VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner
181 - 200 of 300 Posts
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (JustinCSVT)

Quote, originally posted by JustinCSVT »
They are carrying the extra weight around because the government and consumers are demanding safer, quieter, more powerful, better quality cars. All of that leads to extra weight in all cars.

But who is generating that demand? The auto industry itself, that's who!
And this trend can only go so far before passenger vehicles start to exceed the weight limit of many suburban and rural roads. In my town, there are several residential streets with a 4-ton GVWR limit, and yet I see people driver Hummer H2s on those roads, despite the fact that it is banned from those roads because it exceeds 4 tons GVWR (and thus is also exempt from EPA mileage ratings).
The real irony is that they'll have to start building garages and driveways larger to accomodate these behemoths, too! I had a good laugh the first time I saw a Lincoln Navigator parked in a neighbor's driveway, because it was too tall to fit in their garage.
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (VWestlife)

Quote, originally posted by VWestlife »

But who is generating that demand? The auto industry itself, that's who!

Pfff!! My mom is generating those demands. And my dad and his friends, and my friends, and many people on this board. The general trend of heavier vehicles has been going on for 20+ years now. The automakers would be perfectly content to let you go out the door with a car that doesn't cost that much to make, is cheap, and light but that's not how the auto business works. Whoever makes the car that makes the average driver feel like they are getting something better than what they paid for it is getting the majority of sales.
ALso, why are you targeting this towards H2s and SUVs. This trend applies to all cars.


Modified by JustinCSVT at 7:56 PM 4-10-2007
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (cpthowdy)

hey bob, cancel the impala and make the smaller g6. there you just made a more fuel efficient rwd car. start weening people off of large cars that you can't make a business case for building. the people want to buy what they want to buy. im kind of surprised there's not more of a push back by all the manufactures. they probably know that gm will freak out loud enough for all of them
Image

the auto makers are actually caught between a rock and a hard place. they will all have to lower the size of there engines, add di to everything, add dual VaNoS like vvt technology to everything, start using more aluminum, magnesium, carbon fiber, fiberglass, etc... to engines and structures of cars to get the weight down and efficients up.
unfortunately, this will result in a $28,000 corola with a 125hp 1.3l I4 that weighs 2500lbs has a 5 star crash test rating and gets 40 city and 50 hw mpg. is this the future of the car industry? who will lead the way? will they use there billions of dollars in the bank to get everything to this standard? or will they keep there money and charge us for the car making revolution? how long till this is the standard? once these exotic techs and materials become not so exotic, things will probably get cheaper again and we will be in store for more crazed legislation.
Image
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (rimtrim)

Quote, originally posted by rimtrim »
My Buick has a 307 V8 that puts out about 165 HP, and is EPA rated 17/24. That's better than most modern V8s, and mine is carbureted!

Cars like yours are the reason why GM is in the place it is today.
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (VWestlife)

Quote, originally posted by VWestlife »
But who is generating that demand? The auto industry itself, that's who!

Wait, what?
Image

The auto companies are only offering what people want to buy. It's not as if GM or Ford or VW or Toyota is forcing people to purchase vehicles with features that they don't want.
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (job)

Quote, originally posted by job »
The auto companies are only offering what people want to buy.

And people only buy what the auto companies want to offer. I bet everyone here knows at least one person who bought a new car or truck, despite the fact that numerous things about it are worse than the previous vehicle they owned -- usually things like less interior room, less cargo room, poorer visibility, poorer fuel economy, and unwanted equipment (like Z-rated tires, iDrive, black leather interior in Florida, etc.). But yet they bought it anyway, because their ideal vehicle just isn't being built anymore, or has grown too large and/or too expensive.
For example, my mom loves her 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee. But if she bought a new one today, it wouldn't fit in her garage, so she's considering the Liberty instead, even though it is much smaller inside. And it would still get almost the same (poor) gas mileage, despite having a smaller and much more efficient engine than the AMC pushrod inline-6 in her G.C., whose basic design dates to 1962!
 
Re: (NewsJunkie)

Quote, originally posted by NewsJunkie »
Huh? VW takes a loss on every base model rabbit sold in the US. Building cars in Europe, they stand at a currency disadvantage.

Very true. The Rabbit is certainly an exception - being that it is a volume-sales car sold in North America at a low cost, the margins are definitely not there. What I was referring to were the industry sales margin leaders like Porsche, BMW and Merc - all of whom have historically had issues meeting CAFE. VW on the other hand has paid fines in recent years, but they have been far less than the others.

Back to my main point:
If Bush wasn't tied so closely to oil companies, there might actually be a chance of reducing consumption. CAFE requirements on the other hand have been failures historically, but they put the onus on the automaker rather than the (voting) consumer. A policy that hurts an already shrinking sector, but does not directly affect everyone else, and doesn't really impact the campaign-funding oil companies. Perfect!
Image
 
Re: (Froster)

Quote, originally posted by Froster »

Very true. The Rabbit is certainly an exception - being that it is a volume-sales car sold in North America at a low cost, the margins are definitely not there. What I was referring to were the industry sales margin leaders like Porsche, BMW and Merc - all of whom have historically had issues meeting CAFE. VW on the other hand has paid fines in recent years, but they have been far less than the others.

Back to my main point:
If Bush wasn't tied so closely to oil companies, there might actually be a chance of reducing consumption. CAFE requirements on the other hand have been failures historically, but they put the onus on the automaker rather than the (voting) consumer. A policy that hurts an already shrinking sector, but does not directly affect everyone else, and doesn't really impact the campaign-funding oil companies. Perfect!
Image

How the heck do you drag Bush into this... give me a break
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (turbo_nine)

Quote, originally posted by turbo_nine »
In other whining news, isn't GM a part of the suit against Vermont for following the same CARB rules that prohibit the sale of new diesels like the one you mentioned?

No, it is not.
The suit against Vermont is challenging Vermont's ability to set fuel economy standards that are higher than Federal standards. No one is challenging Vermont's right to follow CARB emissions standards.
Furthermore, CARB standards do not prohibit the sale of new Diesel engines. They do require Diesel engines to be cleaner. It was impossible to meet MY2005+ CARB standards for passenger car* Diesels with the 300ppm sulfur (LSD) fuel that was used for on-road Diesels in the US until fall 2006. However, on-road Diesel fuel sold in the US must now be no more than 15ppm sulfur, enabling the use of emissions control technologies such as NOx-reducing catalytic converters or urea injection. With these technologies, companies such as DaimerChrysler, VW/Audi, and BMW will be introducing passenger cars with Diesel engines that are legal in all 50 states, including VT, for the 2008 model year.
*Emissions standards for light trucks and heavier vehicles are less stringent, which is why you can still buy a 2007 Ford F350 Diesel, for example, in all 50 states.
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (jddaigle)

I hope this news changes...especially if they were even thinking of bringing over that hatch/sedan placed under the G8.
Use some of that flex-fuel...make us some nice bio-diesel options, lol.
Image
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (uberR32)

Quote, originally posted by uberR32 »
I'm demanding a ~2000 lb car with four seats and a trunk, and nobody is listening to me . . . . . . . . .

You had your chance, before the Toyota Echo was replaced by the heavier Yaris.
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (Rukh)

Quote, originally posted by Rukh »

Free tip: Build smaller RWD cars with more fuel efficient engines.
Not every RWD car built has to be a sports car or large sedan with a 400 hp V8.

RWD is pointless if the car is not sporty or is a truck meant for towing heavy trailers. To make sense, a RWD car needs to make use of its being RWD to compensate for the lesser interior room.
Now, there could be a market for a sporty handling car that is not that powerful, but it is probably a niche market in the US. People in the US seem to be far more interested in 250+ hp than they are in sporty handling.
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (JustinCSVT)

Quote, originally posted by JustinCSVT »
The only car I can think of that has lost weight in the last few years is the Corvette.

Didn't the Kia Sedona also lose weight?
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (tjl)

Quote, originally posted by tjl »

Didn't the Kia Sedona also lose weight?

New minis are also lighter.
And the RWD thing, I knew it was too good to be true.
*Laughs in the background
 
Re: GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles (someguy123)

Government thugs want to force GM to make cars that consumers don't want. It's a recipe for destroying America's manufacturing base and great American automakers and handing over our industry to the Japanese and others who sell small cars in their home markets and thus have a better business case for making them. This just confirms my strong desire to get a G8 or Camaro before the hyperid driving hypocrites in power either destroy GM or force it to stop making cars that I want to buy. I will buy myself a 6L V8 car. I will convert as many dinosaurs to CO2 before I die as I can, and the government and envirohippies can go screw themselves.
 
Re: (NewsJunkie)

Quote, originally posted by NewsJunkie »

Huh? VW takes a loss on every base model rabbit sold in the US. Building cars in Europe, they stand at a currency disadvantage.

x2
There is a decided disadvantage to building cars in Japan or Europe and then trying to sell them in the US. This has been especially true for the last 8 years since the US dollar has been so weak against both the Yen and the Euro.
 
I've got another suggestion for GM to improve their fuel economy besides cutting out some of the truck-guzzlers. They need to start putting 5 or 6 speed trannys in their cars instead of the 15 year-old 4 spd slushboxes. An extra two gears should make a sizeable dent in their fuel economy.


Modified by rexxmann at 11:55 AM 4-11-2007
 
Re: (Vans)

Quote, originally posted by Vans »
How the heck do you drag Bush into this... give me a break

Quote, originally posted by Chicago Tribune »
...a proposal by the Bush administration to raise corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards by 4 percent a year so cars would have to average 34 m.p.g. by 2017

I didn't drag Bush into it, the administration proposed these changes.
The way I look at it, CAFE requirements have not yielded a real reduction in fuel consumption (its about the same now as it was in the 70s) but increases in fuel costs have been seen to reduce consumption and adjust people's buying habits. If the policy goal is to reduce fuel consumption (and dependence on foreign oil), some research policy options would indicate that placing the burden on automakers is one of the least effective options. Given that an ineffective policy option was chosen, and it happens to be one that history indicates will not appreciably decrease the sale of fuel to the benefit of oil companies, that it was chosen because it has little impact on oil companies (and little direct effect on the consumer).
Lastly, if this was truly good policy that had significant policy goals behind it, it would not be left to the end of a term. Frankly, I suspect any and all policy that occurs towards the end of a politician's term, because it tends to be something that they either want to sneak in, or don't want to debate much publicly. If they saw it as important and popular, it would have been done sooner.
 
Re: (rexxmann)

Quote, originally posted by rexxmann »
There is a decided disadvantage to building cars in Japan or Europe and then trying to sell them in the US. This has been especially true for the last 8 years since the US dollar has been so weak against both the Yen and the Euro.

You're right, the Euro has been strong. The advantage to the Luxury German makes is that their large cash reserves have allowed them to hedge against currency fluctuations. If the current value sticks though, it will hurt them. I mis-stated that. Its not an advantage to them, but hedged properly, with intelligent sourcing of parts and materials that use the value of the euro to their advantage offsets some of the potential downside.
The Japanese on the other hand are in a very different situation. The Japanese central bank actively works to keep the value of the yen down. When Toyota revised their profit for the first half of last year from 370B Yen to 540B yen, 150B yen of that difference was reported by Toyota to be due to the low value of the yen.
So, the Europeans have money making machines, but not because of currency, and the Japanese take advantage of the weak yen to earn some big money.
 
181 - 200 of 300 Posts