An airplane flight is a couple hour investment, a car is a multi-year investment. They are considerably different.
Is GM completely hosed?
im sure Tata is just waiting for the small three to collapse so they can push their $2500+ POS on us.
they should be building more of their cars overseas where a worker makes $10 a day.
Dodge was trying to get Chinese manufacturer Chery to make their cars for them, but the deal just fell through recently
they should be building more of their cars overseas where a worker makes $10 a day.
Dodge was trying to get Chinese manufacturer Chery to make their cars for them, but the deal just fell through recently
Last edited:
it's an aberration i realize, but i have more air miles than driving for the year. and my choices are far narrower for flights
What a capitalist thing to do; survival of the fittest. I'm sure the top brass are going to love to participate in this!
$750mil to develop the Volt....really Gm...$750mil...really?
and its still wont be competitively priced in 2011?
and its still wont be competitively priced in 2011?
GM's EV1 project cost over a billion back in the day though...
Have a look at what Tesla has spent so far, and that is with the benefit of 5+ years of battery development (yes, I'm aware Li-I are more expensive than NiMh... that's only relevant to per car cost, not R&D costs), improved brushless motors and control systems, AND GM's launch and experience with the EV1. Additionally, Tesla has not done the work that GM did on the filling station and infrastructure.lthumbsdown:
and that was with the cheaper NiMh batteries
$1B ain't bad. What was bad was building the wrong car for the wrong segment and getting trigger happy on pulling the plug.
Last edited:
and that money that they spent on their car, almost put them out of business. now they are asking for money from the government just to produce the S (sedan) model.
and from what ive read, theyve only invested $105mil into the company, which like you said, is in part because of other companies r&d in batteries and motors
and from what ive read, theyve only invested $105mil into the company, which like you said, is in part because of other companies r&d in batteries and motors
Looks like the Senate Republicans are filibustering the bailout bill... I'm shocked (shocked!!) to see that they've discovered their "small government" roots now that the administration will have a D after its name instead of an R...
I've read $140M to date and aiming for another $250M in IPO money to keep them going. Care to venture a guess on how much they invest before they're cashflow positive, let alone in the black (not that the EV1 was ever close to either)?
But yes, I don't disagree that GM spent more than they should have. However, I would venture any large car company would have had to spend similarly to accomplish the same.
theyre just stirring the poop kettle
i dont see Tesla or a company like Fisker ever getting into the black. both are focused on a small market with their sports cars. with their Model S, maybe things will change for them if they get funding
i can kinda see how GM warrants spending the type of money they did on the Volt, because they can move the Volt's platform to other models besides the Volt.
but they spent $1bil on a car that was never sold, just leased, and most of them were bought back by GM.
it seems that they started with a clean sheet of paper with the Volt, when im sure the could have put some of the EV1's R&D into the Volt.
The EV1 had to be leased. Until GM knew for sure they could support the cars in the marketplace long-term, they can't sell them outright. Any experimental car will be lease only.
I don't know much about the process behind the Volt... can you recommend any good reading?
Hahaha: Tesla want sum 2!
I've wondered all along how why all 3 would get a bailout with public funds when Chrysler is privately owned. The "too big to fail" argument is crap but at least GM and Ford are publicly traded and they're larger too so their impact upon collapse would be bigger.
Seems the parent company of Chrysler has plenty of their own cash and just isn't willing to spend it although they acquired Chrysler for basically nothing.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/09/chrysler-cerberus-bailout-oped-cx_dg_1210gerstein.html
Cerebus - It is a three headed dog with a snake tail and snake heads protruding from his back. He guards the entrance to the underworld, allowing the dead to enter but, never to leave.
Seems the parent company of Chrysler has plenty of their own cash and just isn't willing to spend it although they acquired Chrysler for basically nothing.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/09/chrysler-cerberus-bailout-oped-cx_dg_1210gerstein.html
Cerebus - It is a three headed dog with a snake tail and snake heads protruding from his back. He guards the entrance to the underworld, allowing the dead to enter but, never to leave.
i did say that they were only leased. this was because consumers were part of a bigger "r&d" development process and market analysis that involved lessees(customers). they were also not allowed to buy the cars after the lease, they had to be returned to GM....although you will still see some EV1's out there. ive seen 3 so far this year.
what kinda info do you want on the Volt? i dont know everything about it, but i have been following the development and sales (or lack of) of the car.
lemme know what kinda articles you are looking for and ill link em here
$350mil from the government and $650mil total...maybe he should try canada too
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ae2a0xxtjGic&refer=home
Yeah, I was following up on your statement that they were only leased, not sold. Just sayin' it was by necessity. I've played with one that is still on the road. Belongs to the design firm in Palo Alto that worked on the charging stations. They let employees take it home for a night or two and commute in it as requested.
Mostly interested in the R&D process and the technology itself. The (rather bland) business strategy is pretty implicit in the final product. Or anything that contrasts it with the EV1.
gotcha.
yes, their horrible business decisions have made the car a slow seller. their fix for their transmission issue, still remains to be proven...and i for one, am skeptical too.
ill getcha some links when i get to the other computer.
IH8Rice, you know R&D on cars is cheap compared to airplanes, especially modern military planes. Cost per unit alone are staggering, defense is the most wasteful industry in the US by far.
Cost per unit F22 is 339 million and B2 Stealth bomber is over 2 billion. Even the old F15 cost 100 million/unit in 2006.
The oldest B2 crashed this year, 1.4 billion loss in a few seconds...
Thats some huge government waste right there.
Cost per unit F22 is 339 million and B2 Stealth bomber is over 2 billion. Even the old F15 cost 100 million/unit in 2006.
The oldest B2 crashed this year, 1.4 billion loss in a few seconds...
Thats some huge government waste right there.
Last edited:
of course i do...come on now.... thats a whole other topic to discuss! you listed two planes that are on the market. think of the billions that these companies spend on projects that die faster than the EV1.
and the F15's cost turned out to be 100% effective. so far, no F22 is officially being used if im not mistaken.
oh, and heres that B-2 that crash in Guam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_ZCp5h1gK2Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_ZCp5h1gK2Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
They were prototypes so it is good practice to get those vehicles back.
thanks for chiming in. please read the posts that followed that one.
and they technically werent prototypes, they were "real-world" engineering evaluation models
Last edited:
And in the latest news, the bill didn't pass! I read, though, that money could be given to them anyway. From CNN: " As part of their effort to urge skeptical Republicans to back the deal, Bush officials made clear that if Congress didn't act, the White House would have to step in to save Detroit from collapse with funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the sources familiar with the conversations.
One of the sources said that a White House official made it clear to a GOP senator that would be the worst option, because the loan could go to the auto companies with few or no requirements along with it."
I, for one, want to see GM and the others go down, if it happens. I'm not sure about the rest of the industry because a lot of jobs are involved, but the company (and SUV/big car industry) has failed obviously and doesn't deserve more money, especially not my (taxpayer) money.
One of the sources said that a White House official made it clear to a GOP senator that would be the worst option, because the loan could go to the auto companies with few or no requirements along with it."
I, for one, want to see GM and the others go down, if it happens. I'm not sure about the rest of the industry because a lot of jobs are involved, but the company (and SUV/big car industry) has failed obviously and doesn't deserve more money, especially not my (taxpayer) money.
Last edited:
-The group was recently quoted saying "we could have been rockstars, if we'd looked bad enough".
So information is now out as to why the bill didn't pass. The UAW refused to take pay and benefits cuts that would have put them on par with american workers in american factories making japanese cars. The GOP refused to support the bill without these final cost cutting measures, and rightfully so.
One of the big 3 has now said it is cutting 250k cars from it's Q1 production schedule as well as temporarily closing 21 factories.
I guess getting paid a large percentage of what you were getting paid is unacceptable, and being laid off is better.
One of the big 3 has now said it is cutting 250k cars from it's Q1 production schedule as well as temporarily closing 21 factories.
I guess getting paid a large percentage of what you were getting paid is unacceptable, and being laid off is better.
Does getting laid off mean you go into the job bank though? You still get fully pay for doing nothing in that case.
fvck the UAW.
The guy being interviews said shutting down was a cost cutting measure, so not really sure? The job banks are completely insane.
So the Republicans nuked the auto industry because they couldn't nuke the UAW, fantastic.
The Republicans refuse to lower costs backing healthcare reform for old people, that's where a lot of the cost lies with GM. They refuse to bail out a company because the union is struggling to survive and backs its workers.
**** the republicans for this, only in this ****ty backward nation could the workers be blamed for a large company failing.
The Republicans refuse to lower costs backing healthcare reform for old people, that's where a lot of the cost lies with GM. They refuse to bail out a company because the union is struggling to survive and backs its workers.
**** the republicans for this, only in this ****ty backward nation could the workers be blamed for a large company failing.
Last edited:
so no democrats voted it down?
Of course the workers can be blamed. They, through their union, refuse to accept cost cutting measures to help remain employed. They are currently over paid and over compensated, and are a large part of the reason that their company is no longer solvent.
The companies are not without blame of course, choosing the wrong direction for products, over compensating the executives and refusing to accept change. However, they have been strong armed by a union that will be their eventual downfall.
@Stinkle: 31 Republicans, 3 Democrats voted No. I'll blame the Republicans on this one.
They aren't overcompensated with healthcare, they are getting what every other person in the US should be getting. GM spends way more on healthcare than they will ever save by cutting worker pay.
Certain benefits were also to be cut and minimized.
Your employer should not be responsible for your healthcare. Your tax dollars or your own pay should be responsible for this.
The workers are indeed over paid. At this point every dollar counts, and they had asked to have pay on par with other auto workers. The UAW is being greedy, again, and have no one but themselves to blame at this point.
They are 100% responsible for getting this bill shot down. Had they not balked, it would have passed.
In magical fairy land, nobody needs healthcare. However, the Republicans have been opponents of any sort of healthcare reform, so if people want healthcare, they have to get it from their employers.
GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour. The point of being in the union is to get the benefits. The reason that GM pays a lot more in worker-related costs is because of those that are already retired, Toyota doesn't have nearly as many as retired people they are paying for.