Automakers missing a market?

[ikendu]

I came across this article in Business week.

Detroit Is Wrecking Its SUV Edge

As a former GM Engineer (17 yrs), I sure hate to see our U.S. automakers turning a blind eye to an important market. Our world market share of vehicles will just continue to slip lower and lower. Highly disappointing.

 

[Darell]

Yes sir. Welcome to my life... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Could you imagine a more patriotic purchase than an American-made fuel-sipping vehicle? It would show a determination to keep our money in our country, and it would be part of the solution to our current foreign affairs disaster.

The one and only American vehicle I have ever owned is the GM EV1. And GM won't let me keep it, no matter how much I beg. Instead of driving my American electric vehicle next year, I'll have to content myself with watching reruns of this year's auto show to see if I can yet find a use for a four-wheel 400mph motorcycle that they spent untold amounts of money developing. There currently exists not a single American production hybrid vehicle. The only electric vehicle that the CA public could ever purchase was built in Japan - which just happens to be where all the hybrids are built as well. GM has recently issued a release stating that they vow to be at the "forefront of hybrid technology." The way they're achieving that hybrid superiority is by purchasing as much of the technology from Toyota as Toyota will allow. Catch-up is a difficult game to play, and it is ironic that the company that served up the first modern full-featured EV is the same company that is currently dead-set against anything that resembles efficicent vehicles (not publicly of course, just by obvious actions, lawsuits and offerings).

 

[rrtanton]

I suppose it's really shaky ground to use to make these assumptions but...it does sorta make you wonder, no? I do think we're looking at hybrids being the next wave in autos...that and maybe nicer diesels. The american auto industry has been made a laughingstock before. Are we looking at that again? I'd almost be happy to hear it, as the reason for laughing at them would be a nice one to have. But it would mean serious impact on our automakers and economy.

I'm convinced that some of the decisions coming out of Detroit recently, such as fighting the puny increase planned for SUV fuel economy, are fuelled by the administration's apparent stance on fuel efficiency in general. Some impetus has been mounting for low-sulfur diesel regulations...could that go away as well? Are they eagerly shooting themselves in the foot? Interesting.

rusty

 

[Darell]

Heck, I think there is always room for a little conspiracy theory here as usual.

I too think that the next wave will be "hybrids." The reason? It is the only publicly acceptable technology we have that satisfies the cleaner emission requirements, and still requires the use of fossil fuels. An "H2 economy" will continue to consume fossil fuels while appearing to be the "green" answer as well - but that solution is still too far off. So Hybrids are today's answer to the difficult question of "how do we maintain our dependence on oil and yet still appease the greenies?"

I fully expect some news coverage on some documents that wil be made public on Monday. CARB (CA Air Resources Board) has made some decisions that spell the end of all alternative fuels we know of. Those decisions have not been made public, though the document is complete. I'd love to talk more about it when it becomes public, but can't say anything now.

Another nail in the alt-fuel coffin. This time the coffin is being shared with FCs though.

 

[ikendu]

When I joined GM in 1968, I really liked small cars. I had a Renault R10 that my dad had bought for the purpose of me commuting back and forth from our farm while I was in college (got 35 mpg on premium).

As I joined GM, I asked..."How come no small cars?".

Everyone laughed and said, "Small cars! Ha! There's no future in that!" (they all thought Toyota was REALLY funny as a serious competitor). Later in 1973 (Arab Oil Embargo), you couldn't GIVE AWAY most of those big, american autos. I remember an ad where you could buy an Impala (BIG) for one penny more than a Vega (little)...and they still couldn't sell them.

 

[Darell]

Yeah. It was Rusty who just brought up the foot-shooting. That sums it up pretty well.

Just imagine that same company coming out with the EV1. Simply amazing.

 

[Mutie]

Darell,

Why can't you keep your EV1? Maybe you should report it stolen or something.

 

[Darell]

GM has put them in service here, garnered the ZEV credits for the vehicles and is now taking them all back. Nobody was every allowed to purchase them, and nobody is being allowed to extend their leases. These vehicles are no longer helping our air quality in CA, yet the credits they have recieved will cover their butts for the next eight or nine years - meaning that they don't need to produce another ZEV this century. The vehicles (the same ones that don't work, and that we don't want, mind you) are then being shipped to New York to start getting ZEV credits there. For the SAME (not similar) vehicles.

There are now three EV1 that I know of that are officially "missing." I simply can't go that route as it would wreck my credit since I would be dafaulting on my lease contract. GM could come after my home, my wages - what have you. Now, if you were to come and steal it from me, that would be a different story...

 

[InTheDark]

Darell,
what was your address again? With the cheap surefire batteries on sale, I could make it all the way across country without ever having to stop. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

 

[Darell]

I think I live right next door to you! I live in the
USA too! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Yeah, those 123 prices are amazing. While the prohibitive price of BEV battery packs is often used by the EV detractors as a concrete argument - this just goes to show how flexible those prices can be. You mass produce (just about) anything, and it gets far cheaper. Make only a handfull of anything, and that product is gonna be a bit pricy.

 

[Mutie]

I think I'll let in the Dark take on the task. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Trust me you don't want me stealing it. But it would make an interesting headline Blind teen raver steals electric car and I have no doubt the low speed chase would hit nationwide with my blue hair and LEDs glowing. (I couldn't do it without my disguise at least.)

Seriously though that sucks. They will find themselves behind the eightball again and be screaming for protection against the ones that wisely are developing alternatives.

 

[Saaby]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif I want an EV. I'd settle for a plug-in Hybrid.

Oh oh---get ready for an out of context quote...
[ QUOTE ]
Darell Said:
[qb]An "H2 economy" will continue to consume fossil fuels. [/qb]

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a plain 2 or a subscript 2 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif works either way.

 

[jackansi]

I think the american auto manufacturers don't see the stuff that is coming as a threat. They probably look over to the budget and marketing people for reassurance they spent enough $$$ on ads convincing people that "Need is a very subjective word" (new Hummer H2 commercial tagline). Instead of looking at Japan and some European makers who are setting the pace and have done so for the last 15 years.

I would go EV or Hybrid if the cars looked better (not a big fan of the covered rear wheel thing). My fiancee might be trading in her Toyota for a new Civic hybrid. I didn't see a exterior difference from the Gas Civic base model and the Hybrid. I'm sure alot of people were just a bit too timid to buy a car that has the style of the current hybrids. From what I heard in the Honda circles is that the Civic Hybrid is selling very well.

I guess the american auto makers just forgot how to compete on the sales floor, as well as the design table, and just focus on NASCAR wins. You'd think they would have learned with the first few runs of the Civic...

Now the american auto makers are under assult by Japanese "Muscle" cars. Dodge releases its SRT-4 (215HP) 2 years after Subaru brought over the WRX (227HP), in direct competition with the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO (276HP), the WRX STi (300HP). In yet another arena the US makers were two years late and in countless other ways short.

Anyone else find it suspicious that the auto companies feel that they can't make the new requirements, yet many of the largest japanese SUV's already do? And why aren't they just passing the cost of such mpg upgrades onto the consumer like they do with every other "advancement" they make? Maybe its because we have a oil president? Maybe the Greenies really are asking too much? Maybe if GM and others stopped using large displacement 20+ year old engine designs they would be able to compete? (That could be because in US racing any technological advancement is declared illegal the next year. And I was brought up to think only the most high-tech of high-tech went into race cars. That is true, just not in popular US racing leagues. Which explains alot of why Japan can make a 4-cyl engine out perform the vast majority of US 6-cyl, and many of the US V8's).

Maybe its the consumers (and the government for taxing imports so heavily) fault for letting US automakers get away with it for decades. Making consumers think its un-american to buy non-US cars then settling for a not-so-well-built US car for twice the price (long term) of a Japanese car.

 

[Saaby]

[ QUOTE ]
Which explains alot of why Japan can make a 4-cyl engine out perform the vast majority of US 6-cyl, and many of the US V8's).

[/ QUOTE ]


Substitute for Japan for Sweden aqnd you've got a Saab /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[rrtanton]

I must grudgingly point out that there ARE some very viable reasons for the differences in US and European racing. I'm a diehard road-racing, anti-NASCAR fan, but it doesn't change the fact that they're right in much of their approach. It's also true that US automakers DO have a presence in the high-tech fields of racing, but you get the impression it's not as serious as their competitors', so perhaps they don't learn as much from it.

Saaby...interesting to note that I think one of GM's main reasons for acquiring SAAB was to gain their engineering expertise. GM has always had difficulty with 4-cylinder motors...SAAB-designed and influenced 4-cylinders are supposed to start appearing in a lot of GM vehicles. And the platform the new 9-3 is based on, heavily influenced by SAAB, will also be the basis for lots of GM cars. Those Swedes must know what they're doing, since the same thing is happening to the Taurus...a Volvo platform will be its basis.

Back to the concept of missing a market...I think GM would be passing upgraded efficiency costs to us, but is sticking hard and fast to the business law of "keep costs down." A more expensive car either cuts directly into their profits, if they keep the price the same, or indirectly (if they raise the price) by selling fewer overall units. Presumably, they're convinced that however they do it, these efficiency upgrades will cost 'em profit. I think history has shown otherwise, but maybe it's not quite that simple, and the kind of efficiencies we're talking about wanting are pretty much uncharted territory.

rusty