Teh Politics Forum Rumors and lies and Teh Iraqi Info Minister and much much more...

Enough Already with the Bail Outs!! Seriously!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 01:19 PM
  #121  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by Superglue WRX
Why do people have a hard on for drilling for more oil?
I'm asking a serious question because I do not understand the hype of EVs.
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 02:22 PM
  #122  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
Why do people have such hard ons for EVs?
modern electric car uses about .37 Kwh per mile. currently we pay about 14 cents per Kwh. So .37*14 = 5.2 CENTS per mile.

If you are a big electric *****, you might be breaking the 14 cent bracket and some of bill could be 22 cents, and then again in the 3rd bracket at 28 (?) cents. Still, that's significantly cheaper than gasoline. So your energy bill goes up $50 a month (if you are a big time electricity user), your gas bill just went down about $300 (or more!).

Last edited by joltdudeuc; Dec 15, 2008 at 02:25 PM.
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 02:37 PM
  #123  
FW Motorsports's Avatar
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by joltdudeuc
modern electric car uses about .37 Kwh per mile. currently we pay about 14 cents per Kwh. So .37*14 = 5.2 CENTS per mile.

If you are a big electric *****, you might be breaking the 14 cent bracket and some of bill could be 22 cents, and then again in the 3rd bracket at 28 (?) cents. Still, that's significantly cheaper than gasoline. So your energy bill goes up $50 a month (if you are a big time electricity user), your gas bill just went down about $300 (or more!).

Thanks!
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 04:14 PM
  #124  
Superglue WRX's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
I'm asking a serious question because I do not understand the hype of EVs.
They're "different" and there's not many of them. Sort of like how people have hard ons for tiny diesel cars. Once they become widespread or they've actually driven in one, nobody will care anymore.

Gagan is right about the cost savings, but ask 10 people who are excited about electric cars and 9 of them would have no idea about how much money would actually be saved, they just like the fact that an electric car is "different" (I use quotations because it's still a car, just a different power plant).
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 05:14 PM
  #125  
RussB's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
Originally Posted by joltdudeuc
I hate them because they killed the EV program. They could've been ahead of the curve, instead they are pleading for money (which they will give to management somehow and the shareholders, and then fold, screwing the workers... mark my words.)
the EV market killed itself back then. battery technology simply did not support it. back then nicad cells were horrible in terms of capacity and service life, they were also heavy, expensive, and volatile. current nimh (and even lipo / li-ion) technology is FAR superior. cells have higher capacity, can withstand the charge / discharge rates required to make a daily rechargeable car feasible, are lighter, and last longer.

They listened to the accounting dudes who said "are you crazy?! sell the big cars, they make more profit!"
and those accounting dudes listened to the customers... who are now paying the price...

This isn't about MPG ratings, this isn't about hating on made in the USA... It's about a company with bad management, bad unions that are getting way too much in benefits (hurting the company), and it's about poor choices that give consumers poor products. It's about responsibility and liability... that those two things, in my opinion, should be held on the shoulders of the people who work for, run and invest in that company.
when the customer wants a large suv or truck with a service life of 7~10 years, they did a great job at supplying that.

I don't see why they don't do the things that Sen. Corker has put up in the senate. It's a compromise, and the only ones who didn't budge was the Union. The Union is the one that is unwilling to lower the amount of benefits to the levels that forgien auto companies pay to their workers in the US.
you sure? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Seriously, they can't make that sacrifice? I've sacrificed roughly $30,000 of my salary this year, it's tough for me, but I'm doing it to help the company and keep me working. I know, it's a not as huge as GM, but honestly, all the more important that union workers help and do their share, NOW, not in 2011 in a wage/benefit adjustment, now. Its gotta happen now.
so you went up to your boss and said "i understand we're struggling right now, can you please reduce my salary by $30,000 to help with that?" or is this because you quit your job to start your photography business?

i've advanced mine by 16% this year alone, and about 30% over the previous three years. part of that comes from not carrying on political debates on the internets on my companies time.

Personally, I just don't see GM/UAW giving enough to warrant so much tax payer money. Also, I don't see them really trying to substantially change how they do business and how they operate. I feel they will do things they way they have been should they get all the funding, and even then, they will more than likely fail next year or ask for more money cause the economy is not going to get better anytime soon.
they're not asking for it as a gift or a grant, but as a loan. which will be paid back.

I think the biggest thing for me is that if they do fail, and now I do want Ford to do well, they are definitely working on better cars and have some solid projects inline for better truck motors and fuel efficient cars and are in a much better financial situation cause they moved to make changes a while back. That shows forward thinking... anyways, if GM/Chrysler do fail, it's not like they can't liquidate... or other companies can't buy those plants and retool and keep many of those people hired. People act as if all jobs will be gone, they won't. Toyota has been buying old dealerships at steal prices, I think companies in good standing would move in and buy plants as good prices as well.
if one fails, they will all likely fail. they share many of the same suppliers, who would not be able to withstand a 33% reduction in sales

At the end of the day, why can't these companies make it happen here in the US when foreign automakers can? One would think that these companies would run themselves like the foreign makes, then it shouldn't be an issue. That's was Sen Corker wants, and I think he's on the right track.
maybe Sen Corker is in the wrong line of work? if he's got that great of a plan, maybe he should resign from public service and get himself hired on with one of these companies?
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 06:05 PM
  #126  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by RussB
the EV market killed itself back then. battery technology simply did not support it. back then nicad cells were horrible in terms of capacity and service life, they were also heavy, expensive, and volatile. current nimh (and even lipo / li-ion) technology is FAR superior. cells have higher capacity, can withstand the charge / discharge rates required to make a daily rechargeable car feasible, are lighter, and last longer.
These cars are a live and kicking. I see this rav4 EV all the time here in mountain view. Honda Insights are on the freeway everyday, i probably see one every week. That car is a hybrid, but doesn't run on Li-Ion new tech batteries. It's designed well, and works well. Lead acid batteries are cheap, doesn't matter that they didn't last 3 years. This is not the reason the EV program was scraped.


and those accounting dudes listened to the customers... who are now paying the price...

when the customer wants a large suv or truck with a service life of 7~10 years, they did a great job at supplying that.
I disagree. It's the companies that are pushing the cars down people's throats as what they want. Nothing to do with customers wants. SUVs and Large trucks make the most profit, that's the only reason.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1ruKHwxppI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtpnw3HpEOU

Yup, I'm sure. That's about 10 days after the article you posted. They don't want to really concede, they just want to temporarily show that they did.

so you went up to your boss and said "i understand we're struggling right now, can you please reduce my salary by $30,000 to help with that?" or is this because you quit your job to start your photography business?

i've advanced mine by 16% this year alone, and about 30% over the previous three years. part of that comes from not carrying on political debates on the internets on my companies time.
Last year was a 100% increase in pay, so I'm not hurting really lol. But yeah, I was asked, to help the companies cash flow, at 3 periods, to not take qtr bonuses, which equates to about 9k, and then rest is the annual bonus, which I don't expect to see. My job is flexible enough that I can post on I-club, and involves me posting on other work related forums during the day as well.


they're not asking for it as a gift or a grant, but as a loan. which will be paid back.
I do not believe they will pay it back since I don't believe they will survive the next few years anyways.

if one fails, they will all likely fail. they share many of the same suppliers, who would not be able to withstand a 33% reduction in sales
That may be the case, but that's only if they completely fail and don't merge or get bought by foreign companies. Nothing points to a complete collapse, I mean, what the last industry that completely collapsed? I'm sure if other auto makers could buy a plant for 1/2 or 2/3 the cost they'd probably jump on 1 or 2. The suppliers would probably just start to carry other lines, and supply other makes. They wouldn't just fold.

maybe Sen Corker is in the wrong line of work? if he's got that great of a plan, maybe he should resign from public service and get himself hired on with one of these companies?
That's a good question for the Senator

Personally I think what he's asking for is fair. It's the UAW that refused to give a date (which would more than likely lock in their benefits for many years... which they don't want...) greed perhaps??

It's this unwillingness to bend, to change and be more flexible that gotten them into this mess, and the same attitudes going to destroy them.

Last edited by joltdudeuc; Dec 15, 2008 at 06:07 PM.
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 07:28 PM
  #127  
RussB's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
the rav4 ev came from the factory with nimh batteries.

a fraction of the EV1s came with nimh batteries, and that was only in the final year. a good number of lead acid battery cars were recalled for battery replacement.

the EV1 required a battery charging station about the size of a gas pump.

the EV1 had an estimated cost of about $80k to GM, yet they were leased with a residual value based on an approximated $44k. average monthly lease payments were between $300 and $500 a month for a 3 year lease. there was no purchase option at the end of the lease, either for the original lesee or for second hand resale. do the math and you see that they only recovered about $18k of that $80k per car.

take that $68,000 loss per car, and multiply it by the 1,117 produced, and you have a $75,956,000 loss. makes perfect sense to me...

it was an ok car, and advanced for it's time, but as anything other than an "image" car it was very much not profitable. so you're badmouthing a company for selling cars that were profitable until the gas prices rose, but also badmouthing it for NOT selling a car that was a big messy hemmorage of money.
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 07:29 PM
  #128  
RussB's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
Originally Posted by joltdudeuc
Last year was a 100% increase in pay, so I'm not hurting really lol. But yeah, I was asked, to help the companies cash flow, at 3 periods, to not take qtr bonuses, which equates to about 9k, and then rest is the annual bonus, which I don't expect to see. My job is flexible enough that I can post on I-club, and involves me posting on other work related forums during the day as well.
bonus =/= salary.
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 09:02 PM
  #129  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by RussB
bonus =/= salary.
How PC/correct of you


in that case i've "potentially" lost "30k" of "income".
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 09:05 PM
  #130  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by RussB
the rav4 ev came from the factory with nimh batteries.

a fraction of the EV1s came with nimh batteries, and that was only in the final year. a good number of lead acid battery cars were recalled for battery replacement.

the EV1 required a battery charging station about the size of a gas pump.

the EV1 had an estimated cost of about $80k to GM, yet they were leased with a residual value based on an approximated $44k. average monthly lease payments were between $300 and $500 a month for a 3 year lease. there was no purchase option at the end of the lease, either for the original lesee or for second hand resale. do the math and you see that they only recovered about $18k of that $80k per car.

take that $68,000 loss per car, and multiply it by the 1,117 produced, and you have a $75,956,000 loss. makes perfect sense to me...

it was an ok car, and advanced for it's time, but as anything other than an "image" car it was very much not profitable. so you're badmouthing a company for selling cars that were profitable until the gas prices rose, but also badmouthing it for NOT selling a car that was a big messy hemmorage of money.
And these companies don't lost money on the development of regular cars?

The point with the EV program was that they had made significant advances, and if they stuck with it by now they'd probably have the production costs down more than enough to make money. I think they could've stuck with it.
Old Dec 15, 2008 | 09:11 PM
  #131  
RussB's Avatar
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
Originally Posted by joltdudeuc
And these companies don't lost money on the development of regular cars?

The point with the EV program was that they had made significant advances, and if they stuck with it by now they'd probably have the production costs down more than enough to make money. I think they could've stuck with it.
of course they don't lose money on the development of a regular car. they have up front development costs, but they recoup those costs over the sales cycle of that model and then some. if every company lost money on the development of their cars, they'd all be in front of congress right now. it's only when they start doing it wrong, like the big three started to do a few years ago, that they lose money.

one of the first automobiles ever was electric. if that guy would have stuck with it we'd be in a totally different place. if GT35STD's parents decided to use birth control, your job hear would have been easier. whats done is done, time to move on.
Old Dec 16, 2008 | 11:39 AM
  #132  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by RussB
of course they don't lose money on the development of a regular car. they have up front development costs, but they recoup those costs over the sales cycle of that model and then some. if every company lost money on the development of their cars, they'd all be in front of congress right now. it's only when they start doing it wrong, like the big three started to do a few years ago, that they lose money.

one of the first automobiles ever was electric. if that guy would have stuck with it we'd be in a totally different place. if GT35STD's parents decided to use birth control, your job hear would have been easier. whats done is done, time to move on.
I think the times of the first electric car and the 90s and today are completely different.

Back then that car was all he could make and do with it. It was a huge feat, but of course he was limited by technology of the day.

I don't feel the same was the case with the cars made in the 90s. They had huge advances in technology. They didn't want to keep it going, try to advance it past the point of losing money into making money. They decided to drop it after the lease was over, and then crush the cars.

There's that too. Crushing the cars. That's pretty sad, perfectly working functioning automobile, and they took most of them back and crushed them.
Old Dec 16, 2008 | 11:47 AM
  #133  
SilverScoober02's Avatar
VIP Member
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,064
From: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Some interesting things about GM....Mainly to disprove some things people are saying about them lately.


Myth:
With the largest workforce in the auto industry, General Motors has far too many people working for it.

Fact:
GM has cut its payroll drastically, by 45.8 percent in the U.S. alone since 2000. In fact, GM is far from the largest employer in the industry. With 252,000 employees worldwide, GM ranks fifth overall behind Volkswagen (373,400 employees,) Renault/Nissan (316,121 employees,) Toyota (316,121 employees) and Daimler (272,382 employees). Yet GM sold more vehicles worldwide last year than any other automaker.

Myth:
GM is not interested in hybrid vehicles

Fact
GM chose to do its early hybrid development on transit buses, where the fuel savings per vehicle are substantial. Since 2003, more than 1,000 buses using the GM-Allison hybrid system have been put in service, and another 1,700 are on order.

GM introduced a Saturn Vue hybrid for the 2007 model year, and one of GM’s first 2-mode hybrid models, the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, was named Green Car of the Year for 2008. GM’s hybrid sales reached 1,975 in September 2008. According to Edmunds, this moves GM into third place in the U.S. hybrid market, just a few vehicles behind Honda.

And the GM hybrid lineup will continue to grow. By the middle of next year, GM will have nine hybrid models for sale in the U.S. GM intends to offer 15 hybrid models by 2012.

Myth:
GM vehicles are not as fuel efficient as comparable imports

Fact
A visit to the EPA fuel economy site shows that, segment for segment, GM vehicles are competitive with any vehicles in the market.

GM currently has more models with EPA highway ratings of 30 mpg or better than any other carmaker, 18 in total.

Myth:
GM doesn’t make cars that people want to buy

Fact:
9.3 million people worldwide bought GM vehicles last year. That’s more vehicles than any other automaker in the world sold. And in the U.S., which is the world’s largest market, GM sold more vehicles than any other manufacturer in 2007, and it has sold more than any other automaker to date in 2008.

In 2008, the Chevy Malibu was named North American Car of the Year, and the Cadillac CTS was Motor Trend’s 2008 Car of the Year. In 2007, the Saturn Aura and Chevy Silverado won North American Car and Truck of the year. Those awards are given and judged by automotive journalists.

Customers have responded just as enthusiastically as the critics. Although total U.S. vehicle sales are down almost 15% so far this year (through October), a number of GM cars and crossovers have enjoyed significant sales increases:

Chevy Malibu +39%
Pontiac Vibe +36%
Pontiac G6 + 4%
Cadillac CTS +15%
Saturn Aura +7%
GMC Acadia +2%
Buick Enclave +88%

Old Dec 16, 2008 | 12:42 PM
  #134  
joltdudeuc's Avatar
Old School
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,983
From: Union City
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
Originally Posted by SilverScoober02
Some interesting things about GM....Mainly to disprove some things people are saying about them lately.
First, I haven't said anything of what was mentioned in your quote...


Myth:
With the largest workforce in the auto industry, General Motors has far too many people working for it.

Fact:
GM has cut its payroll drastically, by 45.8 percent in the U.S. alone since 2000. In fact, GM is far from the largest employer in the industry. With 252,000 employees worldwide, GM ranks fifth overall behind Volkswagen (373,400 employees,) Renault/Nissan (316,121 employees,) Toyota (316,121 employees) and Daimler (272,382 employees). Yet GM sold more vehicles worldwide last year than any other automaker.
Workforce has nothing to do with the current issues at hand. What the debate is about right now is the UAW setting a point in time that they will be paying the same amount of benefits , $ for $, vs foreign makers in America. Right now there is about a $25/hr difference in benefits pay.

I don't see how the size or sales of GM has anything to do with their needing or justfying (or not) a bailout/loan.

Myth:
GM is not interested in hybrid vehicles

Fact
GM chose to do its early hybrid development on transit buses, where the fuel savings per vehicle are substantial. Since 2003, more than 1,000 buses using the GM-Allison hybrid system have been put in service, and another 1,700 are on order.

GM introduced a Saturn Vue hybrid for the 2007 model year, and one of GM’s first 2-mode hybrid models, the 2008 Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, was named Green Car of the Year for 2008. GM’s hybrid sales reached 1,975 in September 2008. According to Edmunds, this moves GM into third place in the U.S. hybrid market, just a few vehicles behind Honda.

And the GM hybrid lineup will continue to grow. By the middle of next year, GM will have nine hybrid models for sale in the U.S. GM intends to offer 15 hybrid models by 2012.
They do make hybrids, but they cost $10k-13k more over none hybrid variants, they don't make that many of them, and they don't offer them in small cars. Making fuel efficient cars is what they should be doing, instead they are still pushing larger cars and SUVs, but now in a hybrid form at a significant increase in cost. The Escalade hybrid is $70k.... I mean, why even make it?!

They should be making 60mpg Aveo hybrid... for about $18k. That would fly off the lots compared to a Tahoe hybrid at or Malibu hybrid.

Then again, this is america. We love those huge *** cars now don't we

Myth:
GM vehicles are not as fuel efficient as comparable imports

Fact
A visit to the EPA fuel economy site shows that, segment for segment, GM vehicles are competitive with any vehicles in the market.

GM currently has more models with EPA highway ratings of 30 mpg or better than any other carmaker, 18 in total.
Their website says 8 models. :shrugs:

The malibu hybrid is $26k, same as a Camry hybrid. Both have 2.4L motors. So why is the malibu 26/34 and the camry 33/34. Why in the world would anyone buy one over the other?

On star?

Myth:
GM doesn’t make cars that people want to buy

Fact:
9.3 million people worldwide bought GM vehicles last year. That’s more vehicles than any other automaker in the world sold. And in the U.S., which is the world’s largest market, GM sold more vehicles than any other manufacturer in 2007, and it has sold more than any other automaker to date in 2008.

In 2008, the Chevy Malibu was named North American Car of the Year, and the Cadillac CTS was Motor Trend’s 2008 Car of the Year. In 2007, the Saturn Aura and Chevy Silverado won North American Car and Truck of the year. Those awards are given and judged by automotive journalists.

Customers have responded just as enthusiastically as the critics. Although total U.S. vehicle sales are down almost 15% so far this year (through October), a number of GM cars and crossovers have enjoyed significant sales increases:

Chevy Malibu +39%
Pontiac Vibe +36%
Pontiac G6 + 4%
Cadillac CTS +15%
Saturn Aura +7%
GMC Acadia +2%
Buick Enclave +88%

I dunno. Some awards that don't really mean ****, by companies that tend to love US makes anyways. I think their world wide sales are great because they make awesome little cars like this overseas:



I want to buy a GM truck, but they are taking a damn long time on the new diesel motor. If ford beats them and I think Ford will, that's who I'm going to. Actually the baby diesel motor was supposed to out already, but for some weird reason, it's not. Too bad, I'd love to have one Who ever makes it first is where I'm going.
Old Dec 16, 2008 | 02:48 PM
  #135  
medicSTi's Avatar
Thread Starter
VIP Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 9,546
From: Vacaville
Car Info: 2018 STi



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:48 PM.