Would you buy a car from Congress?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,610
Location
Las Vegas NV
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122887051709693341.html
Quote:
Leave it to Bob Lutz, GM's voluble vice chairman, to puncture the unreality of the auto bailout he himself has been championing. In an email to Ward's Auto World, he notes an obvious flaw in Congress's rescue plan now taking shape: The fuel-efficient "green" cars GM, Ford and Chrysler profess to be thrilled to be developing at Congress's behest will be unsellable unless gas prices are much higher than today's.

"Very few people will want to change what has been their 'nationality-given' right to drive big and bigger if the price of gas is $1.50 or $2.00 or even $2.50," Mr. Lutz explained. "Those prices will put the CAFE-mandated manufacturers at war with their customers -- and no one will win in that battle."

Translation: To become "viable," as Congress chooses crazily to understand the term, the Big Three are setting out to squander billions on products that will have to be dumped on consumers at a loss.

None of this was mentioned at four days of congressional bailout hearings, because Detroit knows better than to suggest Congress has a role in the industry's problem. Yet its own recently updated Corporate Average Fuel Economy regime, or CAFE, makes a mockery of the idea that government money will render the companies profitable, even as the same bailout bill demands that the Big Three drop their legal challenge to a California mileage mandate even more unsustainable than the federal government's.

Forget Chrysler, which has needed a bailout from Washington or Stuttgart in three of the last four recessions. The tragedy of GM and Ford is that, inside each, are perfectly viable businesses, albeit that have been slowly murdered over 30 years by CAFE. Both have decent global operations. At home, both have successful, profitable businesses selling pickups, SUVs and other larger vehicles to willing consumers, despite having to pay high UAW wages.

All this is dragged down by federal fuel-economy mandates that require them to lose tens of billions making small cars Americans don't want in high-cost UAW factories. Understand something: Ford and GM in Europe successfully sell cars that are small but not cheap. Europeans are willing to pay top dollar for a refined small car that gets excellent mileage, because they face gasoline prices as high as $9. Americans are not Europeans. In the U.S., except during bouts of high gas prices or in the grip of a Prius fad, the small cars that American consumers buy aren't bought for high mileage, but for low sticker prices. And the Big Three, with their high labor costs, cannot deliver as much value in a cheap car as the transplants can.

Under a law of politics, such truths were unmentionable in last week's televised circus because legislators are unwilling to do anything about them. They won't repeal CAFE because they fear the greens. They won't repeal CAFE's "two fleets" rule (which effectively requires the Big Three to make small cars in domestic factories) because they fear the UAW. They won't hike gas prices because they fear voters.

And make no mistake: An even more massive auto wreck lies ahead when a soon-to-be taxpayer-financed and taxpayer-owned auto industry confronts a California rulemaking that, in a silly gesture against global warming, would render most of its auto designs, profit centers and tooling unsalvageable.

We hate to admit it, but the only good idea from the bailout debate is the proposal for a new "auto czar." Along with disposing of Chrysler and downsizing Ford and GM, his job should be to confront Congress with its own policy cowardice and failure. If saving gasoline and Detroit are both worthy goals, let's ditch CAFE and institute a gasoline tax to make consumers value the cars government is forcing auto makers to build. If Congress doesn't have the tummy for that, at least ditch the "two fleets" rule so Detroit can import small cars to meet the mandate.


This is right on. Congress' interference is a MAJOR reason the Big 3 are in the situation they are. Get them OUT OF THE WAY and these companies will have a shot.
We sure as heck don't need a Car Czar dictator running a centralized car industry.
 
so Congress made GM intake gaskets blow, and ford and chrysler trannies blow up?

You know, congress doesn't have to bail out the detroit 3 any more than the manufacturers have to accept the offer. The more strings that get attached, the more likely it is this bailout won't happen. Hurrah to my elected reps for sitting down and really thrashing this over.

Smaller american cars have been subsidized by CAFE since the early 80s. There have been some nice ones and some duds... but never enthusiasm in their promotion. If someone wants a nice driver's subcompact with AC, cruise, alloys, the options price them up into a comparable midsize car with all that stuff standard. So the only thing going for the escort, neon, cavalier was the barebones cheapo model.
 
The crux of the problem is that GM, like the others, has always made cars that the public wants, or what they perceive the public wanting. Now they're being told to make cars the government wants. Will the government buy them back when the public passes on them?
 
What the public wants is physically impossible. They want to:

get amazing mileage
sit up higher than everyone else
never do any maintenance
look smart, like they read "consumer reports"
and have a safe car that doesn't weigh anything but will take out any aggressor. See above.

Congress isn't cramming a "template" down anyone's throats... remember all these automakers compete in NASCAR under very exacting standards. CAFE is wide open as to how it's implemented !
 
My biggest question about increasing MPG requirements is....what is it about Tesla Motor's battery / motor setup that prevents other makes from doing something similar? The range and performance of the Volt is pathetic when compared to the Tesla roadster.

Hydrogen seemed to have stalled from everything I'm seeing...so electric's it, right? Why is GM limiting themselves to a battery that will only take you 40 miles (under ideal conditions) when the Tesla outperforms it with 6x the range and no gas engine on board? I feel like I'm missing something here...or perhaps GM is.
 
"Would you buy a car from Congress?"

The Chevy "Pelosi" model. I can see the TTAC review now: Outdated appearance, outrageous claims of performance, underpowered and intensely unfun to drive. Handles worse than a wet fish. Doesn't get the claimed MPG.
 
Originally Posted By: ViragoBry
My biggest question about increasing MPG requirements is....what is it about Tesla Motor's battery / motor setup that prevents other makes from doing something similar?


Something like $50,000 per Tesla for batteries.
 
eljefino, in response to the Mitsubishi info you posted:

Mitsubishi sold 5,096 vehicles in November. Ford sold 118,000 vehicles. I would wager Ford sold more single models than Mitsubishi sold vehicles.... by a pretty wide margin. Not to mention F-150 sales.....

It's all relative. While Lancer sales may be "off the chart" For Mitsubishi, they are minuscule in comparison to more "common" vehicle sales..... Honda for example sold 76,233 vehicles in comparison.
 
It's ironic that congress is railing on the Detroit CEOs. The big three were saddled with onerous union contracts with pressure from the federal gov't (starting in the 50's) which at the time were politically expedient. Those contracts and the subsequent ones have produced the 'legacy costs' that we hear about. There are about $2200 of legacy costs per vehicle that the non-big three don't have to deal with. You can either make a better car or make more per vehicle. Take away the legacy costs and Detroit can compete. Detroit is not blameless either. They banked everything on selling big trucks and SUVs to marginal credit buyers. All it took is gas going to $4 a gallon to kill them. Businesses of that size should not be caught with their pants down. It's all a result of public companies' only goal is the next quarterly profit report to keep wall street happy and the stock price up. It needs to be blown up and started over.
 
No.

Esp if there is a bailout.

Last year was the first time in my life (and I'm too old) that I have not had a American nameplate in the garage. I've always had a Ford or Chevy. If I get another truck, it will be used.

I'm not going to pay for some bailout product (well, I'm paying for it in many other ways)

Bill
 
Originally Posted By: JDD
It's ironic that congress is railing on the Detroit CEOs. The big three were saddled with onerous union contracts with pressure from the federal gov't (starting in the 50's) which at the time were politically expedient. Those contracts and the subsequent ones have produced the 'legacy costs' that we hear about. There are about $2200 of legacy costs per vehicle that the non-big three don't have to deal with. You can either make a better car or make more per vehicle. Take away the legacy costs and Detroit can compete. Detroit is not blameless either. They banked everything on selling big trucks and SUVs to marginal credit buyers. All it took is gas going to $4 a gallon to kill them. Businesses of that size should not be caught with their pants down. It's all a result of public companies' only goal is the next quarterly profit report to keep wall street happy and the stock price up. It needs to be blown up and started over.


Agree 100%
 
I would have to say that yes most people would buy a car from congressmen !!! The same people would keep on reelecting them for life.
 
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
No.

Esp if there is a bailout.

Last year was the first time in my life (and I'm too old) that I have not had a American nameplate in the garage. I've always had a Ford or Chevy. If I get another truck, it will be used.

I'm not going to pay for some bailout product (well, I'm paying for it in many other ways)

Bill
Count me in as well . That is my feeling .I won't pay twice for a product .
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
No.

Esp if there is a bailout.

Last year was the first time in my life (and I'm too old) that I have not had a American nameplate in the garage. I've always had a Ford or Chevy. If I get another truck, it will be used.

I'm not going to pay for some bailout product (well, I'm paying for it in many other ways)

Bill
Count me in as well . That is my feeling .I won't pay twice for a product .

That's OK. Congress will to see to that you pay for it whether you buy a car or not!
mad.gif
 
The real problem is that GM has to pay retirement, health benefits that the foreign transplants don't have to pay yet since they are relatively new in the US. This puts the domestics at a disadvantage. The actual pay rate is very close, and starting UAW workers are only paid 14 bucks per hour. In the coming years we will be at the same rate as the imports. National health care will help them more than anything, and will also help the USA remain competitive in this "global economy". Keep in mind that every other industrialized country in the world has it except the USA. I see so much union worker bashing here but very few actually know even a little of what they're talking about. Unions made this country what it is (or was). BTW import sales are down too, so this is a global recession.
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
I would have to say that yes most people would buy a car from congressmen !!! The same people would keep on reelecting them for life.


That is a big problem. John Dingle is the ding dong that introduced the bill giving Nixon price control authority. He is still in congress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top