GM cancels future RWD vehicles
04-11-2007, 07:46 AM
#21
Originally Posted by GT_2003,Apr 11 2007, 09:23 AM
I'm not sure where some of you are coming up with extravagant conspiracy theories. So what if Toyota and Honda "aren't bitching." They don't have the same product line, and aren't US companies, so are less affected by US legislation. They also sell their souls for a piece of the US auto market, and the last thing they would ever do is voice dissent - they can't afford it. But Bob Lutz has every right to say what he thinks, and how government policy affects his business. If you disagree, go start your own car company and show him wrong :/ Arguing with his numbers is just being clueless.
04-11-2007, 08:04 AM
#22
Registered User
Originally Posted by GT_2003,Apr 11 2007, 10:23 AM
They also sell their souls for a piece of the US auto market, and the last thing they would ever do is voice dissent - they can't afford it. But Bob Lutz has every right to say what he thinks, and how government policy affects his business. If you disagree, go start your own car company and show him wrong :/ Arguing with his numbers is just being clueless.
As for Bob Lutz, what numbers are we talking here, his glory years with Chrysler, or today?
04-11-2007, 08:06 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: In the heart of the USSA!
Posts: 7,029
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
On top of that, the Supreme Court ruled last week that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide expelled by cars, a gas that contributes to global warming.
I guess that means that anyone who doesn't agree with what many believe cause global warming have to shut up now...
04-11-2007, 09:37 AM
#24
Originally Posted by bjohnston,Apr 11 2007, 09:46 AM
There are so many technologies available to achieve better fuel economy. Direct injection. Six-speed + transmissions. Regenerative braking. Electric accessories. Uprated electrical systems. Starters that automatically restart the engine after a stop. Cylinder deactivation at cruise. Weight reduction! All of these technologies are readily available now at reasonable costs. Lutz's comments reveal a mentality stuck in the 1970s. We need to improve fuel economy now. I don't think there can be any reasonable debate concerning whether boosting fuel economy/reducing consumption will improve both the environment and our geopolitical independence. The reality, however, is that environmental friendliness does not sell in large quantities in the market place. That being said, manufacturers have little incentive to address the issue, which is why legislation is necessary.
04-11-2007, 09:40 AM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Modjeska Canyon, CA
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here, and you can't build small cars here at a profit," Lutz said, explaining that foreign-made cars would count toward the automaker's import fleet, and its domestic fleet is where GM needs help.
Where's the logic in that? If GM wanted to improve its CAFE numbers by selling rebadged Toyotas that would still have the desired effect of improving the average economy of the cars on the road.
04-11-2007, 10:01 AM
#27
Registered User
I do agree with Lutz about how hybrids may not make sense if they cost too much and/or the company can't make a profit on them b/c they have too much cost built in (similar to the EV-1). I mean they could probably make a car that gets 100 mpg but if it's tiny like the Insight or not practical and costs too much they won't sell enough to turn a profit.
But Honda has shown with the Fit and Civic that it's possible to make a car that can get 30/40 mpg or so that people will buy and that don't have to rely on expensive technology, but rather making the overall small car fun and well built and not overly expensive. I think GM can have been studying the Civic, Corolla, Accord (etc..) for the last 30 years so they should have a clue in hell that is can be done and how.
But Honda has shown with the Fit and Civic that it's possible to make a car that can get 30/40 mpg or so that people will buy and that don't have to rely on expensive technology, but rather making the overall small car fun and well built and not overly expensive. I think GM can have been studying the Civic, Corolla, Accord (etc..) for the last 30 years so they should have a clue in hell that is can be done and how.
04-11-2007, 10:14 AM
#29
Registered User
Originally Posted by Traveler,Apr 11 2007, 12:40 PM
Where's the logic in that? If GM wanted to improve its CAFE numbers by selling rebadged Toyotas that would still have the desired effect of improving the average economy of the cars on the road.
04-11-2007, 10:14 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way to spit out the anti-gm rhetoric. What he is bitching about is the amount of money that has already been invested in the new RWD platform that is supposedly supposed to bring GM back in the game to people who normally wouldn't like this product. In other words, he answered the #1 thing you learn in a marketing class when learning about designing new products - build what the consumers want. So his company invested a crapton of money into RWD platforms to differentiate themselves from companies like Honda and Toyota who own the FWD market, which is a very sound strategy. Now his whole entire company saving strategy is destroyed and that is why he is pissed, not to mention money is already tight.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been on this board and numerous amounts of non-gm fans said they would buy Impala's and or Cobalt's if they were RWD. Lutz did what a large portion of the market wanted, and now he is paying for it, and thats why he is pissed. I would be too.
An example would be if Honda was supposed to boost engine natural aspirated engine horsepower by 30% in several years to each of their cars. This would cause huge financing problems, forcing R&D to kick it into high gear to research new ways of engineering this problem, when Honda has spent its entire career building mild horsepower cars with great fuel economy. Yeah, its not the most realistic or legitimate example but it shows that when you invest a ton of money in a certain area and the government tells you we are changing the standards, and then you learn you just wasted a ton of money, well you get pissed. Now all that money is a sunk cost, and you will never see it again. And dont knock him for bitching, this will really affect the entire market in terms of cost, so expect other companies to suffer as well.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been on this board and numerous amounts of non-gm fans said they would buy Impala's and or Cobalt's if they were RWD. Lutz did what a large portion of the market wanted, and now he is paying for it, and thats why he is pissed. I would be too.
An example would be if Honda was supposed to boost engine natural aspirated engine horsepower by 30% in several years to each of their cars. This would cause huge financing problems, forcing R&D to kick it into high gear to research new ways of engineering this problem, when Honda has spent its entire career building mild horsepower cars with great fuel economy. Yeah, its not the most realistic or legitimate example but it shows that when you invest a ton of money in a certain area and the government tells you we are changing the standards, and then you learn you just wasted a ton of money, well you get pissed. Now all that money is a sunk cost, and you will never see it again. And dont knock him for bitching, this will really affect the entire market in terms of cost, so expect other companies to suffer as well.