martin

You seem like a really nice guy. Why are you waisting yourself on GM? BAS is a joke as most of GM has been for the last fourty years.

I really wish you would go to work for one of the Asian producers where you could do some real good.

GM is thinking of paying for gas in Fl. and CA. for a year for folks that buy select SUv's. Does that sound like a good move by a company thats going broke. Sounds about as brite as some of the unino contracts they have signed in the past.

Nothings changing at GM. There still building junk, still building that junk as poorly as poosible with some of the over all worst engineering and production in the world.

Cant GM just die and we move on past this hemoraging mass of American misfortune.

I am, but let's face it. There's no way you could truly know this from my infrequent posts on an internet forum. For all you know I could be twisting the heads off kittens when I'm not posting or at work.


I don't consider the work I do for my company a waste of time and quite frankly, I find most of your post offensive. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't intend for it to be offensive, but fact is, if someone accidentally threw a baseball threw my living room window, I'd understand the mistake, but I'd still be pissed. That's pretty much how I view your post.


Won't happen. Speculate on something that has a snowball's chance.

A) Yes it does sound like a good idea or I wouldn't characterize it as such and

B) It' is highly unlikely that GM will go broke.


or maybe that would be BRIGHT?


I won't bother commenting on the rest. Not worth the rise in my blood pressure.

Have a nice day.

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I hope GM will have the Hybrid version for the Cadillac. I like the smooth ride of the car!

...not sure where the constructive part of this is, even being that its simply venting. Could you quantify 'junk' and 'worst engineering' a little more precisely? Massive generalizations do nobody any good whatsoever.

...or what happened to 'if you can't say something nice, don't say it at all'

...personal stabs or comments, even when not derogatory, have no place here. Don't comment/criticize someone else's employment choice, at least not here. It adds nothing to the discussion, and drags everything down.

Gonavy,

Thanks!

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

Even though I don't necessarily want to buy a GM vehicle right this moment, I think their approach makes sense. The BAS concept might not produce huge numbers, but it is much more accessible from a cost perspective. What if it gets to the point that they can implement it on every vehicle they make, as opposed to the Toyota and Honda approach of putting it on just a few vehicles that are relatively expensive? The potential is there for GM to make a huge impact on overall consumption, even if those vehicles don't get 50+mpg.

And as for good engineers working for a company that's still working on its technology, isn't that the point? Working at a company doesn't have all the answers provides the best opportunity to flex a little brain muscle and do something really interesting. That's what we want a career to be like! Working for a company that already has the answers is dull. There might be a little more money in it, but nowhere near the level of satisfaction.

Part of the reason for the cost difference between the hybrid and non-hybrid Honda and Toyota models is that hybrid production is still very much less than non-hybrid production. Whereas Honda sold a few hundred thousand standard Accords last year it sold less than 20,000 HAHs. As the technology becomes more mainstream and production increases the cost differential will fall.

GM is doing pretty decently everywhere but the USA. They have some nice high tech small FE cars in Europe-some small high tech diesels.Honda traded their V-6 3.5 (GM put it in the VUE) for some small passenger car diesels~2 years ago.
Manufacturing in USA isn't-and won't-be an even playing field because labor costs.The Japanese corps.USA plants have a HUGE labor/pension cost advantage.
Small cars-especially small cars manufactured here with $65/hr labor costs-can't make GM any money.This is why we get a low cost,low tech Korean Aveos($11,000 price) with relatively poor FE. Maybe things will change now that small vehicles are in demand. No one would have considered buying a TDI Corsa(Yaris sized-better FE with the TDI) for $23000, or a TDI Zafira(175" more room than a Prius- it is a small squatty minivan that gets Prius mpg)) for $27000.
If GM manages to get by our diesel regs, and fuel stays in the $3 range, then maybe these cars will come here, or even be manufactured here.
In the USA all the really high techGM stuff(4 wheel steering, the shocks with fluid that could instantly change viscosity) ends up on high end $40000+ vehicles.OnStar is the only exception,I guess.GM was smart to get in bed with XM radio also.
GMs manufacturing cost problems are limited to the USA. They are doing OK elsewhere. Luck,Charlie

Martin, like Psyshack, I also believe you're a nice guy. Actually I like how you described yourself on your first posting:

I believe most people here feel that GM is taking the wrong approach when it comes to supporting alternative fuel and hybrid technology.

I do appreciate the fact that you take the time to participate in this forum and have the patience to put up with it.

Giving away or subsidizing gas purchases to promote large vehicle sales, rather than using that money to improve the gas efficiency of those vehicles is obscene to me. It is like giving away cigarettes or alcoholic beverages, it really doesn't seem the smart thing to do. It makes me question if GM is really serious about fuel economy and it is actually at odds with the first reason why you visit this forum:

Peace to you too. Katz.

Best Tank = 54.2 mpg (Sep. 9'06)
Best Trip = 61.9 mpg

Katz,



Thanks for the post. The difference between what you say and what Psyshack said is all in the delivery. I can deal with people who disagree with me. I have no time for people who just want to be disagreeable. There's a huge difference. Psyshack also caught me on a bad day with what was, and still is in my opinion, an insulting post.

As far as the "does GM really car about fuel economy?" issue, I'd say the evidence is right there in front for all to see. Some would qualify "cares about fuel economy" to mean "stop making SUVs". That is obviously not GM's pov. If GM were truly not focused on fuel economy, you would not see so much effort put into making the new Tahoe, Yukon, Suburban, etc the best fuel economy vehicles in their segments. Because I get to see the engineering effort and the content that goes into that and the styling tradeoffs that are made in favor of achieving best in class fuel economy, I know that the commitment is there.

Likewise the commitment to make the mid size sedans fuel economy leaders in their segments.

As far as providing people the incentives by subsidizing the fuel purchases, I'd just say there is a fine line between saying "we'll credit you for fuel prices over $1.99" or just putting $2,500 back in your pocket at time of purchase. At the end of the day, the same amount of fuel is going to be used. How the subsidy is managed is pretty much immaterial.

Thanks for reminding me what I wrote in my first post. I will continue to try to live up to that. I will, however, fire back when I think things are way over the top or personal.

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues