Counting down the days until the end of General Motors

[HotHotHeat]

That Ikea post is freaking hilarious

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

A pure electric car is clean to drive because it doesn't produce anything, sure, and sure getting Hydrogen would be tough and produce pollutants. But would you honestly be happy charging your car every friggen day? I am not a 5 year old anymore, because that is all Electric cars are, supersized remote controls cars the way I see it. Recharge the battey, recharge the battery, drive a measly 120 miles, recharge the battery. Give me a break, it would change our culture enormously. Hydrogen doesn't, it is the exact same as we drive right now, except a different fuel. And it produces water, not harmful toxins, so it is the right now + no damage to the environment, isn't that we want?

By the way, Hybrids are a joke. Nothing more than a symbol of deuchebaggery. It is like a fohawk. People think your cool, when in reality your a pathetic human being. Fohawks suck by the way, either A) Get a real mohawk you puss, or B) kill yourself. But that is another discussion. :P

Okay, you've said this like three times already. Here's an education for you. Current hybrids serve a valuable function if you would take two seconds to think about it. First, and most obviously, every kilometre driven by a hybrid instead of a traditional has vehicle saves fuel, extending the available resources for everyone. Fleet conversions such as taxis and courier vehicles save massive amounts of gasoline from being burnt because they do the kind of driving most likely to produce excessive emissions and gasoline waste due to idling.

Secondly, the adopters of hybrid technology showed the major automakers that there really is a mainstream market for vehicles developed to an environmental standard vs. An aesthetic or power based approach to design is not the be all, end all to auto design. While many people that own hybrids may not realize that they are not all they are cracked up to be environmentally, that doesn't make them ######bags, at least they're trying to do something.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Secondly, the adopters of hybrid technology showed the major automakers that there really is a mainstream market for vehicles developed to an environmental standard vs. An aesthetic or power based approach to design is not the be all, end all to auto design. While many people that own hybrids may not realize that they are not all they are cracked up to be environmentally, that doesn't make them ######bags, at least they're trying to do something.

Yea, in my books driving a Hybrid means you paid too much money for an 'in between' technology with no promise and no real results. It's a fad. My personal favorite? The hybrid Escalade. Great thinking GM. Maybe if the Hummer brand hadn't been sold off it would be next.

[CrusaderPi]

A hummer hybrid. The world would be saved by a green(ish) penis extension.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The hybrid Escalade. Great thinking GM.

Dunno, of all the cars they did hybrid this probably made the most sense. How much gas do you seriously save in a little toyota vs a Escalade?

[Finner]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Okay, you've said this like three times already. Here's an education for you. Current hybrids serve a valuable function if you would take two seconds to think about it. First, and most obviously, every kilometre driven by a hybrid instead of a traditional has vehicle saves fuel, extending the available resources for everyone.....

Actually thats bullcrap. They did a study showing the additional cost in resources to actually build a hybrid is worse for the environment, and they actually use more energy then traditional gasoline engines.

Because the study takes into account every aspect of the production process, hybrids like the Honda Accord Hybrid have an energy cost of $3.49 per mile. Compare that to a regular Accord, at $2.18, or a Hummer H3, at $1.98, and that green vehicle taxes the environment more.

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...s_not_as_.html

You may be surprised if you thought hybrids were the obvious winners.

The Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the “Dust to Dust” lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version, CNW claims.

And you may do a doubletake after reading this:

For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civics at $2.42 per mile.

Basically, when considering all relevant variables such as materials, fabrication, plastics, carpets, chemicals, shipping, and transportation, gas mileage turns out to be significantly less relevant than many people assume.

http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1...nmental-choice

Most people who drive hybrids spout off about how what they are doing for the environment is great, when it actuality they would have been better off buying a regular fuel efficient vehicle. Basically all they are doing is saving money on gas at the expense of the environment.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

A pure electric car is clean to drive because it doesn't produce anything, sure, and sure getting Hydrogen would be tough and produce pollutants. But would you honestly be happy charging your car every friggen day? I am not a 5 year old anymore, because that is all Electric cars are, supersized remote controls cars the way I see it. Recharge the battey, recharge the battery, drive a measly 120 miles, recharge the battery. Give me a break, it would change our culture enormously. Hydrogen doesn't, it is the exact same as we drive right now, except a different fuel. And it produces water, not harmful toxins, so it is the right now + no damage to the environment, isn't that we want?

By the way, Hybrids are a joke. Nothing more than a symbol of deuchebaggery. It is like a fohawk. People think your cool, when in reality your a pathetic human being. Fohawks suck by the way, either A) Get a real mohawk you puss, or B) kill yourself. But that is another discussion. :P

A hydrogen based transportation system would have massive impacts. Do you realize how much infrastructure would need to be installed? Pipelines, tanks, fully reconstructed gas stations, production plants, and on and on and on. It's a great idea, that's for sure. And hopefully we get there someday. But there is no way to deliver the product to market yet. The nice thing about hybrids is that they work with our current gasoline distribution system and all its physical installed assets.

[HotHotHeat]

And now Chrsler is THREATENING to halt all Canadian production without a government handout. I swear.... If those pesky Ontario MP's vote this through....

Chrysler president and vice chairman Tom LaSorda told MPs Wednesday the company is seeking US$2.3 billion from the Canadian government -- roughly a quarter of what it's asking from the White House.

He also said Canada's tax agency must agree to not demand more cash or collateral in a tax fight with the company. The Canada Revenue Agency is withholding $300 million in tax rebated and has put a $500-million lien on Chrysler's Brampton plant.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Hey Chrysler, remember when you told everyone your cars suck? Here. And here.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Dunno, of all the cars they did hybrid this probably made the most sense. How much gas do you seriously save in a little toyota vs a Escalade?

Keep in mind the purpose of a gas saving vehicle is to use less gas. What uses less gas, a massive, boxy, non aerodynamic thing on wheels with twice the amount of horsepower the hockey mom driving it needs, or a economy sized, stream lined car? Why do you think no one bought massive SUV's when the price of gas was so high last summer?

[Suave]

Originally Posted by Finner

Actually thats bullcrap. They did a study showing the additional cost in resources to actually build a hybrid is worse for the environment, and they actually use more energy then traditional gasoline engines.



http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...s_not_as_.html



http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1...nmental-choice

Most people who drive hybrids spout off about how what they are doing for the environment is great, when it actuality they would have been better off buying a regular fuel efficient vehicle. Basically all they are doing is saving money on gas at the expense of the environment.

This "study" also bases its lifecycle on the Pirus only going 100,000 miles while the Hummer is based on 300,000 miles. And you wonder why the per mile cost is cheaper for the Hummer when you use 3x as many miles to amortize the cost.

Further the Hummer and most of the other low "per mile" vehicles are using technology which is 50 years old so most of the R&D is already complete. So you don't have to count all those engineers driving to work to develop new technology. These cost should be amortized over the lifecycle of the technology not on the first generation of vehicles (like they are with there combustion engine counterparts).

So it’s easy to see when you actually use apples to apples comparisons who the actual ######bags are, and its not the hybrid owners.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Keep in mind the purpose of a gas saving vehicle is to use less gas. What uses less gas, a massive, boxy, non aerodynamic thing on wheels with twice the amount of horsepower the hockey mom driving it needs, or a economy sized, stream lined car? Why do you think no one bought massive SUV's when the price of gas was so high last summer?

My original comment was more tongue in cheek, but I am confused, are you saying gas savings only count if you drive a small car?

I ran some numbers, based on 15000 miles driven per year, the average driver would save 138 Gallons of fuel driving a Civic hybrid vs a regular civic. The average Escalade driver would save 217 Gallons of fuel driving the hybrid version.

So there you have it folks, Escalade drivers who choose the hybrid version are doing more to save the environment then Civic owners who choose a hybrid!

[TimSJ]

The thing with Hybrids though is that they are really only bennificial if driven in the city. Once you get out on the open road the savings really starts to reduce.

In Canada with our huge spaces between cities etc the cost savings of drving a hybrid is reduced greatly. Add in the extra cost for the Hybrid and it is not such a good deal.

No question the hybrid is a bridge technology and most of the companies will admit such. I just returned from Meeting as stuff at Mercedes in Germany and the technology that is coming down the pipe is pretty impressive. When it actually gets here is another question.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Finner

Actually thats bullcrap. They did a study showing the additional cost in resources to actually build a hybrid is worse for the environment, and they actually use more energy then traditional gasoline engines.



http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...s_not_as_.html



http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1...nmental-choice

Most people who drive hybrids spout off about how what they are doing for the environment is great, when it actuality they would have been better off buying a regular fuel efficient vehicle. Basically all they are doing is saving money on gas at the expense of the environment.

Hmm.. forgot about this thread for a while.

Umm... your own linked article specifically says that it is not talking about mileage and that these cars wil save gas. The fact that the other materials and production processes may create a higher 'cost' of energy, doesn't mean that the vehicles use gas less efficiently. My point was that hybrids save gas from being burnt, and your source appears to agree with me, while pointing out that other factors make hybrids more 'expensive' energywise. The article also points out that the increased costs of hybrids may be offset by newer manufacturing processes in time. Once the gas is burnt though, it's gone. I don't understand why people refuse to accept that immediate economic efficiency isn't the goal of the hybrid, it's about long term-planning. Hybrids are the 'transitional fossils' of autho evolution...

[Azure]

Getting back on topic here for a second.....

March 21 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC may need “considerably” more than the $21.6 billion in aid they requested, which was based on optimistic recovery plans, said Steven Rattner, the Treasury’s chief auto adviser.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Azure

Getting back on topic here for a second.....


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

Dear lord. They want more money, which is to be expected. But if $21,000,000,000 isn't enough, sorry but just let them die. Year after year they are losing money, ie. no Profit, so why bother keeping them?

They should fire all their Executives, hire ones that aren't complete money hungry bafoons, restructure salaries, and most importantly, MAKE DECENT VEHCILES (PROPER SUSPENSION, DON'T FALL APART, LOOK GOOD).

[Traditional_Ale]

Why do we continue to support a company that produces cars that nobody wants to buy?

[Jedi Ninja]

GM has $100b just in unfunded pension and medical liabilities alone (about $50b each.) I mean, what's the point of flushing money down that toilet?

Let the bankruptcy courts deal with this mess.

[CaptainCrunch]

I agree, I think that the big three probably has to shrink down to the big two or one. Chrsyler with their pension, union and sales problems isn't worth propping up except to keep those jobs in play, but I don't think those jobs justify the dollars needed to keep it. It might be cheaper to kill Chrysler sell the assets and retrain the workers to build bridges.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

GM has $100b just in unfunded pension and medical liabilities alone (about $50b each.) I mean, what's the point of flushing money down that toilet?

Let the bankruptcy courts deal with this mess.

Because the government is hell bent on burning as much money as possible hoping that something good comes out of it.

Personally, I think nobody in the Obama administration knows what the heck is going on, or what they should do to fix it. So they're just throwing money into the wind hoping that something happens.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because the government is hell bent on burning as much money as possible hoping that something good comes out of it.

Personally, I think nobody in the Obama administration knows what the heck is going on, or what they should do to fix it. So they're just throwing money into the wind hoping that something happens.

The oldest concept in the world except for prostitution is that you have to let some business die. Thats one of the benefits of a economic crisis is it forces companies to either be agile and change their business model or die and someone else comes in to take their place in the market.

I've never been a fan of government supporting businesses, and I think that the U.S. governments drive to throw trillions of dollars into creating a false economy is going to fail now and not only cause a great deal of future down the road, but its going to also stretch out the recession in the states and create a business environment that's not only completely dependent on the government but is never going to be able to or have the desire to pay back these bailouts.

Sometimes the best thing that you can do is sit back and let nature take its course, let the crappy companies take the hits and die.

Bailouts to me just don't work long term or even short term.