And If There Was Any Doubt About Dumbfucks in Detroit

[Tuckerfan]

Bob Lutz, Geneal Motors executive, should be able to remove all doubt with his latest comment.

According to D Magazine, at a private lunch, GM chairman Maximum Bob Lutz said global warming is a “total crock of shit.” Bob adds “I’m a skeptic, not a denier. Having said that, my opinion doesn’t matter.”

Yeah, okay, Bob. You’re the head of one of the largest corporations in the world, you help set policy and have considerable influence, not only within your own industry, but in manufacturing in general, and for some reason you think your “opinion doesn’t matter.”
In Tucker: The Man and His Dream, the character of Robert Bennington (a composite of two Tucker Corporation executives, who had close ties to the aumotive industry before joining Tucker) makes a statement to the effect that research and development is not really important. It seems that sentiment is still alive and well in the car industry. :rolleyes:

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Well, what did you expect him to say?

Global warming has the ability to destroy the automobile industry. Did you expect him to be some sort of crusader? His livelihood, and those of hundreds of thousands of others, depends upon production of automobiles.

Your expectations are remarkably high. Seriously, did you expect him to come out against his own company? Let’s be realistic. That’s like asking a commander of an Army armor division about global warming.

[Tuckerfan]

@Airman Doors

Well, what did you expect him to say?

Global warming has the ability to destroy the automobile industry. Did you expect him to be some sort of crusader? His livelihood, and those of hundreds of thousands of others, depends upon production of automobiles.

Your expectations are remarkably high. Seriously, did you expect him to come out against his own company? Let’s be realistic. That’s like asking a commander of an Army armor division about global warming.

The transportation industry as a whole represents less than 10% of all greenhouse gases produced globally. Global warming is a threat to the carmakers only if they do nothing.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Tuckerfan

The transportation industry as a whole represents less than 10% of all greenhouse gases produced globally. Global warming is a threat to the carmakers only if they do nothing.

…and yet that 10% is subject to CAFE standards in the US and enormous criticism. Hell, the European equivalent of CAFE standards threatens to destroy Porsche, Lamborghini, and Ferrari (among others) because there’s no possible way they can meet them without destroying their status because there’s no possible way they can achieve mileage standards without destroying their “elite” reputation.

GM was only a few years ago looking down the barrel of a gun. Ford and Chrysler still are. It would be silly indeed to think that Lutz would be for standards that GM would be hard-pressed to meet while still maintaining their customer base. No matter what legislators think, people in general will buy vehicles that “guzzle” gas as long as they can. In fact, CAFE standards won’t prompt fuel savngs, they will enhance it. If you can travel twice the miles on the same gallon, how does that reduce fuel consumption? It doesn’t. In essence, it makes fuel cheaper by half. Yet CAFE is the best solution? I think not.

Lutz is toeing the corporate line. While I might disagree with him with regard to global warming, I don’t fault him for his statements. He really has no choice.

[Tuckerfan]

@Airman Doors

…and yet that 10% is subject to CAFE standards in the US and enormous criticism. Hell, the European equivalent of CAFE standards threatens to destroy Porsche, Lamborghini, and Ferrari (among others) because there’s no possible way they can meet them without destroying their status because there’s no possible way they can achieve mileage standards without destroying their “elite” reputation.

Bullshit. The carmakers have been footdragging on better technology for years. They can do it, but they’d actually have to work at it, instead of spending billions on executive bonuses and researching new paint colors. There’s ample technology out there (some of it public domain) which will enable them to improve the fuel economy of their cars. It’s just that carmakers are inflicted with what’s known as Not Invented Here Syndrome, if they didn’t invent it, they don’t want anything to do with it.

Do you have any idea of how old hybrid technology is? And who built the first hybrid car? A fellow by the name of Ferdinand Porsche in 1899. Perhaps you’ve heard of him? They’ve sat on their collective asses, insisting that they couldn’t never build anything better than what they were turning out, and they’ve said this since before the 1960s. Yet, somehow, when they laws change, they still manage to build plenty of cars which meet the standards.

[DanBlather]

@Airman Doors

…and yet that 10% is subject to CAFE standards in the US and enormous criticism. Hell, the European equivalent of CAFE standards threatens to destroy Porsche, Lamborghini, and Ferrari (among others) because there’s no possible way they can meet them without destroying their status because there’s no possible way they can achieve mileage standards without destroying their “elite” reputation.

That’s one way to think about it, the other is that we are at the cusp of a change in the automotive/transportation business. You can whine about it and fight regulation tooth and nail or embrace it and get rich. Minicomputers took over from mainframes, workstations took over from minis, and PCs took over from workstations. Companies like IBM that recognized the trend have done well, DEC didn’t do as good a job.

Detroit should have seen the writing on the wall and gone whole hog for hybrids and electrics as a way to wrest market share back from the Japanese. They could have asked congress for subsidies to invest in the new technology. Instead they stuck their heads up their collective asses and now have to license hybrid technology from Japan.

GM might as well just write a check directly out to Osama bin Laden. Every 1 MPG more in the fleet average is a few hundred million dollars we send to those pricks in the middle-east.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Tuckerfan

Bullshit. The carmakers have been footdragging on better technology for years. They can do it, but they’d actually have to work at it, instead of spending billions on executive bonuses and researching new paint colors. There’s ample technology out there (some of it public domain) which will enable them to improve the fuel economy of their cars. It’s just that carmakers are inflicted with what’s known as Not Invented Here Syndrome, if they didn’t invent it, they don’t want anything to do with it.

You must be joking. The absurd movie (and its propaganda) notwithstanding, GM did more to advance electric cars than anyone before or since.

Do you have any idea of how old hybrid technology is? And who built the first hybrid car? A fellow by the name of Ferdinand Porsche in 1899. Perhaps you’ve heard of him? They’ve sat on their collective asses, insisting that they couldn’t never build anything better than what they were turning out, and they’ve said this since before the 1960s. Yet, somehow, when they laws change, they still manage to build plenty of cars which meet the standards.

Tell me how that’s going to make an automaker that turns out 12-cylinder, 600-horsepower V-10s maintain their market, which consists of people who could give a shit one way or the other after paying 400,000+ for their vehicles. The road of “premier” vehicle builders who produce downmarket cars is paved with failure (Ferrari Mondial, Alfasud, etc.) When these guys go downmarket they kill their brand, and it is proven time and again.

[Tuckerfan]

@Airman Doors

You must be joking. The absurd movie (and its propaganda) notwithstanding, GM did more to advance electric cars than anyone before or since.

I presume by “propaganda movie” you mean Who Killed the Electric Car? If that’s the case, then allow me to direct you to this thread, where I state that the film is utter bullshit. I am not an advocate for electric cars, I don’t particularly like hybrids, but they do get good gas mileage. So do diesels, and a diesel powered hybrid would be better still. One could also go with hydrogen generated onboard.

“We now have an economically viable process for producing hydrogen on-demand for vehicles, electrical generating stations and other applications,” said Jerry Woodall, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue who invented the process.
The new alloy contains 95 percent aluminum and 5 percent of an alloy that is made of the metals gallium, indium and tin. Because the new alloy contains significantly less of the more expensive gallium than previous forms of the alloy, hydrogen can be produced less expensively, he said.

Tell me how that’s going to make an automaker that turns out 12-cylinder, 600-horsepower V-10s maintain their market, which consists of people who could give a shit one way or the other after paying 400,000+ for their vehicles. The road of “premier” vehicle builders who produce downmarket cars is paved with failure (Ferrari Mondial, Alfasud, etc.) When these guys go downmarket they kill their brand, and it is proven time and again.

You do know that the guys buying Ferraris are already paying a gas guzzler tax, don’t you? What makes you think that they’ll blink at paying a carbon tax as well? Or, maybe the guys at Ferrari could do like BMW is doing and build diesel powered cars. It’s a pretty simple rule: Adapt or die, Darwin said something similar to that once, as I recall. The simple fact is that there’s ample technology out there that’s “cleaner and greener” than what car makers are using. Shit, you can hack your Prius to get better mileage from it, some guys have even managed to get over 100 MPG out of a Prius they hacked.

Weeping and wailing that stricter CAFE standards will bankrupt car makers is no different than screaming hysterically, “What about the children?” when someone brings up a titty flop or something. We do not need an Apollo/Manhattan Project level of effort to fix the problems with automotive mileage or emissions. The tech is here now, it’s just that car makers would rather continue doing business the same way they’ve always done it.

[Pullet]

@Airman Doors

When these guys go downmarket they kill their brand, and it is proven time and again.

Waddaya know, Ann Rand posts to the Dope!

[ASAKMOTSD]

I thought this was going to be a Kwamee thread…

[gonzomax]

The auto industry has been involved in alternate autos for years. They aborted every program. American Capitalism does not reward long term thinking in regards to executives. They have no incentive to plan years in advance. Their bonuses which are huge are predicated on short term profit making not long term planning. Selling off a profitable part of the business will help the short term bottom line and make the executive board appear successful and rich.
Everybody knew the SUV craze had to end. They did too. But the profits were enormous and they rode it for all it was worth. They do not care about 5 or 10 years in the future. They may not be there.
Last month GM said they were laying off another 60 thousand workers. The explanation was they were rebuilding the industry. How can I tell the difference from tearing it down.and rebuilding it. A story about eliminating a plant with 10 000 workers is followed with one about opening a plant in China with 10 000 workers. Coincidence I suppose.

[Una_Persson]

The last time I checked, high-mileage cars have been available for purchase since the Carter Administration, possibly before, depending upon what one considers “high mileage.” The reason that GM et al make SUVs and minivans is…wait for it…because the average American waddles into the dealerships and says “I want an SUV or minivan (or F350 Crew Cab Dualie…yeesh)”, usually with the shopworn and self-serving excuse of “but I have kids! It’s scientifically impossible to transport the standard American 1.8 kids and 1.4 Labradors by any other means of conveyance!!!111111one. Plus, if I don’t have 3 rows of seats, how will I have three separate DVD players so the kids can see the Disney DVD o’ the week?!”

Seriously, point the finger at GM for not being proactive - but make sure three more fingers are pointing at the thundering herds of America that deliberately buy the lower mileage cars. For crying out loud, one of the most “green activists” I know of IRL drives a GMC Yukon 30 miles to work every single day. No one held a gun to her head and forced her to bypass a much cheaper, much higher mileage Toyota or Honda.

In fact, although I have no proof and there is no way of proving it, I’m fairly convinced that most of the posters on the SDMB are driving some fairly low MPG cars, trucks, or armored personnel carriers themselves IRL. I’m sure several will now chime in with “But I drive a super-modified Honda Insight which only runs on ethanol produced by Carmelite leper nuns working for sustainable development in Southwest Asscratchistan”, but come on, on average I seriously doubt most of us have made the best fuel economy decisions.

And how many actually carpool every day? How many use bicycles, motorcycles, scooters, or fucking get off their asses and walk to someplace they need to go on occasion? How many people on here who use the SDMB to post a daily blog report on the atrocities Bush commits to get oil are driving a Honda Insight or a Vespa? More than “0”? Yeah, right. And then, how many deliberately moved to the sticks to live in a McMansion in a New Apartheid homes association to escape the “scary black people in the city”, and now drive a 60-mile round trip by themselves every day? (like, oh, most of my co-workers?)

The problem with gas use in America is a problem with Americans, not a problem with GM. If by and large the typical American family walked into GM dealerships and said “we’d buy that car, except we want something that gets better mileage, thanks” there would be a flood of high-mileage cars you wouldn’t believe.

[Moirai]

Well, I’m your girl, Una. I drive a big low-mileage vehicle, and so does my husband, although his gets a bit better mileage than mine. We work together but due to the kids’ various schedules, we usually drive both cars. My 2000 has over 140,000 miles on it, and about 100,000 are mine (I bought it as a lease return).

I could transport my two kids in a smaller, more fuel efficient car, but I don’t. The husband crams the Newfoundland dog into his vehicle usually (we take him to work with us every day).

We seem to be poster children for wasteful American consumerism. Whoops. :smack: Certainly not what we talked about in college, is it?

[gonzomax]

b GM is not blameless. They dragged their heels in the gas crisis in the 60s. They historically are reactive. They could have built fuel efficient cars or developed them for when they would be forced to. The hybrid cars are not beyond GM technology ,just beyond GMs ability to plan ahead.

[Una_Persson]

@EJsGirl

Well, I’m your girl, Una. I drive a big low-mileage vehicle, and so does my husband, although his gets a bit better mileage than mine. We work together but due to the kids’ various schedules, we usually drive both cars. My 2000 has over 140,000 miles on it, and about 100,000 are mine (I bought it as a lease return).

I could transport my two kids in a smaller, more fuel efficient car, but I don’t. The husband crams the Newfoundland dog into his vehicle usually (we take him to work with us every day).

We seem to be poster children for wasteful American consumerism. Whoops. :smack: Certainly not what we talked about in college, is it?

I hope you know that I’m being sort of over the top here, Deb. I’m not trying to call people out or pick on people, but to emphasize that consumer demand is what drives what automakers make. If gas was $0.10 a gallon and everyone wanted 60MPG cars, then that’s what would be built. The gas prices impact the demand much more than the supply. Folks can argue about subsidies to reward poor or inefficient design, and where such exist naturally I’m opposed to them. But what I’m contending is that Detroit is not the Great Satan in Clouds of Carbon Monoxide. We, the consumers as a whole, are all a bunch of…well, smaller Satans, I guess.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Una Persson

The last time I checked, high-mileage cars have been available for purchase since the Carter Administration, possibly before, depending upon what one considers “high mileage.” The reason that GM et al make SUVs and minivans is…wait for it…because the average American waddles into the dealerships and says “I want an SUV or minivan (or F350 Crew Cab Dualie…yeesh)”, usually with the shopworn and self-serving excuse of “but I have kids! It’s scientifically impossible to transport the standard American 1.8 kids and 1.4 Labradors by any other means of conveyance!!!111111one. Plus, if I don’t have 3 rows of seats, how will I have three separate DVD players so the kids can see the Disney DVD o’ the week?!”

Seriously, point the finger at GM for not being proactive - but make sure three more fingers are pointing at the thundering herds of America that deliberately buy the lower mileage cars. For crying out loud, one of the most “green activists” I know of IRL drives a GMC Yukon 30 miles to work every single day. No one held a gun to her head and forced her to bypass a much cheaper, much higher mileage Toyota or Honda.

In fact, although I have no proof and there is no way of proving it, I’m fairly convinced that most of the posters on the SDMB are driving some fairly low MPG cars, trucks, or armored personnel carriers themselves IRL. I’m sure several will now chime in with “But I drive a super-modified Honda Insight which only runs on ethanol produced by Carmelite leper nuns working for sustainable development in Southwest Asscratchistan”, but come on, on average I seriously doubt most of us have made the best fuel economy decisions.

And how many actually carpool every day? How many use bicycles, motorcycles, scooters, or fucking get off their asses and walk to someplace they need to go on occasion? How many people on here who use the SDMB to post a daily blog report on the atrocities Bush commits to get oil are driving a Honda Insight or a Vespa? More than “0”? Yeah, right. And then, how many deliberately moved to the sticks to live in a McMansion in a New Apartheid homes association to escape the “scary black people in the city”, and now drive a 60-mile round trip by themselves every day? (like, oh, most of my co-workers?)

The problem with gas use in America is a problem with Americans, not a problem with GM. If by and large the typical American family walked into GM dealerships and said “we’d buy that car, except we want something that gets better mileage, thanks” there would be a flood of high-mileage cars you wouldn’t believe.

{Stands up, starts clapping}
I know this, you know this - the message just isn’t getting out. How hard do people work mentally to justify their Lincoln Denial that they use for their single-person commute five days a week? Not hard at all, I would guess. People are just plain sheep, and if everyone else drives a big, gas-guzzling, non-emission controlled SUV, then that is what they will drive, too.

I think the germane point in this thread is “adapt or die,” and I also think that big business will always take the “or die” option because they seem completely unable to think past their next quarter profits and their executive bonuses.

[Moirai]

No worries, Una- you and I know each other better than that. I’m 100% willing to admit that my choices aren’t the best, and I take full responsibility for them. If I and a boatload of other people stopped asking for SUVs, then automakers wouldn’t make so many of them.

I drive the industry, right? Not the other way around?

[Tuckerfan]

@Una Persson

The last time I checked, high-mileage cars have been available for purchase since the Carter Administration, possibly before, depending upon what one considers “high mileage.” The reason that GM et al make SUVs and minivans is…wait for it…because the average American waddles into the dealerships and says “I want an SUV or minivan (or F350 Crew Cab Dualie…yeesh)”, usually with the shopworn and self-serving excuse of “but I have kids! It’s scientifically impossible to transport the standard American 1.8 kids and 1.4 Labradors by any other means of conveyance!!!111111one. Plus, if I don’t have 3 rows of seats, how will I have three separate DVD players so the kids can see the Disney DVD o’ the week?!”

Seriously, point the finger at GM for not being proactive - but make sure three more fingers are pointing at the thundering herds of America that deliberately buy the lower mileage cars. For crying out loud, one of the most “green activists” I know of IRL drives a GMC Yukon 30 miles to work every single day. No one held a gun to her head and forced her to bypass a much cheaper, much higher mileage Toyota or Honda.

While the car buying public does deserve some blame, I still say that the car execs deserve the biggest chunk of it. They’re, “But we can only sell what customers will buy” defense is a crock. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the surveys they send out to car buyers. 99% of them do not ask “What features would you like to see on your next new car?” Instead, they ask “Would you like this feature that we’re already developing and are considering putting on new cars?” There’s a big fuck difference between the kind of data you’ll get from them. Also, there wasn’t exactly squeels of joy from folks when GM foisted DRLs on all their models. The reaction from both the public and the automotive press was “WTF? I don’t want that shit!” (Corvette owners, in particular, were extremely vocal in their opposition to DRLs.) Nor does improving fuel economy require a microcar, or billions of dollars of research (to get dramatic improvements, yes, but just a few MPG, no), but the car makers couldn’t even be bothered to install a simple fuel cut-off switch first developed in the 1960s until hybrids came along, and they’re still the only one that have them, even though it can improve gas consumption by as much as 10%.

In fact, although I have no proof and there is no way of proving it, I’m fairly convinced that most of the posters on the SDMB are driving some fairly low MPG cars, trucks, or armored personnel carriers themselves IRL. I’m sure several will now chime in with “But I drive a super-modified Honda Insight which only runs on ethanol produced by Carmelite leper nuns working for sustainable development in Southwest Asscratchistan”, but come on, on average I seriously doubt most of us have made the best fuel economy decisions.

I presume you’re including yourself and Fierra in that number?

And how many actually carpool every day? How many use bicycles, motorcycles, scooters, or fucking get off their asses and walk to someplace they need to go on occasion? How many people on here who use the SDMB to post a daily blog report on the atrocities Bush commits to get oil are driving a Honda Insight or a Vespa? More than “0”? Yeah, right. And then, how many deliberately moved to the sticks to live in a McMansion in a New Apartheid homes association to escape the “scary black people in the city”, and now drive a 60-mile round trip by themselves every day? (like, oh, most of my co-workers?)

The problem with gas use in America is a problem with Americans, not a problem with GM. If by and large the typical American family walked into GM dealerships and said “we’d buy that car, except we want something that gets better mileage, thanks” there would be a flood of high-mileage cars you wouldn’t believe.

Only if Americans didn’t buy anything else until the car makers coughed up the high mileage models. Of course, in the meantime, they’d be bombarded with news about how they’re destroying the American economy because they’re not buying new cars.

[Una_Persson]

@Tuckerfan

Don’t believe me? Take a look at the surveys they send out to car buyers.

I can’t find any archive of all surveys sent out to all new car buyers. In fact, I’ve never seen one in my life of nearly 40 years.

Also, there wasn’t exactly squeels of joy from folks when GM foisted DRLs on all their models.

Safety (or ostensible safety) measures are different than fuel economy.

I presume you’re including yourself and Fierra in that number?

What? Fierra’s 28MPG Corvette gets a fuck lot better mileage on the highway than a lot of cars on it. And as far as my Mustang goes, we fill the tank on average every 15-20 days. I deliberately bought a crappier house in the city to be close to work and services, so I wouldn’t be in that 60-mile daily commute from the Transvaal. We also car pool every single day, unless some emergency happens. I feel pretty damn good about how little petrol I use per year.

Only if Americans didn’t buy anything else until the car makers coughed up the high mileage models. Of course, in the meantime, they’d be bombarded with news about how they’re destroying the American economy because they’re not buying new cars.

No, it’s not all or nothing. Just a small change in opinion - 20% or so of the total car buying public - would start a huge change in the way cars are made.

[Throatwarbler_Mangrove]

12-cylinder, 600-horsepower V-10s

A V10 has 10 cylinders. Arranged in a V shape.

I think Bob Lutz also blames the “closed” Japanese auto market for the relative success of the Japanese competition. Yes, if only GM were allowed to open up some Hummer dealerships in Tokyo. (and factually speaking I don’t think there is actually anything stopping them, what with the WTO and all.)