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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: senseamp
These microprocessor comparisons are completely asinine to begin with, unless you are willing to have the size of cars decrease in half every 2 years, as has been happening with CMOS chips with process shrinks. So yeah, you can actually have this "processor" car that you are dreaming about that is orders of magnitude cheaper and more economical than a car of 30 years ago, it's called HotWheels.

I agree that the processor analogy is a bit unfair, but technological advances have been made in almost all viable businesses. You aren't saying the auto companies couldn't have done a hell of a lot more. People don't want to accept the truth-our auto industry IS a dinosaur.

-Robert

Huh? Have you compared cars from 30 years ago to modern cars technologically?
I am sure you could have done more with your life too, but let's not make perfect the enemy of good.


The auto industry spent 50 years FIGHTING GOOD. They FOUGHT safety, fuel economy, green initiatives. This would be like me arguing that OJ should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. :(

-Robert
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I'll bet the vast majority of you that have your panties in a knot over this wouldn't be caught dead in Detroit iron anyway.

Quit whining and crying and go bash the imports for not meeting your green criteria. It's looking very much like the domestics are going to be out of business soon. So practice up on the lame arguments you'll use against the imports when that day comes.

Like that would ever happen. :roll:
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: senseamp
These microprocessor comparisons are completely asinine to begin with, unless you are willing to have the size of cars decrease in half every 2 years, as has been happening with CMOS chips with process shrinks. So yeah, you can actually have this "processor" car that you are dreaming about that is orders of magnitude cheaper and more economical than a car of 30 years ago, it's called HotWheels.

I agree that the processor analogy is a bit unfair, but technological advances have been made in almost all viable businesses. You aren't saying the auto companies couldn't have done a hell of a lot more. People don't want to accept the truth-our auto industry IS a dinosaur.

-Robert

Huh? Have you compared cars from 30 years ago to modern cars technologically?
I am sure you could have done more with your life too, but let's not make perfect the enemy of good.


The auto industry spent 50 years FIGHTING GOOD. They FOUGHT safety, fuel economy, green initiatives. This would be like me arguing that OJ should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. :(

The Japanese fought those just as hard.

Robert - you seem willing to grasp at any straw you can to put down our auto-industry. We don't embrace technology? MP3 players, in dash navigation, OnStar, hands free cellphones, Ford Sync, Ford Programmable Key technology, 16 speaker HD radio systems. In dash CD / MP3 multidisc changers, traction control, stability control, ABS, side and rear curtain airbags. Backup warning. Backup cameras. Digital temperature control. Adapative cruise control. Capless gascap systems. Variable shock absorbers. Ford Quiet steel. Interior highlight lighting. Selectable Dashboard color lighting. Stow-n'-go. Onboard DVD players and entertainment systems. Vista roof. Variable steering assist. Air pressure tire sensors. Oil cleanliness sensors.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
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.

Profit. You can't sell something that is too expensive for people to purchase.
1) When you're pleading for a government handout, only a moron would say they're prioritizing their current technology over their new.

2) Chinese company is releasing a full electric plug-in for $22,000 with a 68.5 mile range. Why can't our government subsidize THAT instead of Ford's bullsht? Link.

It's a fcking outrage that China is beating us to the punch on this, while we have dipsht CEO's like Ford's talking about prioritizing combustion engine efficiency. That money should be going to hybrid technology...

The key to successful reading comprehension lies in the details. Your article:

A Chinese company best-known for making cellphone batteries says it is on the verge of launching the country's first mass-produced electric car and may also have lined up its first large purchase order.

In an interview, BYD Co. Chairman Wang Chuanfu said the car, known as the F3DM, will be on sale in China by the end of November, pending government approval. Mr. Wang declined to provide a sales target or price range for the new electric car but said in Beijing earlier this year that the vehicle could carry a price tag of about 150,000 yuan ($22,000) and is capable of going as far as 110 kilometers on electricity when fully charged.

Furthermore, I simply DON'T BELIEVE Mr. Chuanfu's claims about the car's range.

SP33Demon, I'll bet you or anyone else here $100 (minimum) RIGHT NOW, to be held by a mutually agreed upon third party by paypal, that the car will NOT cost $22,000, will NOT go 68 plus miles reliably and repeatedly without a recharge as measured by an independently overseen and verified testing agency, and will probably not even go on sale this month (November.)

Any takers? Money talks, bullshit walks.
Um, BYD's F6DM was already unveiled at the North American International Auto Show.
The BYD F6DM is a planned plug-in hybrid mid-size sedan announced for production in the second half of 2008. The fully electric version is named F6e. The manufacturer, Chinese automaker BYD Auto, is owned by BYD Company Limited, China's largest mobile phone battery maker.

The F6DM was introduced at the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

Based on the BYD F6, the F6DM uses lithium iron phosphate battery, a type of li-ion battery under trade name "Ferrous"[1], that can be recharged to 70 percent of capacity in 10 minutes.[2] Iron-Phosphate Lithium-Ion batteries are much safer than Cobalt-Oxide Lithium-Ion batteries [1], which were the type of batteries exploding in laptops and portable devices recently. [2]

BYD claims that a test model can travel 60 miles on electric power before the gasoline engine will be needed, and that the battery can be fully recharged from an outlet in nine hours.[3]

MidAmerican Energy is discussing with BYD how to set up a U.S. dealer network for the F6DM[4].
I'll take your bet if you extend the release date to before 3Q 2009. That is still CONSIDERABLY faster than any American auto company has promised (2011 on the Chevy Volt).

Also, RE: my last bolded item, how crazy would it be if BYD released their fully electric car in the US before Chevy? Talk about a huge slap in the face. ;)

 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
Did you remember about how China's SUV's were supposed to be coming over in boatloads a couple yrs ago?
Basically they failed the crash tests so badly they pretty much went up in flames just going through the testing.
I would expect nothing less from their electric cars. Tata in India builds some cheap efficient cars too, , , , , out of fiberglass

NA spends about the same on R&D as Japan does as a percentage of their business, any company when it gets to a certain size bogs down in burocracy and overhead
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: desy
Did you remember about how China's SUV's were supposed to be coming over in boatloads a couple yrs ago?
Basically they failed the crash tests so badly they pretty much went up in flames just going through the testing.
I would expect nothing less from their electric cars. Tata in India builds some cheap efficient cars too, , , , , out of fiberglass

NA spends about the same on R&D as Japan does as a percentage of their buisiness, any company when it gets to a certain size bogs down in burocracy and overhead
Well just the fact that BYD is in talks with the US to release this car means that it's probably going to be released soon in China. It also means that they're willing to invest in safety in order to sell it here, so make of that what you may. RE: China's past SUV's, the landscape has changed considerably and keep in mind that BYD is also China's largest cellphone battery maker so they hold considerable clout in this market. But yeah, only time will tell. /crystal ball

 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Darwin333
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Look at what Ford's CEO said today:

Roberts: General Motors has got an electric car coming out. It's not going to come out until 2010, 2011. Does Ford have a fully plug-in hybrid vehicle coming?

Mulally: We are working on that also, but let me just share with you the Ford plan about that. Our No. 1 priority is to improve the internal combustion engine, and that's why the turbocharging, the direct fuel injection, we get a 20 percent improvement in fuel mileage and a 15 percent reduction in CO2, but we get that across all of the engines, across all the vehicles. Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

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.
Obama said step number 1 is conservation. This direction was probably decided on years ago. At this time, there is no reason to believe that the supply side of the market for crude is not going to control what direction we go short term.


Think again about what you are suggesting also. Trading gasoline use for coal use. What would be the point?

We have a shitton of our own coal?
Well, there you go, lets do it. Can it compete with oil?
This an interesting point.
Look who owns most of the world's coal (hint: US at 27%)? In the US, I'd say it could definitely compete with oil.

Other countries, who knows? But it sure as hell makes sense for us to go 100% electric, if in the least it frees us from OPEC a little.

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Pulsar
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: senseamp
These microprocessor comparisons are completely asinine to begin with, unless you are willing to have the size of cars decrease in half every 2 years, as has been happening with CMOS chips with process shrinks. So yeah, you can actually have this "processor" car that you are dreaming about that is orders of magnitude cheaper and more economical than a car of 30 years ago, it's called HotWheels.

I agree that the processor analogy is a bit unfair, but technological advances have been made in almost all viable businesses. You aren't saying the auto companies couldn't have done a hell of a lot more. People don't want to accept the truth-our auto industry IS a dinosaur.

-Robert

Huh? Have you compared cars from 30 years ago to modern cars technologically?
I am sure you could have done more with your life too, but let's not make perfect the enemy of good.


The auto industry spent 50 years FIGHTING GOOD. They FOUGHT safety, fuel economy, green initiatives. This would be like me arguing that OJ should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. :(

The Japanese fought those just as hard.

Robert - you seem willing to grasp at any straw you can to put down our auto-industry. We don't embrace technology? MP3 players, in dash navigation, OnStar, hands free cellphones, Ford Sync, Ford Programmable Key technology, 16 speaker HD radio systems. In dash CD / MP3 multidisc changers, traction control, stability control, ABS, side and rear curtain airbags. Backup warning. Backup cameras. Digital temperature control. Adapative cruise control. Capless gascap systems. Variable shock absorbers. Ford Quiet steel. Interior highlight lighting. Selectable Dashboard color lighting. Stow-n'-go. Onboard DVD players and entertainment systems. Vista roof. Variable steering assist. Air pressure tire sensors. Oil cleanliness sensors.

Ok. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I worked as a union lawyer when I first got out of law school. I have no gig going against auto workers, unions or even auto manufacturers. My beef is not with the conception of cars but with the implementation-the reality of them is not nice. Just look at the ways our landscape has been basically ruined by cars. Paved Paradise and put in a parking lot....

I didn't say you don't embrace technology, though it would be more accurate to say you buy technology when you can't steal it (auto windshield wipers?).

The auto industry has not thrived on innovation. They have SURVIVED, and barely, by pandering to the basest instincts of American males. Look at their advertising.

Who is at fault for most of this? IMHO, it is management of the Big Three. Did you see a single one of those beggers before Congress yesterday say they'd forego their salary for one year as Iaccoca did? Ha! Wagoner will get $9 million for driving GM over a cliff.

I don't blame the workers as much, but the unions have been complicit in the big car mentality because it fed their workers high wages. And the Michigan delegates, including Levin to whom I DONATE money.

Let me say again that I SUPPORT THE BAILOUT OF these morons, provided lots of strings are attached. Give them one more shot of our money and that's IT.

I don't hate the auto industry, but I am tired of taking a hot poker up the ass to bail out fools who happen to be rich and powerful.

-Robert

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
by pandering to the basest instincts of American males. Look at their advertising.
look at ALL advertising. it's all the same! damn near every product on the market markets to the basest instincts of american males.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
I didn't have the patience to read through all 6 pages of this, but on the subject of that Chinese Hybrid :

Ford CANNOT compete with the labor rates offered by Chinese workers. The people making that ($22k-$30k?) hybrid are making what, a dollar a day? With pretty lax safety regulations, and probably zero to very few benefits?

It's wrong to fault Ford for wanting to apply conventional technology that will have results immediately in a form factor (their tech can be applied with good results on anything from Fiesta-sized to F150-sized vehicles), while letting Hybrid tech mature a bit. Ford is very aware of the cost issues, and has almost certainly done better than GM and Chrysler at adopting a workable business model for the 21st century. They are on the way to globalizing many models to simplify production and reduce the number of different design and parts sourcing issues, and the fuel economy offered by their models compares well with Honda/Toyota/Etc.

They're not too far from getting things back together. I'll tell you what will fix Detroit :

Chrysler dies. There simply is no longer the need for 3 big US automakers. It dilutes the market, and Chrysler has lagged GM and Ford for far too long.

^^ That takes a huge number of units out of production, which will increase demand to the remaining options (this will boost Honda, Ford, etc, etc)

GM and Ford must continue to cut costs, simplify lineups (GM needs to merge many overlapping brands, and dump the niche brands), and offer competitive products.

The economy won't be in a downturn forever. When it starts to pick up, if at least most of the above happens, then look for profitability to return nicely to Ford and GM.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I didn't have the patience to read through all 6 pages of this, but on the subject of that Chinese Hybrid :

Ford CANNOT compete with the labor rates offered by Chinese workers. The people making that ($22k-$30k?) hybrid are making what, a dollar a day? With pretty lax safety regulations, and probably zero to very few benefits?

It's wrong to fault Ford for wanting to apply conventional technology that will have results immediately in a form factor (their tech can be applied with good results on anything from Fiesta-sized to F150-sized vehicles), while letting Hybrid tech mature a bit. Ford is very aware of the cost issues, and has almost certainly done better than GM and Chrysler at adopting a workable business model for the 21st century. They are on the way to globalizing many models to simplify production and reduce the number of different design and parts sourcing issues, and the fuel economy offered by their models compares well with Honda/Toyota/Etc.

They're not too far from getting things back together. I'll tell you what will fix Detroit :

Chrysler dies. There simply is no longer the need for 3 big US automakers. It dilutes the market, and Chrysler has lagged GM and Ford for far too long.

^^ That takes a huge number of units out of production, which will increase demand to the remaining options (this will boost Honda, Ford, etc, etc)

GM and Ford must continue to cut costs, simplify lineups (GM needs to merge many overlapping brands, and dump the niche brands), and offer competitive products.

The economy won't be in a downturn forever. When it starts to pick up, if at least most of the above happens, then look for profitability to return nicely to Ford and GM.

How would you propose we kill off Chrysler? And we've already given them about $7 billion to develop alternative fuel cars. Just write that off? Maybe use it to buy them all out? :)

Personally, I think GM should go. That would have a nice impact on the other auto makers. :) Lots of market share. Why cut the smallest manufacturer?

-Robert

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Initial cost of $22,000 sounds great but what about battery replacements? There is additional cost on the owner to maintain the vehicle, no?
Not sure about battery replacements, but in a few years that should be a moot point. Google the scientist who just discovered how to increase lithium battery storage by 10.

I saw something on Discovery about a year ago which stated that the batteries last about 10 years on average and a replacement is something like 10k. Not sure what has changed since then, but the bottom line here is cost and what people can afford.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I didn't have the patience to read through all 6 pages of this, but on the subject of that Chinese Hybrid :

Ford CANNOT compete with the labor rates offered by Chinese workers. The people making that ($22k-$30k?) hybrid are making what, a dollar a day? With pretty lax safety regulations, and probably zero to very few benefits?

It's wrong to fault Ford for wanting to apply conventional technology that will have results immediately in a form factor (their tech can be applied with good results on anything from Fiesta-sized to F150-sized vehicles), while letting Hybrid tech mature a bit. Ford is very aware of the cost issues, and has almost certainly done better than GM and Chrysler at adopting a workable business model for the 21st century. They are on the way to globalizing many models to simplify production and reduce the number of different design and parts sourcing issues, and the fuel economy offered by their models compares well with Honda/Toyota/Etc.

They're not too far from getting things back together. I'll tell you what will fix Detroit :

Chrysler dies. There simply is no longer the need for 3 big US automakers. It dilutes the market, and Chrysler has lagged GM and Ford for far too long.

^^ That takes a huge number of units out of production, which will increase demand to the remaining options (this will boost Honda, Ford, etc, etc)

GM and Ford must continue to cut costs, simplify lineups (GM needs to merge many overlapping brands, and dump the niche brands), and offer competitive products.

The economy won't be in a downturn forever. When it starts to pick up, if at least most of the above happens, then look for profitability to return nicely to Ford and GM.

How would you propose we kill off Chrysler? And we've already given them about $7 billion to develop alternative fuel cars. Just write that off? Maybe use it to buy them all out? :)

Personally, I think GM should go. That would have a nice impact on the other auto makers. :) Lots of market share. Why cut the smallest manufacturer?

-Robert

Chrysler lags the most in design/efficiency. They've been punted around from the deal with Daimler, to the deal with Cerberus, and so on, without really putting out a reliable, competitive product. Their trucks are okay, but their cars are horrid for the most part.

GM has come a long way in a short time, just look at old Cadillac vs. new Cadillac, Cobalt vs. Cadavalier, new Malibu vs. old Malibu, and so on. Their vehicles compete head-on with Toyota in terms of price and fuel efficiency, and to be honest, are probably about as reliable now. I wouldn't have been able to say that not very long ago.

GM does undeniably need to strip down. There are too many brands, too many vehicles sold under different badges with not much difference.

Chrysler wouldn't instantly cease to exist. GM makes perfect sense to buy Chrysler, merge Jeep with Hummer and kill off the weak links (drop H3 and sell Jeep, drop Commander, drop Liberty, etc).

Just hypothetical numbers, lets say Ford has ~10m/yearly, GM has 15m/yearly, and Chrysler has 7m/yearly (obviously far off, but proportionally fairly accurate).

If Chrysler is out of the picture, that's 25m/yearly left instead of 32m/yearly. If GM and Ford further cut the overlapping models and weak links, and focus on fewer models but better-designed/supported models, then they should be able to turn a profit while offering great products.
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Well like I said, will have to see if performance ends up being what they claim. I also wouldn't count on being able to get your hands on any for small projects. Seems like currently they're only interested in large partnerships. For now, LiFePO4 is probably your best bet. :)

Every company is only interested in large partnerships. Large partnerships alot of times let their owners become billionaires. The majority of them end up selling their products to people like me, though. Add in the fact that I'm ruthless when it comes to taking no for an answer, and they'll probably gladly sell me what I need, just to get me to stop showing up at their business every day.;)

BTW, this PDF has a considerable amount of info, for anyone interested.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines?????

The internal combustion engine is the technology we have, now. Unless you're prepared to underwrite and deploy a replacement technology, immediately and universally, we're stuck with it for probably a decade while we're making a transition to better technology. Note that Mulally also said:

Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

The move away from the internal combustion engine burning fossile fuels is not going to be a one step instant change. We have neither the mature, producable, reliable techology nor the infrastructure in place to support it... YET! In that context, he's right -- Improvements in efficiency of 15 - 20% are significant and important for the short term.

Wow, I actually agree with Harvey.

Hybrid technology is providing a great stepping stone for a full conversion from combustion to electric, but there is still a looooong way to go before the average commuter waves goodbye to his combustion engine. Battery technology will have to vastly improve to allow for full conversion for daily drivers, and then it will have to improve 100x again to start taking on commercial trucking. Anybody who believes we will be done with oil anytime soon is delusional.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
It always amazes me the number of people who know nothing about a subject yet have a steadfast opinion based on fantasy.

You can't make something out of nothing.


The people that think that they could build a sell-able vehicle better than all the automotive engineers in the world must be two steps away from lunacy. You can also throw in those that think that the world is conspiring to keep us using fossil fuels in the face of a more efficient sell-able model.




They've all been lying to me all along. I knew all along that if I flapped my arms hard enough I could fly to Miami without the need of a plane. It's a conspiracy, I tell you.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Why the HELL wouldn't that technology be your top priority over combustion engines?????

The internal combustion engine is the technology we have, now. Unless you're prepared to underwrite and deploy a replacement technology, immediately and universally, we're stuck with it for probably a decade while we're making a transition to better technology. Note that Mulally also said:

Then we move to more electrification with the hybrids as you mentioned, and we are very excited that the next step after that will be full electrification. Now we're tied into the grids, and we really have moved to an energy independence solution.

The move away from the internal combustion engine burning fossile fuels is not going to be a one step instant change. We have neither the mature, producable, reliable techology nor the infrastructure in place to support it... YET! In that context, he's right -- Improvements in efficiency of 15 - 20% are significant and important for the short term.

Wow, I actually agree with Harvey.

Hybrid technology is providing a great stepping stone for a full conversion from combustion to electric, but there is still a looooong way to go before the average commuter waves goodbye to his combustion engine. Battery technology will have to vastly improve to allow for full conversion for daily drivers, and then it will have to improve 100x again to start taking on commercial trucking. Anybody who believes we will be done with oil anytime soon is delusional.
While I agree with your main points of having a long way to go and that oil will be here for a good while more, I disagree when you say that the Lithium ion battery has to vastly improve for "daily drivers". The PHEV gets the 30+120mpg which is galaxies better than anything even the Prius can offer. The only sticking point will be price, the Ford Escape Hybrid is $30K so PHEV might be slightly more. If Ford primarily focused on PHEV technology and mass produced it, it could very well make a car cheaper than the Prius (sub $25K) and with a monumentally better mpg output.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
It always amazes me the number of people who know nothing about a subject yet have a steadfast opinion based on fantasy.

*raises hand*.

But hey, I can admit it and that's half the battle, right?

---

Anyway, today in front of Congress CEO Wagoner of GM says GM is burning through about $5B/month (higher than anything I'd heard). He expects if $25B is passed GM will see 10-12. How is that going to make a difference? So they make it to spring break?
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Anyway, today in front of Congress CEO Wagoner of GM says GM is burning through about $5B/month (higher than anything I'd heard). He expects if $25B is passed GM will see 10-12. How is that going to make a difference? So they make it to spring break?

Being a kinda GM retiree, I have no idea.

The reason the numbers are moving upward is that every day every industry regardless of its country of origin is feeling the pinch after the Wall Street/financial/mortgage crisis. Someone please tell me that one day it will get better and also tell me what it will look like before it does. I really don't want to hear that we'll all be living huts made of dung when we start to turn the corner.

What happens when every company in the world declares bankruptcy and anybody with a mortgage is in foreclosure? I know there are a world of people out there that think they are insulated, but I just don't see it. I don't care if you work for an undertaker, the government, whatever.

 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Pulsar
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: chess9
Originally posted by: senseamp
These microprocessor comparisons are completely asinine to begin with, unless you are willing to have the size of cars decrease in half every 2 years, as has been happening with CMOS chips with process shrinks. So yeah, you can actually have this "processor" car that you are dreaming about that is orders of magnitude cheaper and more economical than a car of 30 years ago, it's called HotWheels.

I agree that the processor analogy is a bit unfair, but technological advances have been made in almost all viable businesses. You aren't saying the auto companies couldn't have done a hell of a lot more. People don't want to accept the truth-our auto industry IS a dinosaur.

-Robert

Huh? Have you compared cars from 30 years ago to modern cars technologically?
I am sure you could have done more with your life too, but let's not make perfect the enemy of good.


The auto industry spent 50 years FIGHTING GOOD. They FOUGHT safety, fuel economy, green initiatives. This would be like me arguing that OJ should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. :(

The Japanese fought those just as hard.

Robert - you seem willing to grasp at any straw you can to put down our auto-industry. We don't embrace technology? MP3 players, in dash navigation, OnStar, hands free cellphones, Ford Sync, Ford Programmable Key technology, 16 speaker HD radio systems. In dash CD / MP3 multidisc changers, traction control, stability control, ABS, side and rear curtain airbags. Backup warning. Backup cameras. Digital temperature control. Adapative cruise control. Capless gascap systems. Variable shock absorbers. Ford Quiet steel. Interior highlight lighting. Selectable Dashboard color lighting. Stow-n'-go. Onboard DVD players and entertainment systems. Vista roof. Variable steering assist. Air pressure tire sensors. Oil cleanliness sensors.

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.

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

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.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
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
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Squisher
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Anyway, today in front of Congress CEO Wagoner of GM says GM is burning through about $5B/month (higher than anything I'd heard). He expects if $25B is passed GM will see 10-12. How is that going to make a difference? So they make it to spring break?

Being a kinda GM retiree, I have no idea.

The reason the numbers are moving upward is that every day every industry regardless of its country of origin is feeling the pinch after the Wall Street/financial/mortgage crisis. Someone please tell me that one day it will get better and also tell me what it will look like before it does. I really don't want to here that we'll all be living huts made of dung when we start to turn the corner.

What happens when every company in the world declares bankruptcy and anybody with a mortgage is in foreclosure? I know there are a world of people out there that think they are insulated, but I just don't see it. I don't care if you work for an undertaker, the government, whatever.
I have no idea. I suppose in theory we could all be kicked out of our houses except that there are no cops employed to enforce it, so we will basically all sit at home in our nice "free" houses without power while we stay warm on whatever wood we can cut down on trees around the neighborhood. I guess that's as bad as it could get, until the hordes come. The murdering hordes.

 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
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.

 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,555
9,907
146
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Perknose
SP33Demon, I'll bet you or anyone else here $100 (minimum) RIGHT NOW, to be held by a mutually agreed upon third party by paypal, that the car will NOT cost $22,000, will NOT go 68 plus miles reliably and repeatedly without a recharge as measured by an independently overseen and verified testing agency, and will probably not even go on sale this month (November.)

Any takers? Money talks, bullshit walks.
Um, BYD's F6DM was already unveiled at the North American International Auto Show.

[...]

Based on the BYD F6, the F6DM uses lithium iron phosphate battery, a type of li-ion battery under trade name "Ferrous"[1], that can be recharged to 70 percent of capacity in 10 minutes.

[...]


I'll take your bet if you extend the release date to before 3Q 2009. That is still CONSIDERABLY faster than any American auto company has promised (2011 on the Chevy Volt).

Um, showing a stationary, untested and unverified example at a car show and actually producing and selling in numbers vehicles that live up to a company's claims are two entirely different things.

I'm curious why you believe ALL this Chinese companies claims EXCEPT the fact that they are bullshitting by ONE ENTIRE YEAR on when they will actually be selling said car, but no matter, a fool and his money are soon parted.

So, Ok, to reiterate the bet, the car will:

-- Cost no more than $22,000 (without Chinese gov't. subsidy of any kind.)

-- Go 68 plus miles reliably and repeatedly before needing a recharge as measured by an independently overseen and verified testing agency.

-- Be available for sale in volume no later than 3Q 2009.

-- And since I'm letting you slide by 1300% on the release date ;), I'm sure you'll let me add their further claim: that the battery in their new car can be recharged to 70 percent of capacity in 10 minutes. Fair is fair, right?

-- $100 minimum bet (want to do more? How about $500? It's easy money for you now that I've agreed to push back the sale date by ONE WHOLE YEAR, right?), but anyway, minimum $100, deposited with a mutually agreed upon third party holder's paypal account.

SP33Demon, my man, YOU ARE ON! :thumbsup:

I eagerly await your reply!

 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
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.

EDIT:
Originally posted by: Perknose

SP33Demon, my man, YOU ARE ON! :thumbsup:

I eagerly await your reply!

I wanna piece.

btw-the volt is gonna be wee bit more that $22K