Ford's CEO Mulally says internal combustion engines are #1 priority...

[chess9]

I hope all you fanbois for the auto industry are right. Maybe all of this will be yesterday's news in 6 months. On the other hand, I haven't seen any pigs go by my window yet....

-Robert

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: marincounty
That's not true. Honda stepped up with the CVCC engine and announced it could meet proposed federal emissions regulations. This forced the other manufacturers to step up and meet the same requirements.

That's just plain false. Honda developed CVCC to avoid the expense and hassle of having to use catalytic converters. In many ways, CVCC can be considered worse since it allowed the use of leaded fuel (and thereby the emission of lead into the air via vehicle exhaust) to continue because it didn't require unleaded fuel as cars with catalytic converters do.

Originally posted by: marincounty
GM fought emissions regulations in the '70's, with GM chairman Roger Smith saying that automobiles were not a significant contributor to air pollution.

I'm shocked, shocked that a company would fight against regulations that would increase the cost of its products without adding any features that buyers actually demanded.

Originally posted by: marincounty
Detroit has similarly fought airbags and any other safety or smog reduction plan.
The air pressure sensor requirement-is BS, pushed by govt safety nazis.

Detroit pioneered airbags, just look up GM's ACRS. No-one bought them and they discontinued them because the market did not demand them. As far as fighting the other regulations, see my response above.

ZV

The difference is, the Japanese manufacturers didn't bitch about emissions regulations, they engineered a way to meet them. Detroit lobbied against the regulations and claimed there wasn't a problem.

Text
Licensing agreements were eventually signed with Ford, Chrysler, and Isuzu, and during that period Honda R&D was in constant receipt of visitors from auto companies around the world.
The EPA held a public hearing on March 19, 1973, in Washington, D.C., to hear the testimony of automakers on whether to implement the 1970 Clean Air Act as scheduled. At the hearing, the only automakers who testified that they could meet the 1975 regulations were Honda and Toyo Industries (now Mazda).
?At the hearing,? recalled Date, ?we were asked, ?Can Honda really produce cars that meet the 1975 requirements? And if so, can Honda supply CVCC engines to automakers such as GM?? But honestly, we had our hands full just taking care of Honda?s business. We didn?t have the capacity to supply products to a company the size of GM. It was a very frustrating experience.?
The demands were simply too much for the industry as a whole. So, as a result of the hearing, it was decided that implementation of the Clean Air Act would be postponed.

That is because in 1975 Honda made only itsy bitsy class vehicles.

How can moped meet the 2100 vehicle emmision requirements and you can't GM? Can you moped supply GM with all the engines to meet those requirements? Sure, we'll power your mini-van with a chain saw motor.

Honda also had a completely clean sheet. No existing assembly lines. No existing engines for the US market. Honda was literally starting completely fresh. The US auto makers, however, had massive fixed investment in current engine plants, would face massive retooling costs, etc. Honda, having no production capacity to begin with, had already budgeted the plant and tooling costs whereas established automakers had not.

ZV

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: marincounty
That's not true. Honda stepped up with the CVCC engine and announced it could meet proposed federal emissions regulations. This forced the other manufacturers to step up and meet the same requirements.

That's just plain false. Honda developed CVCC to avoid the expense and hassle of having to use catalytic converters. In many ways, CVCC can be considered worse since it allowed the use of leaded fuel (and thereby the emission of lead into the air via vehicle exhaust) to continue because it didn't require unleaded fuel as cars with catalytic converters do.

Originally posted by: marincounty
GM fought emissions regulations in the '70's, with GM chairman Roger Smith saying that automobiles were not a significant contributor to air pollution.

I'm shocked, shocked that a company would fight against regulations that would increase the cost of its products without adding any features that buyers actually demanded.

Originally posted by: marincounty
Detroit has similarly fought airbags and any other safety or smog reduction plan.
The air pressure sensor requirement-is BS, pushed by govt safety nazis.

Detroit pioneered airbags, just look up GM's ACRS. No-one bought them and they discontinued them because the market did not demand them. As far as fighting the other regulations, see my response above.

ZV

The difference is, the Japanese manufacturers didn't bitch about emissions regulations, they engineered a way to meet them. Detroit lobbied against the regulations and claimed there wasn't a problem.

Text
Licensing agreements were eventually signed with Ford, Chrysler, and Isuzu, and during that period Honda R&D was in constant receipt of visitors from auto companies around the world.
The EPA held a public hearing on March 19, 1973, in Washington, D.C., to hear the testimony of automakers on whether to implement the 1970 Clean Air Act as scheduled. At the hearing, the only automakers who testified that they could meet the 1975 regulations were Honda and Toyo Industries (now Mazda).
?At the hearing,? recalled Date, ?we were asked, ?Can Honda really produce cars that meet the 1975 requirements? And if so, can Honda supply CVCC engines to automakers such as GM?? But honestly, we had our hands full just taking care of Honda?s business. We didn?t have the capacity to supply products to a company the size of GM. It was a very frustrating experience.?
The demands were simply too much for the industry as a whole. So, as a result of the hearing, it was decided that implementation of the Clean Air Act would be postponed.

That is because in 1975 Honda made only itsy bitsy class vehicles.

How can moped meet the 2100 vehicle emmision requirements and you can't GM? Can you moped supply GM with all the engines to meet those requirements? Sure, we'll power your mini-van with a chain saw motor.

Honda also had a completely clean sheet. No existing assembly lines. No existing engines for the US market. Honda was literally starting completely fresh. The US auto makers, however, had massive fixed investment in current engine plants, would face massive retooling costs, etc. Honda, having no production capacity to begin with, had already budgeted the plant and tooling costs whereas established automakers had not.

ZV

"Licensing agreements were eventually signed with Ford, Chrysler, and Isuzu, and during that period Honda R&D was in constant receipt of visitors from auto companies around the
world."
GM could have licensed the technology from Honda, but instead decided to lobby,
Even more pathetic, they allowed a new company to come in and eat their lunch.
Years of production experience mean nothing? Honda had to develop all of this from scratch and yet beat GM?

Is there any doubt that without the Japanese competition Detroit would still be making
huge, polluting, gas-guzzling POS?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Is there any doubt that without the Japanese competition Detroit would still be making
huge, polluting, gas-guzzling POS?

Not only is their doubt, there is certainty that the assumption is wrong. Then again, given your stance on clean diesel, I suppose it's futile to expect you to have any understanding of the automotive industry at all.

ZV

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: marincounty
Is there any doubt that without the Japanese competition Detroit would still be making
huge, polluting, gas-guzzling POS?

Not only is their doubt, there is certainty that the assumption is wrong. Then again, given your stance on clean diesel, I suppose it's futile to expect you to have any understanding of the automotive industry at all.

ZV

Given your stance on polluting diesels, its no wonder you are anti-japanese cars, with their emphasis on low emissions.
"Clean diesel" is a joke, similar to "Clean Coal".

It's not my understanding of the auto industry that is in question. The question is does the management of the big three understand the auto industry?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Stupid fckstick says Ford is going to focus on combustion engines first and THEN Hybrids? Big NO vote to helping these POS's out. Especially when they HAVE the hybrid technology to go 30 miles on a regular charge with their PHEV's.

From the 2008 Washington Auto Show (wiki - PHEV):

Also on display at the show is a Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) alongside the production Escape Hybrid. The plug-in research vehicle uses high voltage, lithium-ion batteries and can travel up to 30 miles (48 km) on battery power alone before switching to full hybrid mode, delivering the equivalent of up to 120 miles per US gallon (2.0 L/100 km/140 mpg-imp) for far fewer trips to the gas station.

Ford is collaborating with Southern California Edison in a unique partnership to advance the commercialization of PHEVs. This is part of Ford?s sustainability strategy, which also includes EcoBoost engine technology, announced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines????? Bullsh*t. Utter bullsh*t IMO. What do you guys think.

Because that technology is expensive and crappy?