Quote:
Originally Posted by laconic1
First of all GM began the Insight program because California had legislated that by 2002 2% of all vehicles sold by a manufacturer be emission free. Ultimately the technology simply was not ready to make a no compromises vehicle that could be sold at a price point consumers could afford.
|
Not according to the leasing rates. The market was more than ready for electric cars, as was demonstrated clearly by the waiting list for EV1s. People fought tooth and nail to keep their leased EV1s when the lease was up. Consumer demand was very high, of that there is no doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laconic1
Even now the battery technology isn't ready yet. By the late 90's when it became evident no manufacturer, not even Toyota, could meet the mandate California rescinded it.
|
The EV1 had a range of 160 miles as of 1996, and that didn't even represent the best battery technology at the time. Home-made electric vehicles have been on the road since the 1970s, and some of them have ranges that exceed most fossil fuel-burning vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laconic1
As far as ethanol the reason that so many GM vehicles can run on is that they get a credit on meeting CAFE standards on every vehicle that is E85 capable. The CAFE credit was something the corn industry lobbied for. Building in E85 capability costs virtually nothing, just some changes in fuel tank , fuel line and injector materials so they are not corroded by the ethanol, and software changes. GM started building in the capability in around '01 or '02 but didn't give a shit about it until a couple of years ago when Toyota starting winning the PR war with the Prius and E85 was all GM had to fight back with. It was simply done so it would be easier to meet government standards, not out of any benevolence towards the farming industry.
|
Who said anything about benevolence? The oil industry has great influence both in government and in the market, and they throw their weight around often. The reason that big oil has been so successful, though, is an unwillingness to stand up to them. Ethanol is the same phenomena, only it's the corn industry that's throwing it's weight around. And once again, GM folds under pressure instead of investing in hybrid technology, which even then was obviously the better investment.
I know it seems like only recently that the truth about corn ethanol has come out, but the information has been out there since day one. It only takes one person to ask, "Does it put out more energy than we have to put in to produce it?" For hybrids, that's a yes. For ethanol, that's a no by a factor of 6.
GM lost the PR war because they are still, today, making 9MPG behemoths. I can go and buy a brand new H2 around the corner this afternoon. This is something they should have phased out 4 or 5 years ago in favor of hybrid diesels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laconic1
Certainly the Big 3 have made some mistakes in the past but they have made progress. The last UAW contract was a big improvement in improving their cost structure. I don't know what the answer is, if they declare bankruptcy the taxpayers will still be left holding the bag in the form of pensions being transferred to the PBGC. Plus the ripple effect of suppliers going under would mean that even the import brands would have a difficult, if not impossible job of building cars here.
|
I used to feel really bad for auto industry workers in the US. At some point, though, you have to ask, "We've all known for years that your entire industry was on the edge of collapse, did you even put your resume on Monster.com?" There should be at least
some personal responsibility. I've been feeling bad for them for like 15 years now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laconic1
The only Toyota plant that is unionized is the NUMMI plant they operate with GM in Northern California. I'm not aware of any Honda, Subaru, Nissan, or any other import manufacturer plants in the U.S. that are unionized. Part of the reason the imports built their plants in the south was to keep the unions out. I don't have the time right now to link to all the sources, but it would be false to say union representation at the import brands is a fraction of what it is at the domestics.
|
I may have been misinformed about unionization at foreign auto manufacturing plants here in the US.
Regardless, there's no reason at all to assume that unions caused the demise of the big three. The unions have made a great deal of concessions recently, including pay decreases ($25.65 an hour really is a small salary for an auto worker).
Maybe I should ask this: did AIG have an union? Did Bear Sterns?