This is a great article...   Now if we could just get the Big Three to use ceramic coatings on their vehicles we'd really be making progress.

by Tom Krischer - Associated Press

Monday August 25, 2008, 4:57 PM

DETROIT -- In a normal year, the 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt wouldn't be any different than the 2008 model, save for a few minor cosmetic changes. But this is far from a normal year.

With gasoline still hovering around $4 per gallon, many manufacturers are making far more than the usual tweaks to cars and trucks between model years to squeeze out one or two more miles per gallon and catch customers who increasingly rank fuel economy as a top factor when buying a vehicle.

Automakers say you can expect more of the same as they roll out new technology without waiting for full vehicle updates.

"Fuel economy is very important," said Greg Peterson, General Motors Corp.'s vehicle performance manager for compact cars, including the Cobalt. "That is one of the drivers in the changes that we made."

In the high-mileage version of the Cobalt and its Pontiac sister, the G5, engineers varied the intake and exhaust valve timing to make the 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine burn fuel more efficiently. They arranged with Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for tires with lower rolling resistance, and they changed the gear ratios of the five-speed manual transmission so the engine revs more slowly at highway speeds.

The result: an extra mile per gallon on the highway, boosting the Cobalt and G5 XFE models to an Environmental Protection Agency estimated 37 mpg.

GM's competitors also were busy tweaking existing vehicles between model years.

Ford Motor Co. engineers added a six-speed automatic transmission, electric power steering and variable valve timing to the Escape and Mercury Mariner small sport utility vehicles to get another two miles per gallon on the highway.

The four-cylinder, two-wheel-drive version will get 28 mpg, said spokesman Said Deep, yet the 2009 four-cylinder accelerates as quickly as the 2008 Escape V-6.

Changes were made in other models to get similar improvements, Deep said.

Six-speed transmissions, which are used by most automakers, make vehicles more efficient as they start and stop in the city. On the highway, they also require fewer revolutions per minute, increasing efficiency. Electric power steering reduces drag on the engine by removing the belt that powered the old hydraulic system.

At Chrysler LLC, engineers took similar measures on several models but also recalibrated gas pedals, changed to more efficient air conditioning compressors and tweaked transmission shift intervals to make them more efficient.

For instance, Chrysler was able to push the highway mileage of the Sebring and Avenger midsize sedans to 31 mpg, up from 30.

"These are things that we can do right now for the customer," said spokeswoman Sue Keighron. "They may have been changes that we would have made, but not necessarily as quickly as we are doing now."

Honda Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp., which have led the Detroit automakers in fuel economy in recent years, each said they weren't making similar changes to existing models, partly because they're already using some of the new technology.

"Honda's been a fuel economy leader for an entire generation because we bake in good fuel economy at the design stage," said spokesman Ed Miller.

The company does make changes to existing vehicles between model years when technologies are developed, Miller said. The Odyssey minivan V-6 engine, for example, was given the ability to work on three, four or six cylinders between the 2007 and 2008 model years, Miller said.

With the U.S. auto market continuing its shift from trucks and SUVs to more efficient cars and car-based crossovers, automakers say they'll keep adding technology from year to year to keep making their cars more efficient.

GM worked within an existing older design on the Cobalt and G5 to drive its mileage to what the company says is a leader among comparably equipped cars in the subcompact class.

The 2009 Toyota Corolla with a 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine is rated at 35 mpg on the highway. EPA mileage estimates for Honda's 2009 cars aren't yet available. "We did everything we could in calibration," GM's Peterson said. "We just really paid attention to detail in fuel economy."

And when new models come out, look for more dramatic improvements. GM, for instance, says the Cruze, the Cobalt's replacement coming in the second half of 2010, will get around 45 mpg on the highway.

Although the gains may seem small between model years, they will add up over time, the automakers say.

"All these little things, you start to get a half percent here, a percent here. You add these up, its that attention to detail, that's what's given some of our competitors in the past -- the Japanese -- an advantage," Deep said. "We've combined all that. We're going to overtake them or equal them."

Beshear was supposedly working so hard putting this together that he delayed his trip to the Democratic National Convention to make the announcement this morning. The news comes hot on the heals of other state governments pursuing alt-car companies' manufacturing operations. Tesla was headed for New Mexico until the Governator himself stepped in and persuaded Tesla to stay in its home state of California. Cities within California are now competing to become Tesla’s new manufacturing home.

So with states like California, Kentucky and New Mexico pulling out the stops and throwing serious cash and tax breaks the way of companies like Tesla and Zap, the question is: What about Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio?

Michigan, Indiana and Ohio have been hit hard by the current economic woes. All three states, once the manufacturing heartland of America, have seen many of the automakers' manufacturing and assembly plants idled, slowed or shut down, taking with them thousands of jobs.

You’d think that people like Granholm, Daniels and Strickland would notice the industrial capacity going unused, the former factory workers in lower-wage jobs, and be able to see an opportunity ripe for the picking: Plants that would only have to be modernized and converted, rather than built from scratch, and a huge pool of workers that would not have to be trained, only retrained for jobs they once did as well as anybody in the world.

To us, it seems like an economic and engineering two-fer: rebuild America’s manufacturing base and get us on track for using cars that will wean us off our oil dependency.

The opportunity is there and waiting for the right people to come along.

Ok, I am mad and so should you be! - Detroit automakers have gotten in line behind Bear Stearns, the mortgage lenders and borrowers, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a whining effort to extort good ole Uncle Sam (which is you and me) according to a recent Wall Street Journal article.  They figure just a small amount is needed $40 B i l I o n to help them ride out their current troubles. Of course, the lobbyists are using the promised land of hybrids to fertilize the use of potential sound bytes from both candidates for the upcoming election.  Already, Obama, the candidate whose platform is built around the popular alternative fuel solution has jumped on board announcing that he's open to federal money to help the auto makers invest in "renewable" technology.

"There also happens to be a thriving U.S. auto industry outside of Michigan. These plants are owned by foreign companies, but they employ 92,000 Americans and build and sell cars here. Tens of thousands of their shareholders are Americans. Would these companies and plants get equal consideration under any bailout plan? And if Toyota and Honda get help, why not Delphi and other auto suppliers? We're told the low-interest loan proposal would give priority to the "oldest" plants -- which is another way of saying those plants organized by the United Auto Workers." 

So it appears that Washington has begun to make a habit of bailing out any business or industry that can marshal enough political clout. That's a lot of risk to put on the taxpayer dime, and that's not counting such other runaway liabilities as Medicare.

 The Taxpayer Guarantee

Where Congress and the Federal Reserve have committed to backstop business or assets:

FDIC:    All deposits up to $100,000

Bear Stearns:  Up to $29 billion in losses

FHA:  Up to $500 billion

Federal loans:  Tens of billions

FHA Secure:  $50 billion

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac:  $100 billion

Now let's add - Automakers:  $40 billion

We know where the blame is: Washington's policy blunders. The weak dollar has contributed to the spike in oil prices that has socked their most profitable vehicles. And the nonsensical way that fuel-economy standards force Detroit to subsidize cars that consumers won't buy has helped put the Big Three in this hole.

So is the solution more government bailouts by stopping the bleeding instead of curing the disease or do we change the laws tying the hands of manufacturers to unreasonable standards, dismantle the not needed anymore unions, reduce corporate taxes, (I can hear the screams of the Democrats now) and most importantly - stop our dependence on foreign oil. Taxpayers, it is up to us to start saying HELL NO!

It seems likely that prices of steel, aluminum, rubber, concrete, and other materials used in production of automobiles and highways will continue to rise as global consumer demand continues to swell.  While such materials become more expensive, Americans' ability to afford them will continue to decline.  Americans are increasingly competing for jobs against developing nation workers who earn a fraction as much.  Governmental tax bases are eroding.  It is uncertain that federal and state governments can ever catch up with the massive overhand of accumulated bridge and highway projects on which maintenance has been deferred.

There is an alternative.  It centers around an extensive national rail system, built initially on one dedicated lane on existing limited access highways, and perhaps coordinated with bus networks, car rentals, and bike lending arrangements.  The purpose of this alternative is to get ahead of the curve by making a bold commitment to sensible transportation that fits people's needs more affordably.

The automakers' role in this system would be to design and build family-sized cars that can ride on the rails at high speeds in computer-controlled convoys.  Propulsion for distance travel could be supplied by engine units, just as with today's trains, thus allowing each car to get by with a small electric motor and battery for short-distance hookups.  The cost of a vehicle would plunge as engines and transmissions vanished.  Railcars could still be stylish, but with a greater emphasis upon comfort (with e.g., spaces to eat and sleep) and aerodynamics.

Streamlining would be especially useful for those instances when users would travel in convoys of one, accompanied only by an engine unit.  Users might have the option of traveling common routes in groups or alone, the latter being managed by computerization to insure maximal spacing between vehicles.

There would be various possibilities for construction of the rails.  They might be made of steel or other metals, or possibly of plastics.  Alternately, cars could be guided by one or more steering troughs in place of weight-bearing rails.  As another possibility, concrete barriers and/or electronic sensors could provide channels in which these vehicles and convoys would travel.  There are enough possibilities, in any case, to suspect that engineers could develop something requiring far less space, maintenance, and material investment than today's highways.

Besides being less expensive, such an arrangement would be incomparably safer and more pleasant.  Breakdowns, road rage, pollution, traffic congestion, junkyards, and other maladies of the present arrangement could be studied and minimized.  Falling asleep on the way home would be fine.  Drunk travelers would not kill pedestrians.  Thousands of lives and incalculable pain and suffering would be eliminated.

For some years, as the network of rails began to spread, hybrid systems would be needed to link the high-speed rails with lower-speed local travel.  Auto manufacturers could design trucks, ferries, or motorized docking units that would tow, haul, or mesh with railcars to provide short-distance transportation from rail stopping points to travelers' destinations.

This proposal would enable American automakers to start over again, to a considerable extent, with a blank slate and an opportunity to engage in better long-term planning than the shortsighted market has permitted in recent decades.  There would be target dates, some years out, by which specified phases in both the rail network and the railcars of the future would have to be complete.  The mediocre maintenance reputation earned by many American cars would be largely reset, since so many of the most expensive components in today's carswould have been substantially altered or eliminated.  It would not matter anymore whether Toyota makes superior engines, because railcars would not have engines as we know them.

There is nothing inevitable about this proposal.  It does seem possible to keep breathing life into the model of the individually driven automobile running on asphalt or concrete roads.  That model comes with enormous costs and detriments, however.  At bottom, we love it sometimes, but it is getting old.  It is possible to imagine a new day and a better way in this consummately important set of industries.

Twenty years ago this week, the Edmonton Oilers traded Wayne “The Great One” Gretzky to the LA Kings, marking the day that Hockey stood still. August 9, 1988 is a date that still elicits a response in any Hockey fan, and for good reason. I’ll throw in another date: December 12, 2000, the day that GM announced that they were pulling the plug on Oldsmobile. Two very different events with very different outcomes… yet, they share a few key things in common, and a valuable lesson that a carmaker could have learned from a Hockey player.

Consider the impact that Gretzky had on the game (if not a community): 1851 points… 200+ points in each of four seasons… 92 goals in ONE season! (hell, being a Sabres fan, I have to point out that Alexander Mogilny came close once… at 70) Take a moment to fathom that, then, consider that his record has stood since being set in the ’81-’82 season. The man’s photo should appear in the dictionary under the word “Hockey”. I could spout off stats here, but you can find those easily enough… Suffice to say, he dominated the game on the ice. Yet, what he did OFF of the ice would forever change the game as well.

In 1988, the Great One was traded to the LA Kings.

The deal was monstrous to begin with, but the terms were astounding in their own right: The Oilers gave up the league’s reigning superstar for $15 million, three number one draft picks, Krushelnyski, McSorley, and negotiating rights to minor league defensemen, along with LA’s Jimmy Carson (a recent pick who just put up 55 goals).

Take a second to drink in that trade.

Not only was that big money in ’88, but it broke up a team that had “dynasty” written all over it… If you’re a Hockey fan, then you know all about the Oilers of that era, with Grant Fuhr, Jari Kurri, Mark Messier… Man, I remember collecting cards and stickers of those guys like they were gold (in some cases, they were... Remember the gold foil stickers?). To take Gretzky to LA?! What were they thinking?

Granted, number 99 in Los Angeles wasn’t the ticket to a cup victory (or a dynasty) on ice… But what the deal did for the sport itself?! Far-reaching and dynamic are two words that scratch the surface... Barely. Here was an uber-talent, wrapped in a marketing dream. Great personality, incredible with words, and a look that could move product. His assimilation into US pop culture was the stuff of legend. Consider: If, like me, you grew up in the ‘80’s, you knew Gretzky (even if not from Hockey) from ads for Campbell’s, Coke, Ford, American Express, an action figure, hell… the guy even had a Saturday morning cartoon with Bo Jackson and Michael Jordan! (remember “Pro Stars”?) Add to his clout an ambassador status, bringing the game to numerous new fans… A fact to ponder: When Gretzky hit US soil as a player, there were 15 franchises of the NHL in the US. Today, there are 24. Talk about opening a market!

Back to Oldsmobile for a spell here… Consider that in 1897, the carmaker was forging ahead, pushing design and technical innovation to create a dynamic new car. It was to become GM’s shining star, the brand that pushed innovation for the corporation. Being GM’s “innovation brand” meant that other carmakers would often study their products, and attempt to mimic them. Not only was Oldsmobile the first mass-produced car (the 1901-1904 Curved Dash), but was the first with an automatic transmission (1940 – the Hydromatic), the first overhead valve V8 (’49 – also leading the way with a hardtop and wrap-around windshield that year!), the first turbocharged engine in an American car (’62!), the first front wheel drive car in America (the ’66 Toronado), and so on… Ponder this: in the 50’s and ‘60’s, makers like Mercedes would buy and dissect Oldsmobiles (and other GM cars) to see what made them tick. At the time, there was truly no substitute for an American car.

Oldsmobiles were the choice of the techie crowd... they had the advanced features, and appealed to the more technologically hip consumer. Olds and GM capitalized on this for a bit, but then lost the vision somewhere along the way. Rather than build on a success (see Gretzky above), GM stuttered, and down-graded the brand to compete with foreign cars on their own level. Rather than push the envelope, and allow Oldsmobile to bloom into the leader in technology and design for GM, they pulled funding from the coffers for projects like Saturn, among other things. (don’t get me wrong here--- Saturn is a fine make, and having worked for Saturn, I am grateful for the food and shelter my career there provided… just still suffering the “WHY??!!” over pushing Saturn into Oldsmobile territory, and giving the little plastic-clad cars all of the cool advancements) GM dropped the ball, and took what should have been a bright Oldsmobile future, with great new cars that would have rivaled Lexus, BMW and their ilk, and let it slip into the old folks home of the corporation. One notable exception was the Aurora (I have a very soft spot for the first-generation units... Remember the first time you saw the ‘95’s… Man were those cool when new!), which led the way in innovation, and sat at the crossroads for a trek back to greatness… yet, sadly, it seems that the higher-ups were too busy looking into overpriced, oversized SUV’s to haul fat-ass suburbanites around the mini malls. By the time that last Alero rolled off the line on April 4, 2004, the fire was definitely gone. The rocket was more of a lawn dart, sadly...

Adding insult to injury, GM decided to kill off more jobs and cars with potential to concentrate on... Trucks.

At the start of a new environmental awareness, the good General concentrated on big old SUV’s, targeted at vacuous housewives who have no clue how to drive them. Another well thought out plan. Rather than attack the future and hold an upper hand, doing some good for the entire brand, they concentrated on one small niche, which ironically, has become the proverbial Achille’s heel of a car-making giant. Presently, they have no true marquee in brand that does what Olds once could. Who’s to say that Oldsmobile may have been the leverage point for GM in the escalating hybrid wars? I'd like to entertain that notion. Had they stayed on path, who knows? We may have seen George Clooney cruising a Cutlass versus a Prius.

Consider the effects of the Gretzky trade, when applied to the Oldsmobile (and subsequent GM) debacle: While Edmonton sacrificed a pillar of their team, they still managed winning seasons and a Cup victory, and gained a fairly stable ground (player-wise, not so much owner-wise) to build on. Bigger than that, Hockey itself won, big time. By allowing a great talent to continue down a road that he himself forged, great things happened all around. Had number 99 stayed in Edmonton, I have no doubts that we’d have seen a number of Oilers Stanley Cup years… it’s a given. Yet, what that trade accomplished for the future of the sport was incredible. Am I suggesting that had GM invested resources into allowing Oldsmobile to progress on the brand’s original course that it may have had a similar effect on the corporation at large? You bet your ass I am.

All told, I’ll bet that there will be a moment of silence this week as Edmonton fans and residents recall the day the Great One left the Great White North… and that, at the same time, a few tears will be shed by GM shareholders as they look back on the rocket ride that could have been...

Need more insight and opinion? Just want to look at cool pictures and hot rod designs? Head on over to PCK Studio at www.problemchildkustoms.com.

The magazine, In These Times, has done a piece on the environmental friendly Toyota Prius. It may be friendly toward the environmment but it is anything but friendly toward workers.

The National Labor Committee (NLC), a New York-based human rights group, has been investigating working conditions at Toyota Motor Corp., and the labor used to produce its best-selling Prius hybrid cars.

The report alleges that Toyota exploits guest workers, mostly shipped in from China and Vietnam. According to the NLC, these workers are “stripped of their passports and often forced to work — including at subcontract plants supplying Toyota — 16 hours a day, seven days a week, while being paid less than half the legal minimum wage.” Workers are forced to live in company dormitories and deported for complaining about poor treatment, the report finds.

Low-wage temporary workers make up one-third of Toyota’s Prius assembly-line workers, mostly in the auto-parts supply chain. They are signed to contracts for periods as short as four months, and are paid only 60 percent of a full-time employee’s wage.

Parts plants run by subcontractors advertise standard, nine-hour, five-day-a-week jobs. But according to the NLC, “the typical shift was 15 to 16.5 hours a day, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. or 1:00 a.m.”

The NLC report also connects the company’s overseas misdeeds to the American economy. Millions of dollars in car parts shipped by Toyota Tsusho are received by Tsusho America, which distributes them to Toyota assembly plants in the American South. This influx of foreign auto infrastructure uses an overwhelming ratio of non-union labor, fueling the diminution of union density in the auto sector.

What’s more, a memo leaked from Toyota’s Georgetown, Ky., plant to the New York Times in late 2007, exposed “management’s plans to cut $300 million in labor costs across Toyota’s North American operations over the next three years.” To do this, Toyota plans to introduce tiered wage scales and reduced health benefits for U.S. Toyota workers, which should come as little surprise to an American auto workforce that has suffered similar attacks from Detroit’s Big Three manufacturers for the past three decades.

So you want a Prius?

The program, known as the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program, was meant to help automakers meet fuel economy standards of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Created but not funded by Congress last year, the program would provide low-cost loans to cash-strapped automakers and their suppliers for engineering fuel-efficient vehicles or converting old plants.

The $3.75 billion would cover the government's borrowing costs for up to $25 billion in loans, along with a small reserve for defaults.

While House and Senate Democrats have raised the idea of a second economic stimulus plan -- the most likely carrier for such a proposal -- the Bush administration has opposed it so far, and the prospects are murky. Congress won't consider any such plan before leaving for August recess this week, and with no plans to convene after the election, the plan would need to be passed sometime in September.

My reaction is why?  These companies were aware of the coming crisis but yet did nothing to avoid it.  Their answer has been to fire or layoff workers.  I say screw them!

Global Research, July 23, 2008
Bloomberg

GM, Ford `On the Verge of Bankruptcy,' Altman Says (Update2)

By Greg Miles and Caroline Salas

July 22 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., the two biggest U.S. automakers, have about a 46 percent chance of default within five years, according to Edward Altman, a finance professor at New York University's Stern School of Business.

``Both are in very serious shape and the markets reflect that,'' Altman, the creator of the Z-score mathematical formula that measures bankruptcy risk, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. The model shows that these companies are ``on the verge of bankruptcy,'' he said.

The Z-scores for GM and Ford give both a bond rating equivalent to a CCC ranking, though GM is in slightly worse condition than Ford, Altman said. GM reported a $38.7 billion loss in 2007, the biggest in its 100-year history, and hasn't posted a profit since 2004. The scores are based on the companies' finances at the end of the first quarter.

Moody's Investors Service said July 15 it may cut GM's Caa1 senior unsecured debt rating because the Detroit-based automaker's plan to raise at least $15 billion by suspending its dividend, cutting management payroll by 20 percent and selling assets may not be enough to offset losses. Standard & Poor's also said in June it may lower GM's B rating. Altman said the plan to raise $15 billion may improve GM's outlook.

Ford, based in Dearborn, Michigan, is rated Caa1 by Moody's and B by S&P, which said in June that Ford's rating may also be cut.

Ability to Refinance

``The thing that triggers a default in almost all cases is running out of cash and not being able to refinance,'' Altman said in an interview prior to his television appearance. ``You're not going to go bankrupt as long as you can refinance short-term liabilities. You will go bankrupt if you can't.''

In 2005, Altman said GM had a 47 percent chance of default within five years.

GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said in an interview July 15 that the company has the ability to raise cash, and he called bankruptcy ``a bad idea.'' Ford has said it had access to $40.6 billion in funds as of March 31, including credit lines.

GM's $3 billion of 8.375 percent bonds due in 2033 rose 0.5 cent today to 58.5 cents, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The debt yields 14.6 percent, or 994 basis points more than similar-maturity Treasuries. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point.

``I would not put money with GM right now because the downside is so great relative to the upside, relative to the yield,'' said Altman, speaking in New York. ``Your downside is probably 60 percent on the debt. The risk reward ratio is pretty poor.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Greg Miles in New York at gmiles1@bloomberg.net; Caroline Salas in New York at csalas1@bloomberg.net

They’re five notches below investment grade, deep into junk territory, cash position drying up and finance arms getting extra scrutiny from the ratings agencies - their products are keyed to fuel pricing and consumer credit availability both of which SUCK SUCK SUCK, their top sellers are rotting on the lots, they can’t give them away even at a steep loss, they can’t clear inventories fast enough to release new models, they’re slowing the lines and cutting back shifts, meanwhile getting their asses kicked all over the place by competition that has the right products at the right time in the right quantities for the right money. It’s their own fault and nobody else’s that they forgot WHY c.a.f.e. laws were passed and their entire fucking business model for the last decade depended on skirting the rules and hoping for the best - I for one welcome our new Korean masters.

Mark my words - chrysler will not be the last - somebody big is going to go sniffing around for chunks of Ford pretty soon.

Yup.

Plug-in hybrids take the concept further by plugging into a regular electric outlet to enable the vehicle to operate solely on its electric motor for ranges of 40-50 miles or more on a single charge. This has profound implications for commuters who need only drive short distances to and from work every day and who may be able to do so solely on electric power. The gasoline engine then becomes the supplemental one for when the car needs to travel farther than the electric engine can take it.

U.S. automakers are also jumping onto the plug-in bandwagon. General Motors says that it will have mass-market plug-in hybrids—modifications of its Saturn Vue and Chevrolet Volt—on the road by 2010. Ford has also developed a small fleet of plug-ins, but is not yet ready to offer them to the public. Fisker, a U.S. start-up focusing on the creation of high performance, energy efficient vehicles, plans to sell an $80,000 plug-in hybrid sports car by late 2009. Chrysler’s Sprinter van was the first plug-in from a major U.S. manufacturer, but it is only presently available to a limited number of institutions as a fleet vehicle.

They are on the horizon, but they have ALWAYS been on the horizon.  The ayto Industry is just praying that the price of oil comes down and they can go back to making the models they are trying to sell now.

His pronouncement -- which mirrors what Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has said on the issue -- came as he promised to support General Motors Corp.'s work to develop electric and more fuel-efficient cars.

McCain said he supports California and 16 other states that want to establish their own fuel economy standards.

"It's hard for me to tell states that they can't impose whatever standards they decide to impose," McCain said. He said he wants to see GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner "sit down with the governors and ask them what they need."

Automakers and dealers say state officials overestimate their technology, underestimate the costs and ignore the possible chaos from limiting vehicle sales on a state-by-state basis. GM has said the rules could cost $25 billion.

In that vein, McCain praised much of the work GM is doing to create vehicles -- including the Chevrolet Volt range-extended plug-in electric vehicle due in November 2010 -- powered by a variety of fuels.

Such vehicles would reduce dependence on foreign oil and the automobile's contribution to climate change, McCain said. Before the town hall, McCain toured GM's design studio and was given a private viewing of the still-secret production version of the Volt.

McCain said his plan to help the auto industry also would include a $5,000 tax credit for people buying low-emission vehicles, a $300-million prize for the company that creates the first commercially available battery-powered car and job retraining programs for displaced workers.

Have you ever noticed that the best idea from a Repub is to give someone, somewhere a tax break?

A strike at a small auto-parts plant in Tennessee now threatens an important vehicle for General Motors Corp. -- the soon-to-launch Chevrolet Traverse crossover -- at a time when the struggling auto maker can least afford a costly production delay.

Workers at the Johnson Controls Inc. factory in Columbia, Tenn., walked off the job Wednesday because the company refused to recognize the union after workers voted overwhelmingly to unionize, local UAW officials said. Johnson Controls didn't return calls seeking comment.

Though the dispute over unionizing the factory, which employs 170 workers, has been going on for nearly two years, the union chose to send workers off the job just as production of the new Chevy is slated to begin.

It's a strategy the UAW employed earlier this year at another small parts operation in Lansing, Mich. -- a supplier for crossovers that at the time were in short supply. The strike forced GM to cut shifts at a nearby plant that builds the vehicles. The union eventually won representation.

Now, I haven't seen the film in question.  I can't speak to whatever argument it puts forth.  I do, however, have a fairly good idea of the answer to the question posed in the title.

Folks, the electric car was killed by the public.  I know that isn't the answer people want to hear.  It's much more satisfying to blame General Motors and Toyota for killing off their electric cars (although Toyota receives kudos for its hybrid technology).  The fact remains, however, that if enough people had wanted them, they'd still be producing them, because that's how free enterprise works.  If there is demand, someone will fill that demand.  If there is insufficient demand to profitably produce something, it's going to be killed off.  Like it or not, that's how the world works.

Here's an example from another industry: when I worked for McDonald's (which I did for almost fifteen years, as a manager), there was a general outcry that McDonald's needed to produce healthier food.  In response, the company replaced its soft-serve ice cream with frozen yogurt, introduced salads, developed a low-fat hamburger (the McLean Deluxe), and lowered the fat content of its milkshakes.  And then...

Sales tanked.  People complained that the yogurt had an aftertaste (guess what, people, it's yogurt), that the shakes weren't rich enough, that the McLean was dry.  The most popular dressings for the salads were bleu cheese and ranch.

You see, people often say they want one thing, and then go out and spend their money on something else.  While Mickey D's was introducing healthier options, people kept right on buying Big Macs and Double Quarter Pounders with Cheese.  And when GM introduced the EV1, people kept right on buying Tahoes, and Silverados, and Yukons, and Hummers, and did so in ever-increasing numbers, because twenty years after the Arab oil embargo, people forgot that gasoline could get expensive and scarce.  Sure, there were some people who wanted an electric car, but not enough to make it a profitable enterprise--and so GM, and the rest of the industry, gave people what they wanted, until even Cadillac, Lincoln, and Lexus started building huge, glitzy trucks. 

So the next time you're tempted to blame the industry for its stupidity, take a look in your own driveway.  If you're driving a full-size truck or SUV, and you're not a farmer--or if  you don't live in an extreme climate--blame yourself instead.  We only got what we asked for.

PART 2 - Obama Town Hall Meeting Warren, Michigan

PART 3 - Obama Town Hall Meeting Warren, Michigan

PART 4 - Obama Town Hall Meeting Warren, Michigan

PART 5 - Obama Town Hall Meeting Warren, Michigan

PART 6 - Obama Town Hall Meeting Warren, Michigan

PART 7 - Obama Town Hall Meeting Warren, Michigan

BONUS:
News Report on the event

Automakers are reporting their June sales figures today, and if red is your favorite color you may like what you see. Ford's sales were down 28 percent from a year ago, and GM's were off by 19 percent. The big surprise was Toyota, down 21 percent. It seems Toyota's overall sales were less dependent on its highly coveted Prius cars than on its trucks.

Since February, gas has risen from $3 a gallon on average to more than $4, where it has lingered for much of June. So a lot of the hottest, low-mileage models of recent years are baking in the sun on car lots, while hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars are in hot demand.

The two manufacturers who saw their sales increase, Honda and Volkswagen, are the same passenger-car makers that have seen their market share dwindle in the age of the SUV. Both saw one-percent gains.

Then there's Ford. Its F-Series pickup truck, which gets about 15 miles a gallon on city streets, managed to sell 38,789 units in June. But that figure is down 41 percent from June 2007. The F-Series, long America's best selling vehicle, was outranked last month by the Corolla and Camry from Toyota and the Civic and Accord from Honda. Only two of Ford's 20 or so models gained on year: the Ford Fusion, up 18 percent, and the Mercury Milan, up 8 percent.

The problem for automakers is, demand has changed in a matter of a couple of months, while automakers need a year or so to increase or decrease supplies. They might have seen this shift coming a year or so again, but they didn't act.

Even Toyota failed to keep up with changing demands. It sold 17,806 hybrids in June, two thirds of them Priuses. But it sold three times as many light trucks: 53,957 of them. Even so, light-truck sales were down 32 percent in June. Toyota may market itself as a maker of fuel-efficient hybrids, but it's just as exposed to America's shunning of SUVs as any carmaker.

Toyota's performance in June was so disappointing that General Motors was able to cling onto its title as the largest U.S. automaker. Only because GM's 19-percent decline wasn't as steep as Toyota's, it still wears the crown.

That's hardly a silver lining, it's more like a string of tinsel. But in this economy, automakers will take good news where they can get it.

• Would launch a $300-million award for developing a battery for hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

• Would provide a $5,000 tax credit to buyers of vehicles that emit no carbon or other pollutants, with smaller credits for other advanced vehicles.

• Would force automakers to expand the number of models that can burn E-85 fuel; speed up the timeline of Detroit automakers who have pledged that 50% of new vehicles by 2012 will be flex-fuel capable.

Democrat Barack OBAMA

• Would set up a $150-billion fund to develop new technologies, including plug-in hybrids.

• Would offer loan guarantees and tax credits for revamping plants to build more efficient models.

• Would set a target for automakers to average 50 miles per gallon by 2030.

You now have the major candidates positions on autos in a nutshell.  McCain's ideas are to tax cut the way into a brighter future.  Not gonna work.  Has not worked in the past, will not work now.  Obama's is similar tax cuts and massive government infusion of cash to bring the industry back.

Think about it!  The industry made billions upon billions for investors, but yet did not expand the capability for the approaching storm, which many economists predicted 10+ years ago.  Sorry, but they should be held accountable for their mismanagement, it should fall on their shoulders to bring the industry into the 21st century.  The taxpayers have done all they should to bail out industries suffering from extreme greed.

The struggling market has resulted in an 11.2% sales decline for the automaker, with a disproportionate amount of the decline, 14%, hitting the profitable truck lineup.

Ford spokesman Mark Truby confirmed Monday that the dismissals have spread to Ford's regular white-collar workforce. However, the bulk of the dismissals are expected in the weeks ahead, as the Aug. 1 deadline approaches.

In an effort to reach its objectives, the automaker is also forgoing filling many open positions and cutting benefits, such as tuition and scholarship programs for employees.

Ford posted a $100-million profit in the first quarter of this year, but that small gain followed a $2.7-billion loss in 2007 and a record $12.6-billion loss in 2006.

The workers are paying for the mismanagement of a company by its leaders.  Ask yourself, how much will the top managers be losing in their packages?

“I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people,” Mr. McCain said, “by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.”

He said the winner should deliver power at 30 percent of current costs. “That’s one dollar, one dollar, for every man, woman and child in the U.S. — a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency,” he said.

OK my question is will this be paid to anyone who comes up with the technology? If so, then I would guess the Japanese would win the cash. They are about 5 years ahead of the US in electrical technology.

Another question. Does McCain have advisers that actually read the news? This is just plain lame. Back in 1993, I believe, Clinton started a joint venture with the 3 major car makers to come up with a low energy vehicle that was not all that and now McCain has this epiphany on a auto battery deal.

Will someone, anyone, please tell these dorks that the consumer has caused this crisis and the consumer can end it. That should be the starting point of any policy and leave the lies and the pandering in the toilet where it belongs. But please a courtesy flush!

Case in point:  Did you know a 230 mpg car has been developed? You could go from one end of the country to the other on a full tank of gas. It's not science fiction or wishful thinking, it's a real, street-legal vehicle developed and built by 2 guys from Carlsbad, California.

Are they geniuses? Freaks of intellectual nature? Nope, just plain ol' engineers using the same technology that's been available for years. Auto manufacturers could have built similar equipment two decades ago, ending American reliance on foreign oil. Here's a concept--if the U.S. had no need for foreign oil, how many of our soldiers would be at war right now?

Let's let that sink in, shall we?

It can't be true. If automakers could make a 200+ mpg. vehicle 20 years ago, why didn't they? They would've sold like crazy!

Greed. Did we not establish that it's a bitch? In order to mass produce such a vehicle, it would cost automakers hundreds of millions of dollars to retool. It's not just the cost of the changeover itself, it's the lack of income while they do it. It can take years to completely retool an existing manufacturing plant, and even longer to build a new one. At one time they had the capital to do it. But now, thanks to the greed of out-of-control union leaders, (oh the irony!) the automakers no longer have that kind of cash.

So why don't they just revamp one plant at a time? It's cheaper.

True, but as soon as 230 mpg vehicles seriously hit the market, who in their right mind is going to buy a 24 mpg automobile? Sales of 'regular' cars will plummet while people repair their existing vehicles and hold out for a new wondercar. This puts automakers in a perilous position, because the plant or two they've revamped can't possibly make up the difference in revenue for the dozens of 'regular' plants that fail. If they attempt a slow changeover, they'll go under. Plain and simple.

Well can't the government help them retool all the plants at once? They've helped the automakers out before.

With what? The U.S. Government can't balance it's own checkbook. How is it going to pull hundreds of millions of dollars out of its ass? If they attempt such a feat, the money will be pulled from elsewhere. From our roads, (which contain crumbling bridges), from our schools (which are already an underfunded joke), and from our social programs designed to feed and clothe families living at poverty level. Which programs should they cut?

US automakers got greedy. That greed eventually backed them into a corner, and there they sit. Their only option is to buy politicians who will let them keep on keeping on--bury the technology and hope nobody develops a prototype. Unfortunately for American automakers, somebody did.

Henry Ford was brilliant. He developed the first cars not just for personal gain, but also as a means of providing for numerous families and bringing prosperity to his community. He hired workers, paid them a fair wage, and kept the cost of his product low enough so every worker's family could afford one. Like Sam Walton, he was socially responsible before such a term existed and would be horrified by the bastardization of his vision were he alive today.

I don't have a solution. I wish I did. But this blog post isn't about solving the automakers problem, it's about the far-reaching effects of greed. Because of greed we pay ridiculous prices at the gas pump. Because of greed we drive substandard cars. Because of greed our husbands and sons are dying overseas.

There's a reason it's a sin.

As for US automakers, my guess is they'll go the way of the dinosaur as foreign car companies pick up the technology and run with it. (Rumor has it Volkswagon already intends to do that very thing.) I think one day in the not-so-distant future, like it or not, 'Buy American' will no longer apply to cars. 

This article is an original post from www.UglyAssOpinion.com© Kelly L. Trainor 2008 All Rights Reserved 

(DetNews)
"Unlike George Bush, I won't wait until the sixth year of my presidency to sit down with the automakers. I'll meet with them during my campaign, and I'll meet with them as president to talk about how we're going to build the cars of the future right here in Michigan," Obama said in his speech.

Bush actually met with the top officials of Detroit's Big Three automakers in April 2003 in Dearborn.

The President met with General Motors Corp. chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, then-Ford Motor Co. chairman and CEO Bill Ford Jr. and then Chrysler Group president and CEO Dieter Zetsche on April 28, 2003 for half an hour at the Ford Center for the Performing Arts in Dearborn.

The White House released a photo of the 2003 meeting that remains on the White House Web site. The three executives spoke to reporters after the meeting, which drew extensive media coverage.