What the American Auto industry has become

[valkyrie]

So are you saying that is the best decision you've made so far?

I'm not the one looking for a handout.

 

[Gato_Solo]

hey now, jim knows all the obama admin's secret plans.

the problem is that the industry is terribly inflexible and in times of higher gas prices they get fucked, consistently, because of the emphasis on truck platforms. they themselves know this. so does anyone else that knows dick about that particular industry. it's textbook shitcan brand portfolio management, as any random MBA could tell you. it needs to change.

Total agreement. However, the government should not be directly involved. If you want people to drive more fuel-efficient cars, then raise the fuel tax. You'll piss off the public, and will not be re-elected, but you'd actually be doing something for 'the good of the country' instead of something to feathering your own nest by raising demand for fuel efficiency.

 

[chcr]

Total agreement. However, the government should not be directly involved. If you want people to drive more fuel-efficient cars, then raise the fuel tax. You'll piss off the public, and will not be re-elected, but you'd actually be doing something for 'the good of the country' instead of something to feathering your own nest by raising demand for fuel efficiency.

Is that even allowed????

 

[MrBishop]

GM is $65B in debt...and currently has 3 retired people on pensions for every working employee. They basically wanted the GVT to come in an fix their debt problem without having to cut too much...well, that's not how it works. You want the GVT to rescue your asses using tax dollars...deal with the rules the GVT sets. Don't want to flex.. deal with that June 1st bankrupcy date...it's coming fast.

 

[MrBishop]

Oh...and Jim...I know that you don't stray far from the RW forum, but...seriously.

 

[2minkey]

Total agreement. However, the government should not be directly involved.

yeah, generally i would agree.

but like bishop sez, they took the money, now they gotta live with the intrusions of mister government's jelly_finger.

 

[Gato_Solo]

yeah, generally i would agree.

but like bishop sez, they took the money, now they gotta live with the intrusions of mister government's jelly_finger.

Which is why I was, and still am, steadfastly against any government bail-out/stimulus package.

Is that even allowed????

Yes. Just not practiced.

 

[spike]

t you'd actually be doing something for 'the good of the country' instead of something to feathering your own nest by raising demand for fuel efficiency.

Wrong, raising demand for fuel efficiency does something good for the country.

 

[Inkara1]

He said by raising the per-gallon fuel tax, you increase the demand for fuel efficiency, which does something good for the country even though it means certain defeat in a re-election bid by being the guy that raised taxes. So then you said that that's wrong and raising demand for fuel efficiency does something good for the country. So I guess it's not raising demand for fuel efficiency that does something good for the country, but rather it's raising demand for fuel efficiency that does something good for the country.

 

[spike]

Maybe I misunderstood when he typed "instead of something to feathering your own nest by raising demand for fuel efficiency"

Looked like he was saying "raise the fuel tax instead of feathering your own nest by raising demand for fuel efficiency". There's a grammatical error in the sentence that might be throwing me off though.

What do you suppose the "feathering your own nest" part is referring to?

 

[Inkara1]

Politicians who would not raise the tax, not for believing that keeping the tax low is the best course of action, but because it would cost him votes. I call that the "Gray Davis" method of governance.

 

[jimpeel]

Dude, you give him far too much credit and power!

You remind me of the far left crazies who used to equate Bush to Hitler!!!



Like I said... don't want the gov't in your business? Get out of the welfare line!

He fired the CEO of GM and is selling part of Chrysler to Fiat. I certainly give him credit for that. The problem is that he does not have that Constitutional power. If he is operating outside of the Constitution then he is operating as a monarch or a dictator. For now, I'll call him King.

 

[jimpeel]

Oh...and Jim...I know that you don't stray far from the RW forum, but...seriously.

Science and technology IS the real world.

 

[valkyrie]

You are shittin' me!?! You really believe this tripe?
You are dumber than you make yourself out to be in your posts!


Ah, shucks... now I feel guilty for making fun of the retarded.

 

[jimpeel]

Total agreement. However, the government should not be directly involved. If you want people to drive more fuel-efficient cars, then raise the fuel tax. You'll piss off the public, and will not be re-elected, but you'd actually be doing something for 'the good of the country' instead of something to feathering your own nest by raising demand for fuel efficiency.

Here's the problem with your contention:

The government sets a floating tax which creates a set price of, say, $4.00 a gallon on gas. If the price of gas is $1.50 the tax is $2.50. If the price of gas is $3.50 the tax is $.50.

The problem will come when the government gets used to all of that money coming in when the price of gas is $1.50 and they find themselves with a "shortage" when it approaches the $4.00. This will give them the incentive to raise the price to $5.00 or $6.00 so their coffers remain full.

As the price of gas rises, so does the price of all the goods which travel courtesy of the internal combustion engine. Meats, poultry, produce skyrocket. Food becomes overpriced. The poor begin to starve and food riots become common.

Think it can't happen here? That's what they all say -- just before it happens here.

Watch what you wish for.

 

[jimpeel]

You are shittin' me!?! You really believe this tripe?
You are dumber than you make yourself out to be in your posts!


Ah, shucks... now I feel guilty for making fun of the retarded.

So he DOES have that Constitutional power. Silly me. I must have missed that part. Could you please show it to me lest I make the same mistake again?

Here's a link to NARA so you can get that information to me post-haste. I can hardly wait.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

 

[spike]

The problem will come when the government gets used to all of that money coming in when the price of gas is $1.50 and they find themselves with a "shortage" when it approaches the $4.00. This will give them the incentive to raise the price to $5.00 or $6.00 so their coffers remain full.

As the price of gas rises, so does the price of all the goods which travel courtesy of the internal combustion engine. Meats, poultry, produce skyrocket. Food becomes overpriced. The poor begin to starve and food riots become common.

Wow, more made up fantasy world shit posted as if it were a fact.

 

[spike]

He fired the CEO of GM and is selling part of Chrysler to Fiat. I certainly give him credit for that. The problem is that he does not have that Constitutional power. If he is operating outside of the Constitution then he is operating as a monarch or a dictator. For now, I'll call him King.

No, companies are taking government bailouts on certain conditions. It's like majority stock ownership Jim. Pretty simple.

If you want to see someone seriously abusing Constitutional powers and acting like a dictator you'd have to go back to the last administration

 

[jimpeel]

You can keep your small cars. I'll keep my 6,300# F-350 one-ton crew cab dually.

SOURCE

Tiny Cars Fail Front-End Crash Tests
Insurance Cos. Give 3 Poor Marks; Automakers Say Collisions Like Those In Tests Are Rare

(CBS/AP) Micro-cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency at a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they don't fare too well in collisions with larger vehicles.

In crash tests released Tuesday, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart "fortwo," Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris could face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

"There are good reasons people buy mini-cars. They're more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests," said Adrian Lund, the institute's president.

He told CBS News, "We know people are trying to save money in this economy; it's just not healthy decision to do that by buying the smallest cars. ... Small cars are at a disadvantage in almost all crashes."

So, in crashes, size does matter, observes CBS News correspondent Daniel Sieberg, who adds that the Institute says, "It's as simple as the law of physics. If you're smaller and you weigh less, you're at a disadvantage in a car crash."

Automakers who manufacture the small cars said the tests simulated a high-speed crash that rarely happens on the road.

They also said the tests rehashed past insurance industry arguments against tougher fuel efficiency requirements. The Institute has raised questions about whether stricter gas mileage rules, which are being developed by the government, might lead to smaller, lighter vehicles that could be less safe.

"If you were to take that argument to the nth degree, we should all be driving 18-wheelers. And the trend in society today is just the opposite," said Dave Schembri, president of Smart USA.

Sales of small cars soared when gas prices topped $4 per gallon last year, but have fallen off as gasoline has retreated to about $2 a gallon and the economic downturn has slowed car sales. The small cars are affordable - prices of the three cars tested range from about $12,000 to $18,000 - and typically achieve 30 miles per gallon or more.

The tests involved head-on crashes between the fortwo and a 2009 Mercedes C Class, the Fit and a 2009 Honda Accord, and the Yaris and the 2009 Toyota Camry. The tests were conducted at 40 miles per hour, representing a severe crash.

In the fortwo collision, the Institute said the Smart (which weighs 1,808 lbs.) went airborne and turned around 450 degrees after striking the C Class, which weighs nearly twice as much.

There was extensive damage to the fortwo's interior, and the Smart driver could have faced extensive injuries to the head and legs. There was little damage to the front seat area of the C Class.

Schembri said the test simulated a "rare and extreme scenario" and noted that the fortwo had received solid ratings from the government's crash test program. The fortwo has received top scores from the Insurance Institute in front-end and side crash tests against comparably-sized vehicles, but in the front-end tests against the C Class, the Institute gave the mini car poor marks.

In the Fit's test, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the air bag and showed a high risk of leg injuries. In the vehicle-to-vehicle test, the Fit was rated poor, while the Accord's structure held up well.

Honda spokesman Todd Mittleman said the tests involved "unusual and extreme conditions" and noted that all 2009 Honda vehicles had received top scores from the Insurance Institute.

In the Yaris test, the Institute said the mini car sustained damage to the door and front passenger area. The driver dummy showed signs of head injuries, a deep gash on the right knee and extensive forces to the neck and right leg.

The Yaris has received good ratings in past front and side testing but received a poor rating in the crash with the Camry. Toyota spokesman John Hanson said the car-to-car test had little relevance to consumers because of its severity.

"It's fairly obvious that they have an agenda here with regard to how smaller cars are going to be entering the North American market in larger numbers," Hanson said.

© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[spike]

Damn look at a Ford f-150 vs a Mini Cooper. Complete failure by the truck.

Wow. Both of these vehicles hit the exact same off-set barrier at 40mph. Now keep in mind that this is not a test of how the two cars would fare in a head-on collision with each-other. This is simply how the cars did versus an off-set crash test. In fact all you have to do is look at the dummy’s legs and you can get an idea of what would happen if you hit a wall in either car. The MINI had almost no intrusion which “indicates that the driver’s survival space was maintained very well” - the F150 on the other hand had “Major collapse of the occupant compartment that left little survival space for the driver.”

I’m interested in how a company could create a modern vehicle that could perform so badly on this test. Furthermore Ford had lots of space to work with to make this a safe vehicle. For BMW/MINI to do the job in 1/4 the space is what engineering is all about.

Keep in mind also this is the best selling vehicle in the US. One would think that Ford, knowing this, would have put more effort into the engineering of this truck. It gets worse; this platform is also the basis of both the Ford Expedition and to some extent the Ford Excursion. Both are marketed to be tough, safe, go anywhere SUVs and are sold as family transportation.

Why haven’t we seen Dateline covering this. Why are they more interested in 5mph bumper tests - shouldn’t this be front page news somewhere? There are millions F150s out there.

You can see the full crash results of the MINI Cooper
here and the Ford F150 here .

Update: For those that continue to have trouble comprehending the inherent danger of vehicles like the F150 here’s a fascinating article in the New Yorker with some interesting information.

The statistics were compiled by Tom Wenzel, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in California, and Marc Ross, a physicist at the University of Michigan. The information comes form a recent article in teh New Yorker:

“The numbers are expressed in fatalities per million cars, both for drivers of particular models and for the drivers of the cars they hit.”

Make/Model Type Driver Deaths Other Deaths Total
Toyota Avalon

large 40 20 60
Chrysler Town & Country

minivan 31 36 67
Toyota Camry

mid-size 41 29 70
Volkswagen Jetta

subcompact 47 23 70
Ford Windstar

minivan 37 35 72
Nissan Maxima

mid-size 53 26 79
Honda Accord

mid-size 54 27 82
Chevrolet Venture

minivan
51

34

85

Buick Century

mid-size 70 23 93
Subaru Legacy/Outback

compact

74 24 98
Mazda 626

compact 70 29 99
Chevrolet Malibu

mid-size 71 34 105
Chevrolet Suburban

S.U.V. 46 59 105
Jeep Grand Cherokee

S.U.V. 61 44 106
Honda Civic

subcompact 84 25 109
Toyota Corolla

subcompact 81 29 110
Ford Expedition

S.U.V. 55 57 112
GMC Jimmy

S.U.V. 76 39 114
Ford Taurus

mid-size 78 39 117
Nissan Altima

compact 72 49 121
Mercury Marquis

large 80 43 123
Nissan Sentra

subcompact 95 34 129
Toyota 4Runner

S.U.V. 94 43 137
Chevrolet Tahoe

S.U.V. 68 74 141
Dodge Stratus

mid-size 103 40 143
Lincoln Town Car

large 100 47 147
Ford Explorer

S.U.V. 88 60 148
Pontiac Grand Am

compact 118 39 157
Toyota Tacoma

pickup 111 59 171
Chevrolet Cavalier

subcompact 146 41 186
Dodge Neon

subcompact 161 39 199
Pontiac Sunfire

subcompact 158 44 202
Ford F-Series

pickup 110 128 238
“Are the best performers the biggest and heaviest vehicles on the road? Not at all. Among the safest cars are the midsize imports, like the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. Or consider the extraordinary performance of some subcompacts, like the Volkswagen Jetta. Drivers of the tiny Jetta die at a rate of just forty-seven per million, which is in the same range as drivers of the five-thousand-pound Chevrolet Suburban and almost half that of popular S.U.V. models like the Ford Explorer or the GMC Jimmy. In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry. But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a way to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits of being nimble–of being in an automobile that’s capable of staying out of trouble–are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big.”

You can read the entire article here: Big and Bad

Update 2: Ford has redesigned the F150 for 2004 with an notable advances with regards to safety. In fact the IIHS had named the new F150 a “Best Pick” in the large truck category. Now granted this doesn’t change the fact that Ford designed and released the previous generation of F150s knowing there were safety concerns. Further it doesn’t change any of the statistics showing larger vehicles cause more havoc on the roads. But it does show that Ford clearly understood the issues with the previous generation and worked hard to alleviate them.

http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150