.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 9 2006, 02:57 PM) [snapback]330140[/snapback]</div>

Just FYI... Toyota makes some of the biggest and most obscene guzzlers around.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Oct 9 2006, 04:00 PM) [snapback]330185[/snapback]</div>

I picture an H2 with a bunch of "support the troops" magnets when I think of obscene gas guzzlers, now that Ford stopped production on the Excursion, what did you have in mind in the Toyota line?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Oct 9 2006, 04:31 PM) [snapback]330200[/snapback]</div>

Which is it.. the Sequioa or the 4-Runner that is a guzzler? Or is it both?

What's the name of that big Lexus, ya know, the one that looks like a tank?

Oh... maybe the LX 470... it does manage somewhere around 14MPG combined.

Don't kid yourself... Toyota makes guzzlers, just like they all do (well, okay... not Honda).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Oct 9 2006, 04:34 PM) [snapback]330201[/snapback]</div>

Can you say "Pilot"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(withersea @ Oct 9 2006, 04:44 PM) [snapback]330205[/snapback]</div>

Pilot... 18/24MPG.

LX470... 13/17MPG.

There's a big difference. Surely you see that?

 

I actually agree with Johnnycat this time... have you see their new FJ Cruiser (2WD 18/22mpg)? How about the Sequioa (2WD V6, 18/22mpg), the 4-Runner (2WD V6 18/22), the Land Cruser (13/17), the Lexus GX (15/19) ,or the Lexus LX (13/17)?

Those are all EPA estimates, you know how accurate they are when it comes to real world mileage. My love for the Prius doesn't blind me from the fact that Toyota also makes gas guzzlers like most other car manufacturers do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Oct 9 2006, 04:34 PM) [snapback]330201[/snapback]</div>

Good point. My Tundra gets 18 for most of my usage, so when I was talking to my neighbor about his Chevy 2500 4x4, that gets 12, I feel 66% less guilt about driving a V8.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Oct 9 2006, 05:01 PM) [snapback]330217[/snapback]</div>

It's kinda cute that you think the two trucks are in the same league. One is soft and a Toy... one is a Silverado 2500. Granted not a lot of people use the silverado as it's meant to be used... but it's a workhorse. Not a toy.

 

First, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and accuracy of the posts above. Second, according to an article I read recently in the New Yorker GM has a legacy cost of about $1,500 per vehicle. According to the New Yorker article, in the 1940's GM devised a pension plan where the costs of pensions were borne by the company and not the industry, which was the union’s idea that first surfaced in Dayton, OH. Historically, GM has had some stellar management decisions but today the bad management decisions are giving them the problems. In the past GM could provide inferior products to a non-critical customer. For the most part those days are gone and the "We have always done it that way" culture of GM needs to change or the company will ultimately fail. A perfect example of the inferior products is the hybrid assist products that GM is touting as hybrids.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Oct 9 2006, 04:51 PM) [snapback]330208[/snapback]</div>

Have you been shorting Toyota stock, or what is your deal with the company?

I'll agree, Toyota got sucked (no pun intended) into the large vehicle race..... It seems they entered too late, and that is why great deals abound for large Toyotas on lots across the country. But they never forgot what got them there, the sedan. Until 1 of the big 3 can make a car that rivals the Accord or the Camry, they will be screwed. The sedan and not the Ford f-150 is where the future will lay for all automakers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Oct 9 2006, 02:01 PM) [snapback]330217[/snapback]</div>

You are deluding yourself. <_<
Shouldn't you be feeling 1/3 less guilt? :huh:

If your neighbor should be feeling 100% guilt at 12 MPG, you with your 1/3rd better mileage could attest to 1/3 less guilt.

In reality, shouldn't everyone* who drives an ICE feel 100% guilt.

* Prius Smugness is not 100% guilt free.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 9 2006, 06:04 PM) [snapback]330255[/snapback]</div>

We put about 15K / yr on our Prius and less than half that on the Tundra, so we are averaging out somewhere in the middle. Could I be doing better? No doubt about it.

 

I'll be as concise as I can be.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AlbertoC67 @ Oct 6 2006, 01:53 PM) [snapback]329153[/snapback]</div>

The only folks who think that GM has the best H2 technology is GM. That FC tech is about the only modern tech that they've been pushing for the last ten years really says it all. GM isn't producing anything that lowers our energy consumption TODAY. They have been banking on (in theory) making something that'll help us in 20 or 30 years.

Everybody who's done much automotive biz in the US has built guzzlers. GM, Ford, Toyota, BMW, VW, Mercedes, and to a lesser extent, Honda. GM could have taken the tiller and started the laborious process of turning that lumbering ship around 10 years ago when they had the EV edge on EVERYBODY. They were 4th and goal on the 1 yard line. They punted.

GM has simply been betting on the status quo for way too long. It was just a few short years ago when they claimed that American drivers didn't want hybrids. What is it they say now? They'll be at the forefront of PHEV technology? Gosh, will this take away from the FCV research?

And Tony: It takes WAY more than 3x the energy to make H2 than what you'll get back out at the wheels of a FCV. In fact it takes between 3-4x as much energy to run a FCV as it does to run a battery EV... which is obviously a lossy system as well.

 

They don't call it 'General Mismanagement' for nothing.

GM's problems, in my opinon, stem from their legacy labor costs, combined with poor brand management, combined with a loss of focus on the core business: selling automobiles (Ford, too).

This is a one-two-three punch which, amazingly, they've inflicted upon themselves (with generous assistance from the UAW).