GM takes a huge hit today.

[Dino Scuderia]

GM stock shares fall to 1950 levels as the DOW drops to a low of 8500 and they have been put on negative credit watch by Standard & Poor's.

"Meanwhile, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services put the auto maker's debt rating "on CreditWatch with negative implications." In a press statement, S& P credit analyst Robert Schulz said the classification reflects "the rapidly weakening state of most global automotive markets, along with capital market conditions that will remain a serious challenge for the foreseeable future."

"We believe GM currently has adequate liquidity for at least the rest of 2008 as measured by cash balances and available bank facilities, but the accelerating deterioration in industry fundamentals will be a serious challenge to liquidity during 2009," he said."

Wall Street Journal

[Zytek_Fan]

This is what happens when automakers think they can make bank on SUVs

[f6fhellcat13]

This is what happens when automakers think they can make bank on SUVs

Which is why Porsche is going under.

[digitalcraft]

No, its what happens when you don't adapt quickly to a changing market. SUVs were FINE when gas wasn't to spendy and everyone was confident in the economy.

[Quiggs]

This is what happens when automakers think they can make bank on SUVsNo.


Which is why Porsche is going under.No. Majority stake in VAG will insure a long future for Porsche.


No, its what happens when you don't adapt quickly to a changing market. SUVs were FINE when gas wasn't to spendy and everyone was confident in the economy.This.

[f6fhellcat13]

No.

No. Majority stake in VAG will insure a long future for Porsche.

This.

sarcasm

[Quiggs]

I'm cranky today. Sarcasm detector is off. ;)

[baddabang]

Yet at 9:30 AM EST CNN's headline was "Stocks Rebound"

[Quiggs]

It's all Barack Hussein Osama Bin Laden Obama's fault. He is a terrorist and a socialist and a commie sympathizer who will give nuclear weapons to North Korea and China, as well as clubbing baby seals during Kwanzaa.

[f6fhellcat13]

Irack Hussein Osama you mean.
He's also not your buddy guy.

[Quiggs]

I'm not your guy, friend.

[Ferrer]

It's interesting that most bad news concern GM but not so much Chrysler or Ford.

Or at least the ones posted here.

[Dino Scuderia]

Chrysler is sucking wind too...as well as Ford but neither of those have the tremendous burden that GM has.

[baddabang]

No, its what happens when you don't adapt quickly to a changing market. SUVs were FINE when gas wasn't to spendy and everyone was confident in the economy.

Ermmm no. Not really. Let me elaborate...

This has little to do with SUV and truck sales, and everything to do with making subprime auto loans, the failing economy, and 1 in every 3 dealerships closing. You can't make a profit if nobody can stay in business to sell your product. For the first time in years more and more people are actually being turned down auto loans, as banks and credit unions tighten their qualifications for loans.

It's not just GM but Ford also. Why don't we see this in Japanese automakers? Not because they have less SUV's, but because they were intelligent enough not to make subprime auto loans.

GM will definitely go bankrupt or be bailed out by the government. I'm calling it.

Read this: Car loan fears clobber U.S. auto stocks | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/article/20081009/BUSINESS01/810090388)

[Quiggs]

Would bankruptcy alleviate them from their commitments to retired worker health care/pensions? Cause that could actually work out for the best for them. Heh.

[scottie300z]

Would bankruptcy alleviate them from their commitments to retired worker health care/pensions? Cause that could actually work out for the best for them. Heh.

True true, let's embrace failure cause it may be their road to success.

[baddabang]

Would bankruptcy alleviate them from their commitments to retired worker health care/pensions? Cause that could actually work out for the best for them. Heh.


If GM filed Chapter 11 it would be astronomically huge. Probably the largest in history. They are protected by a pension guarantee act that went through congress sometime ago that's worth IIRC $90 billion. However if GM filed Chapter 11 they would be undercutting the guarantee by roughly $30 billion dollars. So pensioners would most certainly take a hit.

[Quiggs]

True true, let's embrace failure cause it may be their road to success.

The UAW needs to die. In a fire. If that fire happens to be the fiery train wreck that is General Motors, so be it.

[ScionDriver]

Yet at 9:30 AM EST CNN's headline was "Stocks Rebound"

They rebounded early and then collapsed. The economy is scary bad right now. I don't think it matters what you're selling for the most part, everyone is losing right now. It does have everything to do with loans though, as you pointed out.

[baddabang]

They rebounded early and then collapsed. The economy is scary bad right now. I don't think it matters what you're selling for the most part, everyone is losing right now. It does have everything to do with loans though, as you pointed out.


It was a rebound of .7%. Hardly anything to be excited about.

[baddabang]

The UAW needs to die. In a fire. If that fire happens to be the fiery train wreck that is General Motors, so be it.

Dude no. That's how my dad gets paid. :p

[ScionDriver]

The UAW needs to die. In a fire. If that fire happens to be the fiery train wreck that is General Motors, so be it.

Michigan's economy might never recover. It's already in deep trouble but if GM went under it would be bad.

[ScionDriver]

It was a rebound of .7%. Hardly anything to be excited about.

I know, I'm just saying. I didn't realize it was that small of an amount otherwise I might not have said "rebounded." After the interest rate drops by several central banks worldwide it was thought that the early .7% increase was good. But, as the day wore on, no it was not good.

[baddabang]

I know, I'm just saying. I didn't realize it was that small of an amount otherwise I might not have said "rebounded." After the interest rate drops by several central banks worldwide it was thought that the early .7% increase was good. But, as the day wore on, no it was not good.

Haha I'm sure it was more than .7% for the day, but at 9:30 when I checked CNN it "Stocks Rebound" and the increase was only at .7. I though it was amusing.

[cmcpokey]

Haha I'm sure it was more than .7% for the day, but at 9:30 when I checked CNN it "Stocks Rebound" and the increase was only at .7. I though it was amusing.

any time it is not plummeting is a positive sign. that time that it was going up, it wasnt going down, and we should be thankful for that.

[pimento]

Man, this sucks... your economy is going down hill but our dollar is devaluing faster than anyone's. Can you pull your finger out and fix it already? :p

[Quiggs]

One time I pulled my finger out too early. Bad things happened. Pat's sister was never the same.

[cmcpokey]

sorry guys. i guess i'll just take the blame for the US right now. since I am the only US Government employee on here.

Why is it happening? the short of it is greed. good old fashioned american greed. the big guys in charge of the banks, mortgage companies, and investment firms, cheating money out of the tax payers, investers and home buyers.

and because we are the dominant economy of the world, we're screwing the rest of you. as our bad practices are coming more to light, there is a pull out of investments like we havent seen in years. and the falling down of our economy is pulling the rest of you down.

so, from the United States, we're sorry.

but hey, at least you aren't here.

[baddabang]

sorry guys. I guess i'll just take the blame for the us right now. Since i am the only us government employee on here.

Why is it happening? The short of it is greed. Good old fashioned american greed. The big guys in charge of the banks, mortgage companies, and investment firms, cheating money out of the tax payers, investers and home buyers.

And because we are the dominant economy of the world, we're screwing the rest of you. As our bad practices are coming more to light, there is a pull out of investments like we havent seen in years. And the falling down of our economy is pulling the rest of you down.

So, from the united states, we're sorry.

But hey, at least you aren't here.

omfg its the feds!

[LeonOfTheDead]

IIRC GM's bad moment is lasting since some years.
I'm not very into US economy, but I suppose what it's happing now it's the result of many and many years of disastrous management.
don't know who is going to be blamed.
I never risked my (few) money in something properly warranted, so my parents. as a results, our economical situation is fine and safe.
What I mean is this: in Italy (and not only I suppose) houses (for example) are usually bought in two ways: money, or mutual fund.
since just a few people have all the money when purchasing their first house, they need to use a mutual fund. and this lead us to another choice. you can give back the money (to the bank) at a fixed interest, or a variable one. usually, the variable interest is (initially) lower than the fixed one. but obviously, they are not going to gift you anything, and all those variable interest mutual funds revealed to be much more expensive than the others.
when last year we suffered from a similar problem emerged in the US, people where all complaining the bank where asking more money than what they used to say 5 or 10 years before. as a results, the government created a fund for those people so to help them to pay their houses. who paid that fund? the same people who need it, those who never risked with a variable interest, and also those who already purchased their houses and compeltely paid them (no matter in which way obviously).
is this right? I suppose no. what I want 8probably) to point out is: take your own responsibilities, whoever you are.

[Rockefella]

Tomorrow is probably a good day to buy stocks for the long haul. These rates are low as shiatsu

[cmcpokey]

if i wasnt scrapping every penny for a down payment on my house, i woudl be buying loads of stocks right now.

[Quiggs]

Market has a long way to go down yet, methinks.

[werty]

Market has a long way to go down yet, methinks.

true, and it will definitely go back to where it was and beyond

its just going to be awhile/years

[baddabang]

if i wasnt scrapping every penny for a down payment on my house, i woudl be buying loads of stocks right now.

As long as it's not in investment banks, or the U.S. auto industry you should be safe. The few stock that I have haven't really moved yet.

[Quiggs]

I want to own Coca Cola and Google. <3

[cmcpokey]

As long as it's not in investment banks, or the U.S. auto industry you should be safe. The few stock that I have haven't really moved yet.

i have money in some retirement accounts. i few grand right now. at one point i was up almost 500 on what i had put in. right now im down over 800 from what ive invested.

[nota]

Ermmm no. Not really. Let me elaborate...

This has little to do with SUV and truck sales, and everything to do with making subprime auto loans, the failing economy, and 1 in every 3 dealerships closing. You can't make a profit if nobody can stay in business to sell your product. For the first time in years more and more people are actually being turned down auto loans, as banks and credit unions tighten their qualifications for loans.
GM(NA) has been losing money for decades. From what I hear, as judged currently, GM hasn't created any overall net profit since the 1980s .. and arguably since the '70s! Even once-mighty GM can't stay in business forever if it can't turn a profit. Subprime is just an an additional nail in the coffin of a chronically debt-riddled outfit

This current debacle at GM is just a further manifestation of an historically poorly managed and already-failed company


It's not just GM but Ford also. Why don't we see this in Japanese automakers? Not because they have less SUV's, but because they were intelligent enough not to make subprime auto loans.

GM will definitely go bankrupt or be bailed out by the government. I'm calling it.

Looks like GM (as we know it) is cactus, as is Chrysler. There is also considerable doubt over Ford's future

Internationally, in basic terms, America has been busy exporting suss debt to the rest of the world, and its next export is inflation

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I think this particular crisis is proof positive that the current business models used by companies (in particular GM) are unsustainable.

GM in it's current form is on Life support and, as nota points out, has been for a long time.

The US has been lucky that such a long sustained period of growth occured but eventually the rise & fall of a market economy needs to happen.

[fpv_gtho]

Man, this sucks... your economy is going down hill but our dollar is devaluing faster than anyone's. Can you pull your finger out and fix it already? :p

Holden would be loving it though. Those $45K SS Commodores going to the US as $25-30K Pontiac G8's can now make a profit.

[Kitdy]

I have mentioned it before - if the US wanted to save it's car industry they shoudla raised protective tariffs like Japan did on imports to ensure that the domestics controlled the US market.

Now GM is in huge trouble for many reasons - one being the wages of the workers being too high, another being inferior product, now with the bad economy...

[henk4]

I have mentioned it before - if the US wanted to save it's car industry they shoudla raised protective tariffs like Japan did on imports to ensure that the domestics controlled the US market.


America is the "champion" of free trade.....WTO will not allow higher import tariffs.

[Ferrer]

I have mentioned it before - if the US wanted to save it's car industry they shoudla raised protective tariffs like Japan did on imports to ensure that the domestics controlled the US market.
Wouldn't the Japanese get round this by having factories in the US?

[ruim20]

sorry guys. i guess i'll just take the blame for the US right now. since I am the only US Government employee on here.

Why is it happening? the short of it is greed. good old fashioned american greed. the big guys in charge of the banks, mortgage companies, and investment firms, cheating money out of the tax payers, investers and home buyers.

and because we are the dominant economy of the world, we're screwing the rest of you. as our bad practices are coming more to light, there is a pull out of investments like we havent seen in years. and the falling down of our economy is pulling the rest of you down.

so, from the United States, we're sorry.

but hey, at least you aren't here.

No need for appologies, it's like that all over the world, greed seems to be the prefered sin.

The only thing your 'pigs' forgot was the importance of your economy on global level.

[henk4]

I saw a little piece this morning on CNN about a McCain rallye. There was a middle aged man who said he was very angry because the socialists had taken over and he wanted McCain to kick them out....McCain had not much to say, but if that is the spirit then some nasty times will be ahead of us.

[Dino Scuderia]

It's becoming more apparent that America loves capitalism until it fails...then we like socialism.

The real problem was capitalism without proper regulation in this case.

The Bush administration loved being able to tout that their economy plan was so good that 'more people than ever own their own home', and more black people than ever own their own home'.

So the farce that was the 'great economy' was left alone to self-destruct.

[henk4]

The real problem was capitalism without proper regulation in this case.

In two weeks from now I will be leaving for Vietnam to evaluate the results of a technical assistance project relating to Support of the State Bank of Vietnam. Measures to be implemented include an effective control system on the banking community......I know another country where this project could have been very useful....

[culver]

It's becoming more apparent that America loves capitalism until it fails...then we like socialism.

The real problem was capitalism without proper regulation in this case.

The Bush administration loved being able to tout that their economy plan was so good that 'more people than ever own their own home', and more black people than ever own their own home'.

So the farce that was the 'great economy' was left alone to self-destruct.

Actually that was a Clinton era policy. The Bush administration tried to add regulations to Fannie but the bill was shot down in Congress.

[henk4]

Actually that was a Clinton era policy. The Bush administration tried to add regulations to Fannie but the bill was shot down in Congress.

at the time of the Republican majority?

[Dino Scuderia]

Actually that was a Clinton era policy. The Bush administration tried to add regulations to Fannie but the bill was shot down in Congress.

That is true. Janet Reno essentially forced banks to make unsound loans.

All I'm saying is the Bush administration didn't mind using the poor policies for political gain....though turning into a giant loss.

[culver]

at the time of the Republican majority?

I believe the Republicans had a narrow margin at that time (2003 IIRC) but also from what I recall it the bill was shot down largely by the Democrats though it is certainly likely that in each party you could find both supporters and objectors. More to the point was that despite being blamed for the issue, the Bush administration was actually trying to fix a problem that was born of a Clinton era policy.

That is not to say Bush hasn't done things which are bad for the economy as well, only that the root of the loose credit for bad mortgages was planted prior to the Bush administration.

[culver]

That is true. Janet Reno essentially forced banks to make unsound loans.

All I'm saying is the Bush administration didn't mind using the poor policies for political gain....though turning into a giant loss.

Of course not. No politician is likely to pass on taking credit for good times if they occur during their tenure. Clinton rode a huge wave of good economic times which which started sometime before Clinton came to power. That same wave should have been tapped down during the Clinton years rather than letting it crash at the start of the next administration... well it should have if the long term good of the people was your objective.

BTW, I'm not a Bush supporter, the guy has done plenty which he should be bashed for. I just don't like to see companies or people get bashed for things they didn't do. It's a bit like crying wolf.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well they were happy to continue with it when it was A) working and B) politically convieniant.

Blaming the guy who came before is a cop out when you're the one in power.

[Falcon500]

sorry guys. i guess i'll just take the blame for the US right now. since I am the only US Government employee on here.

Why is it happening? the short of it is greed. good old fashioned american greed. the big guys in charge of the banks, mortgage companies, and investment firms, cheating money out of the tax payers, investers and home buyers.

and because we are the dominant economy of the world, we're screwing the rest of you. as our bad practices are coming more to light, there is a pull out of investments like we havent seen in years. and the falling down of our economy is pulling the rest of you down.

so, from the United States, we're sorry.

but hey, at least you aren't here.

What a bad time to be planning to go there :O

Oldish post I know and the queastion im going to post I think qualifes as silly but what will happen if the US crashes? If and possibly when it sinks what will happen to america and the world itself?

[fpv_gtho]

I have mentioned it before - if the US wanted to save it's car industry they shoudla raised protective tariffs like Japan did on imports to ensure that the domestics controlled the US market.

The UAW limiting imports to 18K units per year kinda achieved that though. The Japanese would, and did, get around it anyway as almost all manufacturers selling in the US now produce there as well.

[culver]

The UAW limiting imports to 18K units per year kinda achieved that though. The Japanese would, and did, get around it anyway as almost all manufacturers selling in the US now produce there as well.

The second part of that would be set up all the same red tape to prevent the Japanese from setting up factories here. The same red tape that thwarted Ford's effort to build a factory in Japan.

I'm not really fond of that idea to be honest but I do think the feds should do something to level the field.

[RacingManiac]

at any rate, democrats could've used the excuse that McCain is using now for the Iraq war, and say it doesn't matter HOW we got here, it only matters what we are doing about it. And in the outgoing admins' case, nothing was done about it....

[culver]

at any rate, democrats could've used the excuse that McCain is using now for the Iraq war, and say it doesn't matter HOW we got here, it only matters what we are doing about it. And in the outgoing admins' case, nothing was done about it....

Well something was attempted but it was shot down. Perhaps it didn't get as much emphasis as it should have but to say nothing was done isn't really true.

[Wenkel]

I'm sad to see GM die. It's a pitty that a company as big as GM is going under so slowly. Can't anyone put them of their misery?
Maybe all this that is happening to Ford and GM will turnout to be good, as it eventually force all of the other automakers (Volkswagen, Renault, Citroen) to rethink their investments on SUV and gas guzzlers i.e:

Peugeot 4007
BMW X5
X6
and know the X1 and X3

and use their money and know how to create cheaper and more reliable cars.




It's a shame...

[SlickHolden]

GM has been in debt or bankrupt for as long as i have had hair (I still have it), And today again i sit and think who runs it?, Clearly there should not be a bonus for anyone working there handling there fortunes, They have been pretty hopeless.
Time GM got a few lawyers in some hard arse people and took some advice from the public, Build what they want and need in this climate, And stop building what you think they want.

IT shits me to see GM send some clown from NA to Australia to sort out Holden, Denny Mooney!, This clown comes down and ****s anyone or anything if he feels like it, They come in and complain that holden is spending to much here doing this wrong making the wrong cars etc etc, All in this time Holden has been making nice profits (a word you don't associate with GM), So what makes GM think they need to sort them out?, It's control, They are control freaks. Bought time they done some sorting of there own backyard before it's to late.

[Kitdy]

America is the "champion" of free trade.....WTO will not allow higher import tariffs.

No doubt.


Wouldn't the Japanese get round this by having factories in the US?

Yeah as they did, but there are still tons of imports from Japan, no? You could still tax the US produced foreign cars potentially if they are a large threat to the big three? I don't even know. What sorta fraction of cars form the Japanese companies are built in the US?


The UAW limiting imports to 18K units per year kinda achieved that though. The Japanese would, and did, get around it anyway as almost all manufacturers selling in the US now produce there as well.

I never heard of this - what is it exactly?

[Matra et Alpine]

The problem with import controls is that it works as long as you are the big bully on the block.
Sadly none of our nations are in that position any more.

Also, the car industry is a perfect example of why support and tarrifs do NOT work.
The Costly Truth About Auto Import Quotas (http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/EM74.cfm)
1985 and the restriction was to give the US Auto manufacturers "time" to compete !!
OOPS.

[Kitdy]

The problem with import controls is that it works as long as you are the big bully on the block.
Sadly none of our nations are in that position any more.

Also, the car industry is a perfect example of why support and tarrifs do NOT work.
The Costly Truth About Auto Import Quotas (http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/EM74.cfm)
1985 and the restriction was to give the US Auto manufacturers "time" to compete !!
OOPS.

Tarrifs don't work? Seem to work well for the Japanese market.

Protecting your workers I think can be done and I am pretty sure do work, in a different form, subsidies for US farmers keep them competitive. Why wouldn't taxing imports work? It is done all the time and I believe it does work.

[kingofthering]

I have mentioned it before - if the US wanted to save it's car industry they shoudla raised protective tariffs like Japan did on imports to ensure that the domestics controlled the US market.


...Which would only hurt more in the long run. From AP Economics so far, things like protective tarrifs only hurts oneself in the long run and may end up escalating into a tarrif war.

So it's easier (and cheaper) to let things figure themselves out.

[Matra et Alpine]

Tarrifs don't work? Seem to work well for the Japanese market.
erm, that's typical propganda.
Japanese market is for SMALL cars with higher taxes to pay on consumption and size is a BIG issue.
WHere is the evidence that any limits stopped ANY US car sales ?
Stopped Thailand and India for sure ... but Japan was the big-bully in that case :)

Protecting your workers I think can be done and I am pretty sure do work, in a different form, subsidies for US farmers keep them competitive. Why wouldn't taxing imports work? It is done all the time and I believe it does work.
"Keep competitive" ... so the tarrifs "protect" the farmer but have the rest of the population paying HIGHER costs ... AND paying more tax to fund the tarrifs.
An economy 101 lesson :(

and "taxing imports" to provide equivalency on differnet nation tax principles is an OK and sensible one. But punitively "taxing" or limiting is self-defeating. Without protection woudl todays GM be a better, stable compnay ? Possibly smaller true. But having a BIGGER DEBT is not somethign to be proud of !! And every US taxpayer is funding that. Outside of the UAW are the auto makers THAT important ? The suppliers and manunfacturers coudl be making other products possibly more profitably :)

[LeonOfTheDead]

Tarrifs don't work? Seem to work well for the Japanese market.

As Matra said, Japanese market is quite different.

The big car industries are mainly settled in: US, EU and Oz. both US and Oz car makers are focused on cars that wouldn't sell well in Japan, because their products are mainly bug sedan/trucks with big engines.
EU and Japan have similar markets, even if not so much, and probably a lot of EU cars would sell well in Japan, like small cars from Italians and Frenches makers. but Japan has also a main difference, the steering wheel is on the other side. I'm aware a lot of cars from EU are sold in UK, but this tend to cut a lot of the profits from a car. the example is the Fiat Croma, which because of the low selling numbers it's no more available in right hand drive, because it wasn't remunerative.
So building a car with the different steering wheel layout is already costly, than you have to send it to Japan, and than pay the tariffs.
It isn't going to be very remunerative, so they probably don't even bother to try.

[culver]

US cars certainly are not suitable for most non-NA markets. Even the Japanese see that thus we get several NA only Japaneses products such as the Toyota Tundra pickup. However, the European Ford and GM products would be well suited for the Japanese market. For that mater the Deawoo GM products would also be suitable. However it is very difficult to import those cars in a cost effective manor. Some of that is for official reasons, some not so official.

[LeonOfTheDead]

at the same time, we don't see much of their cars here.
Japanese makers' lineup are quite empty here

[kingofthering]

at the same time, we don't see much of their cars here.
Japanese makers' lineup are quite empty here

You can thank the EU and its trade bloc for that.

[culver]

I was thinking the EU regulations had something to do with it. However, I suspect that is too simple an answer. The Japanese got a foothold in the US when gas prices spiked. It wasn't that people were really looking for something else but simply that the domestics had few choices for higher mileage cars. Europe has always had higher mileage cars so the Japanese couldn't use that as a wedge. In large part I don't think the European market ever had the shock that the US had where the once prevailing designs of choice (large engines and large cars) suddenly became MUCH less desirable. Back in the 1970s and 1980s the Japanese probably were able to offer better reliability than many European makes but I doubt they offered, on average, the same level of driving dynamics or noticeably better mileage. In the end they were simply an alternative rather than a really new type of vehicle for the market.

[SlickHolden]

Is the 300c a large success in the U.S?.

Idea, Since we know it's origins and what Chrysler done to make it, Why is it GM can't do a similar thing. There are many cars in the GM family that can be I'm sure adjusted to meet the needs of the N/A public.
There are that many cars today on the market that share basic architecture, But share nothing in looks. Might save large dollars in development.

As the world struggles now GM bleeds money the wall street, But they have been doing it longer, I'm shocked there hasn't been a plan of moving outside the box, If many in the GM family build cars well and make profits, Why is it they haven't looked closer?. Or is the real problem they like to spend and waste money?.

[Matra et Alpine]

You can thank the EU and its trade bloc for that.
trade bloc ? Not for a long long time and going back to the original in the 60s is pointless :)
Japanese cars are the majority on UK roads.
SOME countries still have local legal vehicle rules which make it sometimes more, sometimes less costly.

One or two models are manufactured in the EU and the rest imported.

From a 2008 US gov report ....


JAPAN: - New Motor Vehicle Sales (in units)
2003 2004 2005
Personal Use Vehicles 4,460,019 4,768,131 4,748,409
Commercial Use Vehicles 1,368,164 1,085,250 1,103,658
Total Motor Vehicles 5,828,183 5,853,381 5,852,067
Source: Auto Strategies International Inc.

Tariffs:

• Import duties on motor vehicles have been waived indefinitely since 1978.

Taxes:

• Japan currently levies a 5 percent consumption tax on vehicles. This tax was
increased from 3 percent in April of 1997.

• In addition to the consumption tax, there is an annual automobile tax, which increases
by engine size, ranging from 29,500 to 111,000 yen.

• Japan maintains no local content requirements or quantitative restrictions.

• Japan assesses an acquisition tax on the acquisition of an automobile, whether new or
used, based on the purchase price. This tax is 5 percent of the purchase price (3
percent for commercial and mini-vehicles. Exempted for vehicles purchased for
500,000 yen or less.)

• Japan also levies tonnage tax according to vehicle weight at each vehicle inspection.
The tonnage tax for passenger cars is 6,300 yen per year for each 0.5 ton of gross
vehicle weight. The tax for truck varies from 4,400 to 6,300 yen per year.
• These taxes apply to both domestic and imported vehicles.

.........


EU-Japan Voluntary Restraint Agreement (VRA)
In anticipation of fully opening EU markets to Japanese competition in the year 2000,
the EU and Japan agreed in 1991 to an orderly transition period under a VRA. From
January 1993 to December 1999, motor vehicle exports from Japan to the EU were
restricted in relation to total EU market sales. Japanese access to the EU market after
this period became unlimited.

It's worth xeploring the WTO site and the repsective sites for nations' export/import controls :)

[Ferrer]

Japanese cars are the majority on UK roads.
I honestly doubt this is the case. In Europe, Japanese cars sell but not that much.

And by the way, it seems there are rumours of a Chrysler and GM merger.

BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger - Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/10/breaking-gm-and-chrysler-in-merger-talks/)

Talk about overlapping products...

[IBrake4Rainbows]

You have to remember, Ferrer, than while they have Japanese Badges, a lot of vehicles are made in the UK and sold under Japanese Nameplates.

The Nissan Micra, for instance.

[Matra et Alpine]

IB4R, we're not just talking about the ones built here !

[culver]

The 300 and its Dodge siblings are somewhat successful in the US (BTW, 300C only refers to the V8 powered version of the 300). They were very successful when they first came out but then suffered as gas prices started to rise. When they hit the market gas was something like $1.50/gallon. They were just the sort of vehicle many in the US were clamoring for. Rumor has it that the Mercedes merger, rather than actually helping Chrysler release these new RWD cars actually delayed their release. Chrysler had been working on RWD replacements for their LH cars. When MB came along they reengineered the cars to use available MB parts. That ended up delaying the release. It also lead to the rumor that the 300 was nothing more than a rework of an old E-class. The chassis was not at all the old E-class. The old MB provided the suspension and final drive parts as well as the lousy MB turn signal-wiper controls.

I’m not sure why GM didn’t release something like the 300 in the US earlier. I suspect part of it was when gas was cheap it made more sense to put efforts into trucks and SUVs, an area where GM was particularly strong. Rumors of a new global RWD platform based on Holden R&D had been around for a while and has now happened. The original plan was to move the US Impala onto the same platform as the Monaro. That plan died when the fed got stupid and passed a new round of CAFÉ standards. At that point the projected sales volumes of RWD cars fell and it no longer made sense to set up a new US plant to make them. On the surface it is simple to say the public wants it so build it. In the trenches we have to deal with allocation of funds base on which projects are more important. We also have to deal with CAFÉ impacts (CAFÉ had done quite a bit to screw up the US car market as well as hurt the domestic manufactures… a great case of the US hurting their own).

Matra,
Bob Lutz was recently talking about the global car markets. As he stated, Japan is all but a closed car market. Even if the official laws don’t make it impossible to import cars the red tape and other unofficial laws do. When Cherokees were being sold in Japan the “dock inspections” all but disassembled the cars and added thousands of dollars in extra costs to each vehicle. Foreign auto sales in Japan are effectively at a boutique level.

The Chrysler talks floor me. I just can't see how that's good for either company and mostly not for GM.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well Ferrer was adamant that Japanese vehicles do not sell very well in the UK.

I was just saying that a Japanese vehicle can be considered an English vehicle - helping consumers overcome the stigma associated in some countries with purchasing a vehicle made elsewhere & thus improving their sales.

But yeah, moot point :p

[Matra et Alpine]

Matra,
Bob Lutz was recently talking about the global car markets. As he stated, Japan is all but a closed car market. Even if the official laws don’t make it impossible to import cars the red tape and other unofficial laws do. When Cherokees were being sold in Japan the “dock inspections” all but disassembled the cars and added thousands of dollars in extra costs to each vehicle. Foreign auto sales in Japan are effectively at a boutique level.
So why do many cars NOT make the US ?
Same "closed market" if you view it that way.
See the "laws" I posted, they apply to both. So Japanese produced cars meet their laws. They modify/adapt cars to meet markets around the world. Why shoudl the "adopt" US standards when it's not recpriocal ?

[culver]

So why do many cars NOT make the US ?
Same "closed market" if you view it that way.
See the "laws" I posted, they apply to both. So Japanese produced cars meet their laws. They modify/adapt cars to meet markets around the world. Why shoudl the "adopt" US standards when it's not recpriocal ?

What? The US doesn't impose a lot of red tape on car makers who what to come setup factories here. We have dozens of transplant factories. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. However, if Japan were that open why do their car sales not reflect it? Furthermore we have Lutz saying the market isn't open to imports regardless of the reasons why.

After rereading this I think you may be referring to US emissions and crash test standards. Any car which meets those standards can be sold here. I admit testing isn't cheap. Europe seems to make it somewhat easier for smaller volume car makers to sell without quite such a regulatory burden. However, I wouldn't call those protectionist policies. They might keep cars like the Porsche 959 out but they don't stop any number of larger volume cars. Europe also has testing standards and wouldn't let Ford sell an Explorer in Europe if the vehicle didn't meet EU standards.

The problem with Japan is you can have a car which does meet their standards yet is still so expensive to import that it can't be sold in any significant volume. I mean do you really think many of the small hatches sold in Europe by Ford, GM, Renault, VW etc wouldn't see well in Japan if offered at a competitive price?

[Matra et Alpine]

Well Ferrer was adamant that Japanese vehicles do not sell very well in the UK.
Ferrer's in Barcelona. I know US geogrpahy is tradiaiontlly thought to be very poor BUT I know YOU know the difference between SPain, Britain, Europe :)

I was just saying that a Japanese vehicle can be considered an English vehicle - helping consumers overcome the stigma associated in some countries with purchasing a vehicle made elsewhere & thus improving their sales
THis has not been a "stigma" in the UK for decades.
We've got about the only real "free market" economy going ... which is why most of our industries are owned by others or gone unable to gain from subsidies :(

But yeah, moot point :p
Well my exageration doesn't help. I had said they are the "most" and of course they're not, but they ARE a good percentage. Less now than in years back as FOrd and Peugeot and Renual and Citroen upped the quality of design and implementation :)

[Matra et Alpine]

What? The US doesn't impose a lot of red tape on car makers who what to come setup factories here. We have dozens of transplant factories. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. However, if Japan were that open why do their car sales not reflect it? Furthermore we have Lutz saying the market isn't open to imports regardless of the reasons why.

I've posted the Japanese laws already -- as documented by the US gov :)
111,000 yen tax on the largest engines ... US cars have big engines so get penalised. BUT, that's because Japan doesn't want/need big engines in cars..... NOT setting out to "ban imports" !

"red tape" ... UAW ?? :)
Countries operate differently and so you have to adopt their principles if you want to work their. For example in Germany you MUST have employees on the company comittee making decisions and you MUST provide pensions. Japan has similar issues/traditions and just unwillingness to take them on board !! Suggest always looking at htese things from BOTH sides. THere are similar issues, just that with a MUCH longer term view of business the Japanes have accepted the need to adopt slowly to other markets. Western companies are so focussed on the P&L and the balances sheet and stock price next year that they need immediate solutions and hence only see things as barriers ... in reality most are minor grades :)

FInally, let's see .... someone complaining about a market .... do they benefit if it's different without having to do anything themself ? So not likely to be unbiased is it. GO try sell a low volume kit car/sports car designed and sold in Britain in America !!

[Ferrer]

You have to remember, Ferrer, than while they have Japanese Badges, a lot of vehicles are made in the UK and sold under Japanese Nameplates.

The Nissan Micra, for instance.
I know, I was considering those too. Let's add some figures to the mix.

In Europe putting together all of the Aisatic car maker sales still turns out to be less than the VW Group alone.

http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20080918_PR_PC_0807-08-FINAL_2.pdf

And in the UK there are no Asian cars in the top 10 most sold cars.

Automotive World - UK: New car registrations fall for fifth consecutive month in September (http://www.automotiveworld.com/WVMA/content.asp?contentid=71400)

[SlickHolden]

Thanks for that Culver.

So the 300 isn't a bad thing, It's just being hurt now by the high fuel prices.
How is the U.S right now going with fuel?. We are still having relatively high prices considering last time it was this low it was some + .40c cheaper.

I'd like to see GM use more of it's cars world wide to better use, Using the expertise of there subsidiary around the world will benefit them in the long run.
It still shocks me to know they loose more money then anyone else - and have so for so many years now.

My thinking is, If more people buy a toyota Camry, Then that is what GM should build. Only do it at the same price offering more - diesel option etc.
I like the way GM is using Deawoo cars now, Even if they are cheap or nasty, They are cheap running cars with good extras that should sell to the younger ones.
But someone has got to have a pulse on what people want today or you can't sell a thing.
And yet they sell so much, But loose more?.

[Kitdy]

I know it's off topic, but in regards to tariffs and the like, I always thought that free trade often was damaging to workers in certain countries. I mean it seems to me that right wing institutions support free trade as they see this will enhance the economy (and potentially enrich those that are already rich) but often harm the workers. Let's take clothing, clothes are often made in developing countries because wages are lower in these countries. People making clothes in developed countries (are there anymore?) lose jobs because they are sent overseas. In a completely free trade global world market, would not the working class in developed countries suffer a huge loss of jobs whilst businessmen make more profit due to utilising lower wage foreign workers? I am not sure the issue is so clear cut. Tariffs being "bad" is not something that is clear to me. Many economists seem to support free trade but then again many economists also want a freer market and I'm not sure either is in the best interest for the middle/lower classes of developed countries.

[Ferrer]

I know it's off topic, but in regards to tariffs and the like, I always thought that free trade often was damaging to workers in certain countries. I mean it seems to me that right wing institutions support free trade as they see this will enhance the economy (and potentially enrich those that are already rich) but often harm the workers. Let's take clothing, clothes are often made in developing countries because wages are lower in these countries. People making clothes in developed countries (are there anymore?) lose jobs because they are sent overseas. In a completely free trade global world market, would not the working class in developed countries suffer a huge loss of jobs whilst businessmen make more profit due to utilising lower wage foreign workers? I am not sure the issue is so clear cut. Tariffs being "bad" is not something that is clear to me. Many economists seem to support free trade but then again many economists also want a freer market and I'm not sure either is in the best interest for the middle/lower classes of developed countries.
If you aren't competitive cost-wise then you have to rely on other aspects of your product. Design, quality, technology,... and this happens wheter you are selling cars or clothes.

That means that in developped countries where wages make cheap products uncompetitive have convert their industries to high added value products to offset the higher wages.

[culver]

I've posted the Japanese laws already -- as documented by the US gov :)
111,000 yen tax on the largest engines ... US cars have big engines so get penalised. BUT, that's because Japan doesn't want/need big engines in cars..... NOT setting out to "ban imports" !

"red tape" ... UAW ?? :)
Countries operate differently and so you have to adopt their principles if you want to work their. For example in Germany you MUST have employees on the company comittee making decisions and you MUST provide pensions. Japan has similar issues/traditions and just unwillingness to take them on board !! Suggest always looking at htese things from BOTH sides. THere are similar issues, just that with a MUCH longer term view of business the Japanes have accepted the need to adopt slowly to other markets. Western companies are so focussed on the P&L and the balances sheet and stock price next year that they need immediate solutions and hence only see things as barriers ... in reality most are minor grades :)

FInally, let's see .... someone complaining about a market .... do they benefit if it's different without having to do anything themself ? So not likely to be unbiased is it. GO try sell a low volume kit car/sports car designed and sold in Britain in America !!

I’ve already said that NA domestic products are not well suited for the Japanese market. However, Ford Europe, GM Europe, Fiat, Renault, Citroen, VW, are you saying not one of these companies makes cars that are well suited for the Japanese market? Are you saying Korean cars are not well suited for the Japanese market? If there are no official or unofficial trade barriers then why do we not see more Renaults in Japan?

The UAW is red tape for those who have to deal with the UAW. Honda and Hyundai and BMW and Mercedes and most Toyota plants are not UAW operations so how is the UAW a type of red tape?

Clearly Ford and GM found that they could operate in Europe, in Australia, in Brazil, even in China. Why is it that they have effectively no operations in Japan? Ford tried but was rebuffed. Can you explain why Lutz when talking about the car markets of the world stated that Japan’s was closed?

Your last point is also questionable. Are you OK that Microsoft has used their monopoly in the operating system market to kill competition in word processing, in web browsers, hell they even had policies which actively hurt IBM during the OS2 Warp days. Are you saying that’s all good? Are you OK with anti-competitive practices like dumping? I don’t have anything against a level playing field but the field isn’t level. Lets reverse things, do you think it would have been OK if the Japanese had simply let the other automakers of the world into their country back in say the 1950s and 1960s? Again you are confusing simple protectionism with demanding a level field.

Your last point I’ve already addressed. I don’t like that the US has virtually no low volume sales exceptions. However, low volume sales exceptions aren’t keeping the likes of Renault or Fiat out of the US. For better or worse our emissions and safety laws are what they are. It does mean you need to do US specific testing to sell a car hear and that does add to the up front costs. However that only has kept us from getting relatively low volume models in the US. That is absolutely no impediment for a large company.

[Matra et Alpine]

"level fields" .. the only part I'm going to respond on as the background to the others is there IF you woudl please read the comments with an open mind. Your MS comment clearly indicates you are struggling with the difference between monopoly, free market and national standards :(

The problem with "level fields" approach is that if one field is HIGHER than the other then should those who own/operate that field be forced to bring it down OR should those who wish to operate on that field raise their game ? Pure capitalism tells us they have to raise their game .. or not bother. Japanese manufacturers had to jump through hoops to get factories that were not UAW. That is somethign THEY chose to adapt to enter the US "Level field". Folks like Lutz complain because they can't sell or set up operations because of laws. Well that's fine. I can't work in the US without a green card .... somethgin I don't need in EUrope, so for a "Level field" you're position would mean the US shoudl remove that need ! I tihnk I@ve gone over it enough now.

[culver]

Thanks for that Culver.

So the 300 isn't a bad thing, It's just being hurt now by the high fuel prices.
How is the U.S right now going with fuel?. We are still having relatively high prices considering last time it was this low it was some + .40c cheaper.
We are between $3 and $3.50 right now. The price can vary widely between rejoins. The south was recently hit with a fuel shortage. Almost no gas in Atlanta for about a week. That made Atlanta prices rather high. Historically California and New England have had the highest fuel prices due to high local taxes. Thanks to the very tight supply market the south and areas around Chicago are now paying some of the highest gas prices in the country despite low taxes. Keep in mind that ten years ago I paid $0.69 for a gallon of gas outside of Atlanta. Even in the cities I would expect gas to be around $0.85/gallon. Until about 2004 gas was running about $1.40/gallon. Recently it was over $4. Needless to say doubling or even quadrupling the price of gas has a big effect on the market.


I'd like to see GM use more of it's cars world wide to better use, Using the expertise of there subsidiary around the world will benefit them in the long run.
It still shocks me to know they loose more money then anyone else - and have so for so many years now.
They are working to do that. The problem is often the US market seems more price conscious that other markets. GM and Ford have tried using world cars in the past with very mixed results. Even Toyota, Honda and Nissan have realized that the US market is not the same and thus many of the overseas cars are not well suited to be volume models in the US. That said, the Cobalt is built off a global platform. The next Cobalt sized car will be a world car as well. The Caddy CTS has a good bit of Oz engineering in it. The Malibu has a good bit of German DNA.


My thinking is, If more people buy a toyota Camry, Then that is what GM should build. Only do it at the same price offering more - diesel option etc.
I like the way GM is using Deawoo cars now, Even if they are cheap or nasty, They are cheap running cars with good extras that should sell to the younger ones.
Well they do. The new Malibu is certainly on par with the Camry. The hard part is getting conservative, satisfied owners of Camrys to buy the equally nice Malibu. Diesels in the US sound nice but they never seem to do that well here. I think the purchase price premium combined with our higher than gasoline diesel prices make the option less appealing. VW is the only manufacture who offers a mainstream diesel family sedan. The only reason we even get a Passat diesel is because the car was developed for the rest of the world and for the time being it can meet US emissions. That may change in the future.


But someone has got to have a pulse on what people want today or you can't sell a thing.
And yet they sell so much, But loose more?.
GM does to some degree. They have done well in the larger truck and SUV market. Not overly surprising as they work hard to not loose out to the Japanese in their last strong hold market. The idea was to then use the continued success in that market to help fund a resurgence in the car market. With the collapse of the truck market much of that money is gone. Pity as GM is doing a good job of addressing some of the things they were criticized for in the past. There recent interiors are on par and sometimes better than the competition. Certainly the new full size trucks, the Malibu, the new Lambda SUVs, and the Caddy CTS show that GM has a firm hold on interior design. That said perception lags reality. The same is true of things like reliability, vehicle dynamics, powertrains etc.

Of course there is always the question of is it too little too late?

[culver]

"level fields" .. the only part I'm going to respond on as the background to the others is there IF you woudl please read the comments with an open mind. Your MS comment clearly indicates you are struggling with the difference between monopoly, free market and national standards :(
No I am not. If Japan is working to promote her manufactures while preventing competition on her home soil that is a protectionist policy. If Japan holds her currency down to help exports that is effectively dumping. Again that isn't something that makes for a level field.


The problem with "level fields" approach is that if one field is HIGHER than the other then should those who own/operate that field be forced to bring it down OR should those who wish to operate on that field raise their game ? Pure capitalism tells us they have to raise their game .. or not bother. Japanese manufacturers had to jump through hoops to get factories that were not UAW. That is somethign THEY chose to adapt to enter the US "Level field". Folks like Lutz complain because they can't sell or set up operations because of laws. Well that's fine. I can't work in the US without a green card .... somethgin I don't need in EUrope, so for a "Level field" you're position would mean the US shoudl remove that need ! I tihnk I@ve gone over it enough now.

So Japan holds down her currency to help her exporters. That means Toyota can sell a car in the US for less than natural market forces would suggest. That is imbalance. Are you saying we should do the same or Japan should stop? Either way Japan is doing something to help her makers at the expense of the competition. She is keeping other makes (US and otherwise) from selling in her home market. That protected home market helped keep Nissan alive for a time. How is it level that Japan has an effectively closed market while the US isn't?

You keep talking about the UAW. Please tell me how the UAW have any affect on Indiana giving Honda money to set up a plant? How was that UAW red tape?

Sometimes people complain just because they are complaining. Other times they complain because the problems are real. In this case I would say Lutz isn't just whining.

[Matra et Alpine]

No I am not. If Japan is working to promote her manufactures while preventing competition on her home soil that is a protectionist policy. If Japan holds her currency down to help exports that is effectively dumping. Again that isn't something that makes for a level field.
And yet there are MORE cases ov abise of Anti-Dumping trade at the WTO against the USA than ANY other country ??
One persons "law of the land" is another persons "protectionist".
Japan does not PREVENT competition, it jsut demands that if you want to compete IN Japan then you have to match the Japanese companies wrt law, employment, ownership etc

So Japan holds down her currency to help her exporters. That means
ah, the famous "hold down" ... Japan has historically NOT been a borrowing economy. So there isn't a large interest-driven-credit market. SO by definition of the free market, the Japanese currency isn't one that money goes to for return !

Toyota can sell a car in the US for less than natural market forces would suggest. That is imbalance.
Define "natural market" ... do you inlcude hte additional costs that UAW puts on employees as part of those forces ? WHat about lending ? Remember the US Auto industry is running on DEBT, that measn they have to pay the interest as wella s their costs. SOmeone wothout that millstone does not have to earn as much to make the same/more profit.


Are you saying we should do the same or Japan should stop? Either way Japan is doing something to help her makers at the expense of the competition. She is keeping other makes (US and otherwise) from selling in her home market. That protected home market helped keep Nissan alive for a time. How is it level that Japan has an effectively closed market while the US isn't?
ALready explained that.
Clearly you want to see the US style as "free and right" and all the others as "wrong".
Go check the WTO site for agreivances. It's useful for getting a balance ( level field ) in your analysis.

You keep talking about the UAW. Please tell me how the UAW have any affect on Indiana giving Honda money to set up a plant? How was that UAW red tape?{/quote]
Way to chose an examples NOT involving thne UAW.
Tell you what, find me a state in the US who has NOT given money, land, tax breaks or low rate loans to attract industry ?
Colorado has been doing it for 50 years to attract businesses away from Silicon Valley :)
[quote]Sometimes people complain just because they are complaining. Other times they complain because the problems are real. In this case I would say Lutz isn't just whining.
I woudl say the same in your position.
However, I suggest that if you compare INTERNAL US activities and internal Japanese activities you will see parallels that you are currently labelling "protectionism". Let me repeat ... Lutz has an agenda ... not as extreme as Bush and the WMD lies, but it is best to be sceptical of those on our side as well as those on the other.

Japan is not an easy market to get in to.
But that has been Japanese culture for 200 years :)

One example I came across 20 years ago with "Japan Inc" .... all the major electronics design companies meet regularly and SHARE their ideas and plans for new products in the future. Competitors gladly give feedback and suggestions for success. If you wanted to play with that group you had to be willing to share the same values ! Needless to say we were blocked from trying :(

[culver]

I'm sorry when did I say the US didn't engage in some of these same behaviors? We do and I don't think it's right in those cases either.

Regardless I don't think you are doing a good job convincing me and I know I'm not convincing you. In the end we have an auto executive talking about various markets around the world and stating that Japan is effectively closed to all non-Japanese companies. Seems hard to argue with that as the sales in Japan of both US, European and Korean cars is all but non-existent. I'm sure that is simply because the Japanese consumers don't want cars from other countries. I'm sure they also don't want iPods.

I will also leave you with this NY Times article.
An Uphill Journey to Japan; How the Price of a Jeep CLimbs 64% After Leaving the Factory - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2D71339F935A25756C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1)

[nota]

(BTW, 300C only refers to the V8 powered version of the 300)
V6 and diesel are also called 300C in Oz, as I suspect are all engine versions ex-Austrian manufacture

[Matra et Alpine]

I will also leave you with this NY Times article.
An Uphill Journey to Japan; How the Price of a Jeep CLimbs 64% After Leaving the Factory - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2D71339F935A25756C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1)
COnfirms what I said earlier :)
Try getting a Radical SR8 in the US ? Or an Alpine A610 ? Or as many other examples you can find IF not blind to them.
WHY are they difficult ... because USA has a set of strict emissions and highway safety that US built cars have to adhere to and submit for independant testing. It's NOT protectionism to deman that imports meet them too, it's SAFETY. THat is the level playing field. Expecting an imported car to NOT have to meet those is crazy .. do you agree ? Now think Japan :)

Example of the market needs and expectations are well represented in that article.

Much of the high markup of the dealer can be attributed to the services it provides. For example, when a car it has sold breaks down, a salesman goes to the customer's home or office to pick it up for servicing, sometimes providing a temporary replacement. When the repairs are finished, the salesman drives the car back to the customer's home.
So it's NOT a "govermnent thing" or import controls. It's MARKET FORCES. Either you support fre market or you don't :)

Also, re price, I'm afraid another myopic USA view. US Car makers are in trouble because they DO NOT MAKE ENOUGH PROFIT ... profti comes from price :) It's been the way of the world for as long as I can remember that US cars are MUCH more expensive outside of the US. THis has been a point brought up often in these forums when comparing car prices. Corvette is cheap for you guys, expensive for us.

SOrry, but I know you think I'm not looking at the evidence, but I am. With eyes wide open and can see what and why each "Protection" is there. If Lutz had any cajones he'd actually compete on a level field and build better cars :) Currently it sounds like a repeat of the British motorbike industry in the 60s. We wre building CRAP and nobody woudl admit it and wanted to stop the Japanese importing better AND complaining about Japan not buying the crap we were building ...

[LeonOfTheDead]

My original statements about Japanese cars in the EU was referred to the fact that they sell here just a few of their cars, there are a lot of cars that aren't sold here.
I wasn0t discussing how many Japanese cars are sold here as sale figures but as models available.

[f6fhellcat13]

Currently it sounds like a repeat of the British motorbike industry in the 60s. We wre building CRAP and nobody woudl admit it and wanted to stop the Japanese importing better AND complaining about Japan not buying the crap we were building ...

This happened to us in the 70s/80s. Brock Yates has a good book, called The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry, that explains how it happened then.

[culver]

Matra,

I respect your opinions even when I don't agree with them. But in this case I do not think you are giving sufficient weight to the other side of the argument. Sure you can say "just build better cars". It's a valid point but it also doesn't really cover the whole picture. If GM has a fundamental cost disadvantage they can't simply produce better cars because the market won't pay the added price or they will have to take less profit. At the same time, the "just build better cars" argument anymore is only put forth by those who haven't tried GM's current cars. For the most part GM has a good car in just about every segment they are in.

So what is the cost disadvantage due to? Well some of it is paying for health care and retirement benefits for people from a long time ago. Other parts are thing that are outside of GM's control. Certainly currency manipulation by the Japanese is outside of GM's control.

I did however make a mistake. It was Rick Wagoner, not Lutz who said the Japanese market is effectively closed.
Online NewsHour: General Motors CEO Discusses Company's Future -- April 20, 2006 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june06/gm_4-20.html)
I think we can assume he wants to paint as favorable a picture as possible for GM but I also think we can assume he is VERY well versed in the subject mater. Perhaps you could say why he is wrong.

Here is another source which certainly has a vested interest. That again doesn't mean they don't have a valid point. Dismissing them would be completely unfair and simplistic.
The Level Field Institute (http://www.levelfieldinstitute.org/index.html)

So long as these accusations are out there I don't think you can just dismiss the points.

I also disagree that our safety regulations are actually an attempt to keep competition down. You can't possibly think that GM, Ford and Chrysler are working with CARB to craft anti-import policies. If anything the car companies (and me) would love to see CARB go away. The extra testing does represent a larger barrier to entry but it clearly isn't insurmountable at a reasonable cost. An Ariel Atom costs about $65,000 in the US. How much does it cost before tax in the UK? The only difference was until recently it was sold with a GM instead of Honda motor. Conversely would you call the pedestrian impact standards in Europe a protectionist policy?

[Kitdy]

So it's NOT a "govermnent thing" or import controls. It's MARKET FORCES. Either you support fre market or you don't :)

I don't.

I was also wondering, what are the comparative labour wages in the automotive industry in America and Japan?

[Matra et Alpine]

If GM has a fundamental cost disadvantage
They have that in their home market ... otherwise they woudln't be tanking with huge debts !!

For the most part GM has a good car in just about every segment they are in.
Good has to equal profitable too :)

Certainly currency manipulation by the Japanese is outside of GM's control.
THe "manipulation" angle is pure BS that right wing have thrown around for decades. Of course it's OK for some nations to control currency, but not others :) Already explained how the traditional Japanese non-credit economy basically makes a nonsense of currency exchange as soon as [w¦b]ankers started hedging on currency fluctuations it skewed. Not because Jpan = "bad", but becaiuse it didn't follow the same model the US economists and currency speculators used !

I think we can assume he wants to paint as favorable a picture as possible for GM but I also think we can assume he is VERY well versed in the subject mater. Perhaps you could say why he is wrong.[/quote

ALready gave direct quotes why he is "wrong\" ... especially the one on customer expectations in Japan. You either compete with it or don't. Japanese manufacturers have delivered on it for decades and so they brought that to other markets and suddenly their sales leapt ... because they CARED about their customers !

Besides, GM are trying to get the US gov to provide benefits to them to prevent them collapsing. So like most recent tactics ... create the scary monster for the government to justify fighting against -- be it treu OR false :(

[quote]Here is another source which certainly has a vested interest.
And hence SOME of it needs to be scrutinised and not jsut their "Opinion" taken on board. Falls into the same pitfalls already described I'm afraid. "About" pages are always insightful .... clearly a suppport US Auto jobs mentality :(

So long as these accusations are out there I don't think you can just dismiss the points.
So far I hav ento "dismissed" on single point.
I have considered and given a response trying to illuminate the larger issues nad agendas at play.
I'm not a devotee of bogy-man stories to get change. Better hones, open truth.

I also disagree that our safety regulations are actually an attempt to keep competition down.
THank you for clearly demonstrating the bias in thinking I have been trying to get you to avoid :)
Never said it was their for protection ... yused it as a comparison to show why it is unfair for the scraemongers to use similar examplse in Japan as "proof" of restrictive practices.


An Ariel Atom costs about $65,000 in the US. How much does it cost before tax in the UK?
Current rates the Atom 3 is $42,000.
Again as pointed out before .... that is $23,000 going to someone doing somethign in the US. You might want to review that Jeep article for comparison again :)


Conversely would you call the pedestrian impact standards in Europe a protectionist policy?No. and I use the US safety as an example of national standards which COST and yet aren't considered protectionist :)

WHen you wish to discuss without the bias I'm more than willing to. But so far you are takign every input to be an argument rather than a debate. Not interested in that

[culver]

I didn't see that you provided any evidence discrediting my links. Again, I disagree with much of what you are saying and I don't think you have made good point by point counter claims or given examples and explained how they are parallel parallel in logic and magnitude.

Sorry, you may be right but you haven't shown it. I don't see the bias that you seem to see. Perhaps you have a reverse bias that clouds your view on the subject.

[Matra et Alpine]

This isn't kindergarten or primary school :)
I have given links and explanations that can be evaluated.
Sorry you want an internet-argument :( Not the games I wish to play in, I'm afraid.

[culver]

You only gave one link to a near 25 year old article. The points were good but they don't support all that you are saying (only some of it) nor do they address the points I have raised and linked to.

Sorry, I can also say I have made clear and concise points etc and raise my hands in frustration and all that because you have such an anti-US bias etc.

I can understand that you and I both feel this is going nowhere but please don't be condescending in the process. It certainly won't make either of us any more right.

[SlickHolden]

We are between $3 and $3.50 right now. The price can vary widely between rejoins. The south was recently hit with a fuel shortage. Almost no gas in Atlanta for about a week. That made Atlanta prices rather high. Historically California and New England have had the highest fuel prices due to high local taxes. Thanks to the very tight supply market the south and areas around Chicago are now paying some of the highest gas prices in the country despite low taxes. Keep in mind that ten years ago I paid $0.69 for a gallon of gas outside of Atlanta. Even in the cities I would expect gas to be around $0.85/gallon. Until about 2004 gas was running about $1.40/gallon. Recently it was over $4. Needless to say doubling or even quadrupling the price of gas has a big effect on the market.
We are currently going about $1.40-$1.49 - but with oil this cheap and our dollar low we still should be seeing a greater saving at the pump. Someone is not passing on the savings in full.



They are working to do that. The problem is often the US market seems more price conscious that other markets. GM and Ford have tried using world cars in the past with very mixed results. Even Toyota, Honda and Nissan have realized that the US market is not the same and thus many of the overseas cars are not well suited to be volume models in the US. That said, the Cobalt is built off a global platform. The next Cobalt sized car will be a world car as well. The Caddy CTS has a good bit of Oz engineering in it. The Malibu has a good bit of German DNA.
Our market is similar price wise - but even though makers like Toyota know our market, They still don't build the traditional cars this market has always had. And yet they still sell more then anyone - so they clearly do something right.



Well they do. The new Malibu is certainly on par with the Camry. The hard part is getting conservative, satisfied owners of Camrys to buy the equally nice Malibu. Diesels in the US sound nice but they never seem to do that well here. I think the purchase price premium combined with our higher than gasoline diesel prices make the option less appealing. VW is the only manufacture who offers a mainstream diesel family sedan. The only reason we even get a Passat diesel is because the car was developed for the rest of the world and for the time being it can meet US emissions. That may change in the future.
Diesel price is higher then petrol here also, But when you take it's advantages over petrol - it should sell itself.
Prices of Diesel cars/4wd here are about par or just under with there petrol counterparts. And knowing the stump pulling power behind one and fuel savings from it - it's a no brainier for 4wd/suv/trucks/utes etc.

The Malibu doesn't look half bad to be honest. But it's more then conservative it's reputation that goes with toyota, And hardest thing is to get swing traditional toyota buyers away. No matter where Japanese or Chinese people go they will always select these cars over most, It's rare but they do step outside at time. But traditionally they go with what they know. So first impressions is the key. You have almost got to do away with all the goodies and go boring in some ways - like toyota. They are the masters or boring reliability:D.



GM does to some degree. They have done well in the larger truck and SUV market. Not overly surprising as they work hard to not loose out to the Japanese in their last strong hold market. The idea was to then use the continued success in that market to help fund a resurgence in the car market. With the collapse of the truck market much of that money is gone. Pity as GM is doing a good job of addressing some of the things they were criticized for in the past. There recent interiors are on par and sometimes better than the competition. Certainly the new full size trucks, the Malibu, the new Lambda SUVs, and the Caddy CTS show that GM has a firm hold on interior design. That said perception lags reality. The same is true of things like reliability, vehicle dynamics, powertrains etc.
They might need to do more, We only build a large RWD car in OZ between ford/holden. If GM needs to do that so be it. Make what you make best and incorporate other makes like holden/ford do here.

Do they concentrate to much on the larger size vehicles such as the trucks 4wd/suv etc?.

It shocks me so much money was invested from holden into the global rwd program to have it scrapped. Much of the development can be held overseas and a car can be transformed into a local car with ease now a days - at a fraction of the cost and development. That gets scrapped whilst other larger fuel guzzlers keep getting the nod to do more.


Of course there is always the question of is it too little too late?
If gm did go under it would be interesting to see what becomes of the subsidiary.

[SlickHolden]

V6 and diesel are also called 300C in Oz, as I suspect are all engine versions ex-Austrian manufacture
Ooh thank you i mist that.

[adrenaline]

We are currently going about $1.40-$1.49 - but with oil this cheap and our dollar low we still should be seeing a greater saving at the pump. Someone is not passing on the savings in full.

A weaker dollar would actually inflate the price :)


I can understand that you and I both feel this is going nowhere but please don't be condescending in the process. It certainly won't make either of us any more right.

+1

[culver]

It shocks me so much money was invested from holden into the global rwd program to have it scrapped. Much of the development can be held overseas and a car can be transformed into a local car with ease now a days - at a fraction of the cost and development. That gets scrapped whilst other larger fuel guzzlers keep getting the nod to do more.


The RWD platform was a great idea when gas was cheaper in the US. The 300 was popular in part due to being a RWD car.

However, two bad things happened. First gas prices went up. Second, the feds in a panic reaction to a stupid public decided to raise fuel economy standards again. This despite many expert (non-automotive) opinions stating that CAFE isn't a very effective way to control fuel consumption. The new 35mpg goal makes RWD cars less viable as you have more drive line losses and more weight in a RWD car than a FWD car. IIRC the platform in question was going to be a lower cost, higher volume RWD platform. In today's market that simply is not longer as good an idea as it was a few years back.

The continued production of trucks in a different mater. First, they already exist so R&D is cheaper/done. Second they fill a specific market niche. You can't build a tow truck out of a RWD sedan. You can build one out of a truck.

[Ferrer]

The RWD platform was a great idea when gas was cheaper in the US. The 300 was popular in part due to being a RWD car.

However, two bad things happened. First gas prices went up. Second, the feds in a panic reaction to a stupid public decided to raise fuel economy standards again. This despite many expert (non-automotive) opinions stating that CAFE isn't a very effective way to control fuel consumption. The new 35mpg goal makes RWD cars less viable as you have more drive line losses and more weight in a RWD car than a FWD car. IIRC the platform in question was going to be a lower cost, higher volume RWD platform. In today's market that simply is not longer as good an idea as it was a few years back.

The continued production of trucks in a different mater. First, they already exist so R&D is cheaper/done. Second they fill a specific market niche. You can't build a tow truck out of a RWD sedan. You can build one out of a truck.
I have to disagree with RWD cars not being able to meet CAFE standards. For some reason American manufacturers have decided the rear wheel drive are wasteful and thristy and that they can't be done in any other way.

I doubt this is the case, because while yes they have fractionally higher drivetrain loses, RWD cars are as able as FWD cars to meet CAFE standards. It's just a matter of good or bad engineering. Some days ago I posted some charts comparing the fuel consumption of FWD and RWD big cars and it was about the same.

So in the end what matters more for fuel consumption are engines, weight (therefore size), aerodynamics and gearing (and perhaps other things I'm missing). My point is big cars are thirstier than small cars and those are usually more suited to rear wheel drive, but I don't accept that US motto "rear wheel drive cars are thirsties than front wheel drive ones".

[culver]

For a given passenger volume a front engine-rwd car will in general weigh more and have higher drive line losses than a FWD car.
Consider that a RWD car will have a 90 degree rotation in the direction of power. That causes a loss. The driveline parts are also heavier. You have the weight of the propshaft, the final drive can not share a housing with the transmission and the interior and trunk are to some degree compromised in size by having the RWD hardware. So I either have less space in my RWD chassis or I make the total car larger to make up for the lost space. Since my comparison is per a given passenger/cargo volume, the RWD car will end up having to be larger to have the same passenger-cargo volume. We can work to mitigate these issues but in the end all of them exist to some degree and all negatively impact fuel economy.

A car to car comparison isn't always the best way to do this sort of analysis because we can't say that "all else is equal" just as we can't say that two similarly sized FWD cars will get the same mileage.

[Ferrer]

For a given passenger volume a front engine-rwd car will in general weigh more and have higher drive line losses than a FWD car.
Consider that a RWD car will have a 90 degree rotation in the direction of power. That causes a loss. The driveline parts are also heavier. You have the weight of the propshaft, the final drive can not share a housing with the transmission and the interior and trunk are to some degree compromised in size by having the RWD hardware. So I either have less space in my RWD chassis or I make the total car larger to make up for the lost space. Since my comparison is per a given passenger/cargo volume, the RWD car will end up having to be larger to have the same passenger-cargo volume. We can work to mitigate these issues but in the end all of them exist to some degree and all negatively impact fuel economy.

A car to car comparison isn't always the best way to do this sort of analysis because we can't say that "all else is equal" just as we can't say that two similarly sized FWD cars will get the same mileage.
True but in big cars the space constraints are less important.

However rear wheel drive cars offer a road holding advantage over front wheel drive cars with the big(ish) engines that usually power big cars. It could be arguable that those advantages offset the drivetrain loses and increased weight. BMW has showed that it's possible to make frugal rear wheel drive cars.

If people like rear wheel drive cars (and they seem to judging by the success of the 300) but also want economical cars, the let's work in this direction and Chrysler would have a winner. Just make the next 300 more aerodynamic (the current one looks like it has the aerodinamic properties of a brick), replace the 4 speed auto with something more modern, lenghten the gear ratios, install low rolling resistance tires, drop the 5.7 litre V8 hybrid from their SUVs or maybe the 3 litre diesel from Daimler (now that's legal in the US).

I think that this could be better than going front wheel drive.

[LeonOfTheDead]

For a given passenger volume a front engine-rwd car will in general weigh more and have higher drive line losses than a FWD car.
Consider that a RWD car will have a 90 degree rotation in the direction of power. That causes a loss. The driveline parts are also heavier. You have the weight of the propshaft, the final drive can not share a housing with the transmission and the interior and trunk are to some degree compromised in size by having the RWD hardware. So I either have less space in my RWD chassis or I make the total car larger to make up for the lost space. Since my comparison is per a given passenger/cargo volume, the RWD car will end up having to be larger to have the same passenger-cargo volume. We can work to mitigate these issues but in the end all of them exist to some degree and all negatively impact fuel economy.

you considerations are correct, but with a proper engineering those problems can be sorted easily.
I think the problem with the rwd cars that now US car makers are blaming as non efficient is that they were developing them for the same market that was happy with SUVs and trucks. so they weren't thinking of developing light cars or very efficient, because it wasn't something required by the market.
The example Ferrer is surely thinking of it's his car. the 1 Series is rwd, and while being not so bigger or heavier than the great parts of it's contender, it can achieve very good mileage if driven correctly, even comparing it to what its fwd contenders can manage.

[culver]

You are right that RWD has many dynamic and "user satisfaction" advantages. However the new CAFE laws don't give extra credit for driver enjoyment.

The economy targets in the new CAFE laws will require a number of compromises. Additionally, higher gas prices have people thinking cars like the Toyota Yaris is great. When gas was cheap you would have trouble giving away such an ugly car in the US.

Certainly a largish RWD sedan can be more efficient than the current 300C. The aero isn't great and replacing the 5spd autos with 6spds could help (the 4spd is no longer used). Using the dual mode hybrid system would help quite a bit in the city. I'm not sure where you could put the batteries however and like many of these mileage things you have just added a good bit to the sticker price to gain that mileage. Low rolling resistance tires will help but then we have compromised driving dynamics. If I'm going to compromise dynamics I might as well go FWD (which isn't that bad IMHO) and gain even more mileage.

From an enthusiast view RWD is almost always better*. However for the average appliance car buyer it's a harder sell. The enthusiasts are the ones that help put the spot light on a product but we need volume to make it successful. The Civic Si lets people think Civics are sporty but the Si is very low volume compared to all the appliance Civic buyers who would simply complain that the Si doesn't ride as well.

*I've seen enough people clamoring for low cost RWD that I've often posed the question, which would you prefer, FWD or live axle RWD? RWD with IRS will cost more than FWD but RWD with a live axle (in large volumes) would be about the same cost as FWD.
To be honest I couldn't say one way or the other. I've driven few live axle RWD cars (not trucks). The Mustang and last generation Camaros are about the only relatively modern performance cars using that configuration. The others would be Ford Panther platform cars which aren't even close to modern, and a number of kit cars. I think a few Ozzie cars also use live axles in some configurations. In any case it's a bit hard to judge how well the live axle could be made to work based on some of our compromised examples. To some degree it would be like judging IRS based on a VW Beetle.

[culver]

you considerations are correct, but with a proper engineering those problems can be sorted easily.
I think the problem with the rwd cars that now US car makers are blaming as non efficient is that they were developing them for the same market that was happy with SUVs and trucks. so they weren't thinking of developing light cars or very efficient, because it wasn't something required by the market.
The example Ferrer is surely thinking of it's his car. the 1 Series is rwd, and while being not so bigger or heavier than the great parts of it's contender, it can achieve very good mileage if driven correctly, even comparing it to what its fwd contenders can manage.

How would you correct the issues? This RWD issues are just US cars. They apply to Japanese and German designs as well. The 1 series is quite heavy for it's size. It has less interior space than a Ford Focus or Honda Civic and certainly doesn't return near the mileage. Yes, some variants have far more power than the Focus or Civic. Certainly the 1 series isn't marketed to the same buyers as a Focus but when it comes to economy the car does poorly in comparison to the economy cars.

[Ferrer]

How would you correct the issues? This RWD issues are just US cars. They apply to Japanese and German designs as well. The 1 series is quite heavy for it's size. It has less interior space than a Ford Focus or Honda Civic and certainly doesn't return near the mileage. Yes, some variants have far more power than the Focus or Civic. Certainly the 1 series isn't marketed to the same buyers as a Focus but when it comes to economy the car does poorly in comparison to the economy cars.
The 1er is one of the better (if not the best) cars concerning mileage in its class. And it's a good performer too, altough I agree it's not very spacious.

Now you pose an interesting question with your previous post. Front wheel drive or live axled rear wheel drive? I haven't driven a rear wheel drive with live axle but i have driven relatively powerful front wheel drive cars. As a result I can't give a truly objective answer, but I'd say that for relatively powerful cars rear wheel drive is the way to go.

With more than 200-250bhp the steering of a front wheel drive car is affected by having to send that much power through the front wheels. There's torque steer and less traction. However apprently cars with a live axle don't do well on bumpy roads which would be worrying here.

[LeonOfTheDead]

How would you correct the issues? This RWD issues are just US cars. They apply to Japanese and German designs as well. The 1 series is quite heavy for it's size. It has less interior space than a Ford Focus or Honda Civic and certainly doesn't return near the mileage. Yes, some variants have far more power than the Focus or Civic. Certainly the 1 series isn't marketed to the same buyers as a Focus but when it comes to economy the car does poorly in comparison to the economy cars.

it's not true, the 1-Series isn't so bad in fuel economy. and it's not very heavier too. the 118d weight 1310 kg and achieve 4,5 liters/100km as mileage. the 1.6 tdi focus weights 1263 kg and achieve the exactly the same mileage. as far it regards petrol engine, the BMW has more performing engines than the focus, so I won't be surprised or different mileage, but with both cars equipped with a 1,6 liter petrol engine delivering about 120 hp the BMW achieve 5,8L/100km and the Focus only 6,6L/100km
and having less internal space isn't directly connected to the rwd layout but to style and external shape of the car. the X3 seems very little from the inside, but it's a problem connected to the design of the interiors, because I doubt it has less space than my mom's Fiat Stilo, but that was the feeling I had while driving it (and a very disappointing experience overall).

[culver]

The 1er is one of the better (if not the best) cars concerning mileage in its class. And it's a good performer too, altough I agree it's not very spacious.

Now you pose an interesting question with your previous post. Front wheel drive or live axled rear wheel drive? I haven't driven a rear wheel drive with live axle but i have driven relatively powerful front wheel drive cars. As a result I can't give a truly objective answer, but I'd say that for relatively powerful cars rear wheel drive is the way to go.

With more than 200-250bhp the steering of a front wheel drive car is affected by having to send that much power through the front wheels. There's torque steer and less traction. However apprently cars with a live axle don't do well on bumpy roads which would be worrying here.

Which cars are in it's class? If you mean size (say EPA volume measurements) it does poorly as it would be either a compact or sub-compact car. If you say small RWD cars I'm not sure how many there are to compete with it. Additionally those that do might be considered compromised in some way which would make for a poor comparison point. For instance the RX-8 might be classed as a competitor but thanks the the Wankel motor the mileage is poor.

I can't say I have an answer for the live axle question either. I suspect it would be case by case.

[Ferrer]

Which cars are in it's class? If you mean size (say EPA volume measurements) it does poorly as it would be either a compact or sub-compact car. If you say small RWD cars I'm not sure how many there are to compete with it. Additionally those that do might be considered compromised in some way which would make for a poor comparison point. For instance the RX-8 might be classed as a competitor but thanks the the Wankel motor the mileage is poor.
I was refering to C-segment hatches like the Focus, Golf, Astra...

There's nothing that can beat the BMWs combination of performance and frugality.

[culver]

What?! The Focus doesn't beat the BMW 1 series for mileage? It certainly does in the US but we don't get an I4 BMW any more. What kind of mileage numbers are you guys getting out of your respective cars? Isn't the new Fiesta Diesel returning something like 65mph (us gallons). Are the BMW's even close to that? Do they even have more room than a Fiesta? The numbers I've seen out of the 1 series aren't impressive but again we get I6 motors in the 1 series.

I would also mention that BMW has put a lot of money into fuel saving devices. For instance I believe they use a variable speed electric water pump. That costs more than the traditional water pumps Ford et al are likely using on lower priced cars. If Ford chose to use electric water pumps I'm sure they would see the same fuel savings as BMW. The difference is in the lower price point it's not as easy to buy your way into better mileage. $1000 spent to improve say 3mpg with no other compromises (ie not just using a smaller less powerful motor) is easier to swallow in a $40,000 BMW as compared to a $19,000 Ford. This would be that all things equal part. By the same token a RWD hybrid may deliver better mileage than a FWD conventional car but that doesn't negate the basic premise that RWD adds weight and hurts efficiency.

[LeonOfTheDead]

What?! The Focus doesn't beat the BMW 1 series for mileage? It certainly does in the US but we don't get an I4 BMW any more. What kind of mileage numbers are you guys getting out of your respective cars? Isn't the new Fiesta Diesel returning something like 65mph (us gallons). Are the BMW's even close to that? Do they even have more room than a Fiesta? The numbers I've seen out of the 1 series aren't impressive but again we get I6 motors in the 1 series.

I would also mention that BMW has put a lot of money into fuel saving devices. For instance I believe they use a variable speed electric water pump. That costs more than the traditional water pumps Ford et al are likely using on lower priced cars. If Ford chose to use electric water pumps I'm sure they would see the same fuel savings as BMW. The difference is in the lower price point it's not as easy to buy your way into better mileage. $1000 spent to improve say 3mpg with no other compromises (ie not just using a smaller less powerful motor) is easier to swallow in a $40,000 BMW as compared to a $19,000 Ford. This would be that all things equal part. By the same token a RWD hybrid may deliver better mileage than a FWD conventional car but that doesn't negate the basic premise that RWD adds weight and hurts efficiency.

first of all, the Fiesta is a completely different car.
second, if BMW has spent the mroe money for a better mileage, is justa good thing, but I don't know if the 1 Series actualyl benefits of the EfficientDynamic devices. the different in price justify the fact that the 1 Series has some better equipments than the Focus.

[Ferrer]

What?! The Focus doesn't beat the BMW 1 series for mileage? It certainly does in the US but we don't get an I4 BMW any more. What kind of mileage numbers are you guys getting out of your respective cars? Isn't the new Fiesta Diesel returning something like 65mph (us gallons). Are the BMW's even close to that? Do they even have more room than a Fiesta? The numbers I've seen out of the 1 series aren't impressive but again we get I6 motors in the 1 series.

I would also mention that BMW has put a lot of money into fuel saving devices. For instance I believe they use a variable speed electric water pump. That costs more than the traditional water pumps Ford et al are likely using on lower priced cars. If Ford chose to use electric water pumps I'm sure they would see the same fuel savings as BMW. The difference is in the lower price point it's not as easy to buy your way into better mileage. $1000 spent to improve say 3mpg with no other compromises (ie not just using a smaller less powerful motor) is easier to swallow in a $40,000 BMW as compared to a $19,000 Ford. This would be that all things equal part. By the same token a RWD hybrid may deliver better mileage than a FWD conventional car but that doesn't negate the basic premise that RWD adds weight and hurts efficiency.
BMW 118d: 2 litre turbo diesel 143bhp, 4,5l/100km EU combined cycle (52mpg US), 0-62mph 9"0 seconds, top speed 130mph, price in Spain 26.600€.

Ford Focus 2.0 TDCi: 2 litre turbo diesel 136bhp, 5,5l/100km EU combined cycle (43mpg US), 0-62mph 9"3 seconds, top speed 126mph, price in Spain 19.310 €.

Ford Fiesta 1.6 TDCi (lower segment): 1.6 litre turbo diesel 90bhp, 4,2l/100km EU combined cycle (56mpg US), 0-62mph 11"9 seconds, top speed 109mph, price in Spain 14.660€.

BMW 118i: 2 litre petrol 143bhp, 5,9l/100km EU combined cycle (40mpg US), 0-62mph 8"8 seconds, top speed 130mph, price in Spain 26.500€.

Ford Focus 2.0: 2 litre petrol 145bhp, 7,1l/100km EU combined cycle (33mpg US), 0-62mph 9"2 seconds, top speed 128mph, price in Spain 17.710€.

Ford Fiesta 1.6 (lowe segment): 1.6 litre petrol 120bhp, 5,9l/100km EU combined cycle (40mpg US), 0-62mph 9"9 seconds, top speed 120mph, price in Spain 15.850€.

[Ferrer]

first of all, the Fiesta is a completely different car.
second, if BMW has spent the mroe money for a better mileage, is justa good thing, but I don't know if the 1 Series actualyl benefits of the EfficientDynamic devices. the different in price justify the fact that the 1 Series has some better equipments than the Focus.
Yep, four cylinder engined, manual 1ers have all the EfficientDymanics systems

[LeonOfTheDead]

BMW 118d: 2 litre turbo diesel 143bhp, 4,5l/100km EU combined cycle (52mpg US), 0-62mph 9"0 seconds, top speed 130mph, price in Spain 26.600€.

Ford Focus 2.0 TDCi: 2 litre turbo diesel 136bhp, 5,5l/100km EU combined cycle (43mpg US), 0-62mph 9"3 seconds, top speed 126mph, price in Spain 19.310 €.

Ford Fiesta 1.6 TDCi (lower segment): 1.6 litre turbo diesel 90bhp, 4,2l/100km EU combined cycle (56mpg US), 0-62mph 11"9 seconds, top speed 109mph, price in Spain 14.660€.

BMW 118i: 2 litre petrol 143bhp, 5,9l/100km EU combined cycle (40mpg US), 0-62mph 8"8 seconds, top speed 130mph, price in Spain 26.500€.

Ford Focus 2.0: 2 litre petrol 145bhp, 7,1l/100km EU combined cycle (33mpg US), 0-62mph 9"2 seconds, top speed 128mph, price in Spain 17.710€.

Ford Fiesta 1.6 (lowe segment): 1.6 litre petrol 120bhp, 5,9l/100km EU combined cycle (40mpg US), 0-62mph 9"9 seconds, top speed 120mph, price in Spain 15.850€.

As I posted above, you need to consider the 1.6 liter TDCI engine of the Focus to get the same mileage of the 118d

I suppose than in real life that Focus can achieve a better results, but not so much, 4,5 is already a ridiculous figure, you need nanny mode: "on" to achieve a lower figure.

[culver]

first of all, the Fiesta is a completely different car.
second, if BMW has spent the mroe money for a better mileage, is justa good thing, but I don't know if the 1 Series actualyl benefits of the EfficientDynamic devices. the different in price justify the fact that the 1 Series has some better equipments than the Focus.

I suspect if you check actual passenger space and cargo space the Fiesta and 1 series are rather comparable. I don't mean they are in the same price, performance, image, etc segments. I'm looking at this from a very simplistic how much space for cargo and people.

I agree that it's good but let's use hybrid systems as an example. How much does a hybrid system add to the price of the car? Well in the $19,000 range adding a $3000 hybrid system is a big price hit. At the $40,000 price point it's easier to swallow a $3000 hit. BMW's price point allows them to in effect buy efficiency. A car like say a Honda Fit is efficient in large part because it's small and light and low powered. In a sense it gains efficiency by being minimal. BMW has gained efficiency by spending money. That still doesn't change fundamentals. If you apply all the same BMW tricks to the Honda it would gain yet more efficiency. However it might do so at a cost which it's price segment wouldn't support.

[Ferrer]

As I posted above, you need to consider the 1.6 liter TDCI engine of the Focus to get the same mileage of the 118d

I suppose than in real life that Focus can achieve a better results, but not so much, 4,5 is already a ridiculous figure, you need nanny mode:on to achieve a lower figure.
But the 1.6 TDCi doesn't have the performance of the 118d.

In the real world the 118d is closer to 6l/100km (39mpg US), which isn't bad at all. And I guess that it'd still be better than a Focus 2.0 TDCi in the real world.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I suspect if you check actual passenger space and cargo space the Fiesta and 1 series are rather comparable. I don't mean they are in the same price, performance, image, etc segments. I'm looking at this from a very simplistic how much space for cargo and people.

I agree that it's good but let's use hybrid systems as an example. How much does a hybrid system add to the price of the car? Well in the $19,000 range adding a $3000 hybrid system is a big price hit. At the $40,000 price point it's easier to swallow a $3000 hit. BMW's price point allows them to in effect buy efficiency. A car like say a Honda Fit is efficient in large part because it's small and light and low powered. In a sense it gains efficiency by being minimal. BMW has gained efficiency by spending money. That still doesn't change fundamentals. If you apply all the same BMW tricks to the Honda it would gain yet more efficiency. However it might do so at a cost which it's price segment wouldn't support.

it isn't very sensed to compare for cargo of different kind of cars. in the Fiesta the priority while designing it is to be practical to young and female drivers. while designing 1 Series' interiors the priorities were much different probably, also to carry on the family feeling of the others BMW's models.
the ideas behind the design are so different I simply can't compare them so directly. at this point, as you said above, we could also consider the RX-8 but it would be fair.

otherwise I agree on the hybrid example, but if someone is going to consider say a Prius, he shouldn't be surprised or prevented to buy it because of the bigger price than that of a stardard car, because everything is going to cost you something more, especially if it offers an improvement.
People in EU buy mainly diesel cars, which cost about 2.000 € more than their petrol versions, even in the cheaper cars, but that isn't preventing them from buying the diesel engine even if they aren0t going to save the difference because of the low usage they are going to make of their cars.
in the same way, people should consider the Prius or even the EfficientDynamics pack from BMW, but they don't because right now only diesel is "cool" here.


But the 1.6 TDCi doesn't have the performance of the 118d.

In the real world the 118d is closer to 6l/100km (39mpg US), which isn't bad at all. And I guess that it'd still be better than a Focus 2.0 TDCi in the real world.

yeah, I mean that you need a littler engine to achieve the same mileage

[SlickHolden]

A weaker dollar would actually inflate the price
Last time the dollar was in this place and oil was this price - fuel was 91c:eek:. Today you can get it for around $1.48. Something isn't right.

Hey long time no see welcome back mate.

The RWD platform was a great idea when gas was cheaper in the US. The 300 was popular in part due to being a RWD car.

However, two bad things happened. First gas prices went up. Second, the feds in a panic reaction to a stupid public decided to raise fuel economy standards again. This despite many expert (non-automotive) opinions stating that CAFE isn't a very effective way to control fuel consumption. The new 35mpg goal makes RWD cars less viable as you have more drive line losses and more weight in a RWD car than a FWD car. IIRC the platform in question was going to be a lower cost, higher volume RWD platform. In today's market that simply is not longer as good an idea as it was a few years back.
This is why it's been a total waste of money/time to holden. Holden recorded a loss again this year on the back of this and a large slice gm removed.

Weight from FWD to RWD is debatable always. Fuel economy is also - considering we see only .01.02 difference is fuel used between the Camry/aurion falcon/commodore. The 2 latter are heavier but in real time driving use as little as the first. So I'll never be sold fully on fwd cars being more economical over rwd - especially considering they are not in the same size interior space wise.



The continued production of trucks in a different mater. First, they already exist so R&D is cheaper/done. Second they fill a specific market niche. You can't build a tow truck out of a RWD sedan. You can build one out of a truck.
You haven't seen what we do with our sedans then:p.
There overdone today, When people are screaming for low fuel consumption more is invested into a market full of them trucks/suv's) in almost every shape and size you could imagine. And they can't even use a rwd platform that is already built?. I'm just seeing investments with large sums of money wasted.

[SlickHolden]

the interior and trunk are to some degree compromised in size by having the RWD hardware. So I either have less space in my RWD chassis or I make the total car larger to make up for the lost space. Since my comparison is per a given passenger/cargo volume, the RWD car will end up having to be larger to have the same passenger-cargo volume. We can work to mitigate these issues but in the end all of them exist to some degree and all negatively impact fuel economy.

Even my smaller 2000 Holden has larger interior space and a larger boot over a 2008 Camry/Aurion. To be honest my old 92 Holden was possibly larger also inside also.

But if you compare a camry/aurion falcon commodore as they are classed as large family cars. They falcon is only just off the Aurion's fuel consumption - with the Commodore just slightly behind the falcon. Yet in all area's they are larger and will fit 5 people 5 large people and tow a house. Stick some effort into the engineering side - plus weight loss, And they can step on a Aurion and into the 4 cylinder league.

But one thing don't compare the 300 with all rwd cars:D. That is one large heavy creature even with a V6. But the diesel we see gives it a 25% fuel saving. And that is the way no matter the price, Some diesel small cars now deliver better economy price then a hybrid:eek:.

GM should now make the same mistake they once did with rwd cars, They are wrong - and just need to operate them different to make the most of them.

[Kitdy]

The 118s having better performance and mileage than those cheap cars is pretty amusing.

[f6fhellcat13]

GM should now make the same mistake they once did with rwd cars, They are wrong - and just need to operate them different to make the most of them.

That would involve admitting that they made a mistake, and the smarties at GM would never do that. They don't want to put any effort into a new car it seems.

I'm with you Slick, I don't think that RWD should intrinsically be noticeably less effecient than FWDs.
That being said, RWD and FWD all seem to be in different segments these days so it's hard to compare. ie. the 1series is much more expensive than a Focus etc...

[culver]

it isn't very sensed to compare for cargo of different kind of cars. in the Fiesta the priority while designing it is to be practical to young and female drivers. while designing 1 Series' interiors the priorities were much different probably, also to carry on the family feeling of the others BMW's models.
the ideas behind the design are so different I simply can't compare them so directly. at this point, as you said above, we could also consider the RX-8 but it would be fair.

otherwise I agree on the hybrid example, but if someone is going to consider say a Prius, he shouldn't be surprised or prevented to buy it because of the bigger price than that of a stardard car, because everything is going to cost you something more, especially if it offers an improvement.
People in EU buy mainly diesel cars, which cost about 2.000 € more than their petrol versions, even in the cheaper cars, but that isn't preventing them from buying the diesel engine even if they aren0t going to save the difference because of the low usage they are going to make of their cars.
in the same way, people should consider the Prius or even the EfficientDynamics pack from BMW, but they don't because right now only diesel is "cool" here.



yeah, I mean that you need a littler engine to achieve the same mileage


I agree that it seems a bit odd to compare such different cars. However, the EPA wouldn't care. They look at cargo/people volume and mileage.

As for the mileage numbers how do things turn out if we use gasoline engines? Are the better BMW numbers simply a case of better motors? Given the price differences it is possible BMW was simply "bought" efficiency. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't support the case that RWD just as efficient. At the lower price point where BMW doesn't play we can't as easily buy efficiency over the competition. Again, the efficiency part is all else being equal. How much a difference that extra weight makes or that 90 turn in power makes, I can't say and is likely case by case. Again, this is the problem with comparing vehicles with very different price points and target markets.

Another thing to consider is the RWD platform in question depended on large US sales where it would underpin several US domestic models. In the US diesel isn't as popular and isn't really likely to gain any more popularity. The purchase cost difference is large, diesel costs more than gasoline here, it isn't available at as many gas stations and the next set of EPA regulations could make life very hard for diesels (sorry don't recall the current details). Basically the market doesn't favor diesel in the US. So when considering the pros and cons of this RWD platform we need to consider it's pros and cons with respect to this market. With out the NA market it is possible that other platforms will suffice for Australia and other markets. As for the lost money, well sometimes changes in the market require changes in plans. Toyota build a huge new truck plant in the US just as the truck market collapsed. Now they are looking at turning the truck plant into a Prius plant :D

That means a lot of money that was invested in building trucks was wasted when the market changed. What is even dumber is sticking with a plan even when market forces have changed things.

Up through the early 1980s RCA was a US based consumer electronics company. About the time the VCR and the Phillips Laser Video disc were released RCA had a competing technology called Selectavision. Well they spent huge amounts of money on this product. It came out a bit after the competition and when it came down to it offered no advantages over either VCRs or laser discs. It couldn't record yet didn't deliver the quality of the laser disc. Additionally, it was clear laser discs were loosing out to VCRs. The discs offered better quality but consumers preferred the ability to record. RCA could have killed the project just before launch as it should have been clear if they compared what their product offered compared to VCRs and laser discs it wasn't a better product. They would have taken a huge hit but they would have at least saved the cost of ramping up production and initial release. Instead they went ahead with the launch which cost even more than the engineering. The post launch losses were too much and the company went under. RCA still exists as a brand but it's part of Thompson. This is a case where killing a project is better than continuing even if it means you have to write off a lot of R&D. When it comes down to it, R&D can be relatively inexpensive compared to launching a product which doesn't sell well.

[culver]

That would involve admitting that they made a mistake, and the smarties at GM would never do that. They don't want to put any effort into a new car it seems.

I'm with you Slick, I don't think that RWD should intrinsically be noticeably less effecient than FWDs.
That being said, RWD and FWD all seem to be in different segments these days so it's hard to compare. ie. the 1series is much more expensive than a Focus etc...

If you don't think they should be intrinsically less efficient then please explain away the problems I have pointed out. I do think it is possible to get "good" mileage out of a RWD car but I also believe with a similar level of engineering a FWD would deliver better mileage.

GM has admitted making mistakes. They took out a whole add saying just that. How is that not publicly admitting a mistake? What evidence do you have that they don't want to put effort into new cars?

[LeonOfTheDead]

That being said, RWD and FWD all seem to be in different segments these days so it's hard to compare. ie. the 1series is much more expensive than a Focus etc...

the difference in price is due to the fact that here Ford sells a car with nothing more than the strictly necessary, bringing you the car you basically need as a daily commuter (and even a fun car to drive with the mk1) at the right price. all their contenders are full of options that can actually improve the quality of your drive in the car, but aren't really indispensable.
Take the 1 Series as part of the second group, plus being a BMW it needs to have that kind of "luxury" and equipment that you are going to expect. of course the fact that it is a BMW is influencing the price. but the difference between the two cars is just the price, but they aren't so difference on the market.
To make things simpler, you could consider the A3, which is as expensive as the 1 Series, sort of, but it's fwd (or awd).

[Ferrer]

As for the mileage numbers how do things turn out if we use gasoline engines? Are the better BMW numbers simply a case of better motors? Given the price differences it is possible BMW was simply "bought" efficiency. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't support the case that RWD just as efficient. At the lower price point where BMW doesn't play we can't as easily buy efficiency over the competition. Again, the efficiency part is all else being equal. How much a difference that extra weight makes or that 90 turn in power makes, I can't say and is likely case by case. Again, this is the problem with comparing vehicles with very different price points and target markets.
Compared to premium rivals the BMW is still better than the competition when it comes to fuel consumption.

the difference in price is due to the fact that here Ford sells a car with nothing more than the strictly necessary, bringing you the car you basically need as a daily commuter (and even a fun car to drive with the mk1) at the right price. all their contenders are full of options that can actually improve the quality of your drive in the car, but aren't really indispensable.
Take the 1 Series as part of the second group, plus being a BMW it needs to have that kind of "luxury" and equipment that you are going to expect. of course the fact that it is a BMW is influencing the price. but the difference between the two cars is just the price, but they aren't so difference on the market.
To make things simpler, you could consider the A3, which is as expensive as the 1 Series, sort of, but it's fwd (or awd).
BMWs usually come with no standard equipment at all.

BMWs are more expensive than competition basically for two reasons, a) engineering and technology and b) badge and image.

[LeonOfTheDead]

BMWs usually come with no standard equipment at all.

Yeah, I know, I was playing their ad.

[culver]

Compared to premium rivals the BMW is still better than the competition when it comes to fuel consumption.


Are we talking about all versions or just the diesels? Is the better mileage true when we compared similar power gas models? If not I would say we are again looking at differences in engines, not in the areas I outlined. The important point being that if BMW choose to make a FWD car then would we see even better mileage?

Also, what are the competitors? MB is RWD, Audi is AWD and rather heavy. Jag is RWD, Lexus is RWD. Caddy is RWD. So the claims about differences inherent in FWD vs RWD aren't disproven. What we can say is BMW seems to do a good job with mileage.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Are we talking about all versions or just the diesels? Is the better mileage true when we compared similar power gas models? If not I would say we are again looking at differences in engines, not in the areas I outlined. The important point being that if BMW choose to make a FWD car then would we see even better mileage?

Also, what are the competitors? MB is RWD, Audi is AWD and rather heavy. Jag is RWD, Lexus is RWD. Caddy is RWD. So the claims about differences inherent in FWD vs RWD aren't disproven. What we can say is BMW seems to do a good job with mileage.

Considering the Mini, no, they didn't create an fwd car with a better mileage

while thinking about BMW's contender is a little problematic...if we consider the 1 Series the main rival is the A3 (mainly fwd in EU), then there are: Focus, Gold, Astra, 147, Leon and so on...

[culver]

Are we talking about small cars or larger cars? I was thinking about larger cars. Also, is the BMW 1 series more efficient for all the different engine and power options? Is the 118 gasser more efficient than the A3 or 147? The Mini isn't entirely a BMW creation. IIRC the car was designed largely by Rover. The original used a Chrysler designed motor. I don't know where the newer motor came from.

Also, the original point is that RWD hurts mileage all else being equal. If you can't normalize out everything else then it doesn't mater which cars we compare. Diesels should get better mileage than gassers but the Prius does better than a diesel Golf. Of course that comparison isn't valid as one is a hybrid and the other isn't.

The critical facts are a 90 degree turn in the drive line results in a power loss. RWD doesn't package as well thus you either have to make the car larger for the same interior space or have less interior space in the same size car. The RWD hardware is heavier for a given size car because you have the propshaft and the additional weight of the final drive unit is more than the weight savings you get going from a transaxle to a longitudinal gear box.

These are inherent issues with RWD. We can attempt to minimize their impact but they don't go away. We can spend more money on other parts of the car to put us on par with a transverse FWD car but that means we raise the cost of the car. We are still dealing with fundamentals.

[Ferrer]

Are we talking about all versions or just the diesels? Is the better mileage true when we compared similar power gas models? If not I would say we are again looking at differences in engines, not in the areas I outlined. The important point being that if BMW choose to make a FWD car then would we see even better mileage?
Petrol and diesel, BMWs are usually better.

BMW 320i (170bhp, RWD, 6M): 6,1l/100km
Honda Accord 2.4 (201bhp, FWD, 6M): 8,8l/100km
Audi A4 1.8T (160bhp, FWD, 6M): 7,1l/100km
Saab 9-3 Biopower (175bhp, FWD, 6M): 7,5l/100km
Volvo S40 2.4i (170bhp, FWD, 5M): 8,5l/100km

And concerning front wheel drive cars, well BMW has already made one, the Mini.

Mini Cooper Clubman (120bhp, 6M): 5,5l/100km
Honda Jazz 1.4i (99bhp, 5M): 5,4l/100km
Renault Clio 1.1T (101bhp, 5M): 5,9l/100km
Ford Fiesta 1.6 (120bhp, 5M): 5,9l/100km

[SlickHolden]

That would involve admitting that they made a mistake, and the smarties at GM would never do that. They don't want to put any effort into a new car it seems.
Can they spell it:D.
Reminds me of a head strong chicken, One day sooner or later that chicken is going to be headless:eek:.


I'm with you Slick, I don't think that RWD should intrinsically be noticeably less effecient than FWDs.
That being said, RWD and FWD all seem to be in different segments these days so it's hard to compare. ie. the 1series is much more expensive than a Focus etc...Glad someone is:).
We are probably in a great position to view all types of cars. We have the Camry aka Aurion that is in the same segment as the falcon/commodore.
In medium/small cars off the top of my head i can' think of any rwd ones.
But in the large cars it's the first 3, No matter the price of fuel people with family's will always need that slightly larger car.

[Matra et Alpine]

You only gave one link to a near 25 year old article. The points were good but they don't support all that you are saying (only some of it) nor do they address the points I have raised and linked to.
OI'm afraid they do, they don't just spell it out line by line.
Sadly where it WAS pretty obvious it hasn't altered your (mis)perception.
The Jeep rose 64% was a big thing for you ... the article was all WOW, this is terrible., this is unfair.
As you requested I THEN gave you the Atom 3 numers and IT'S increase from UK to US customer was 55%.
So, you ignored that and then bleat ??
Nah, don't get away with that in a debate. An ARGUMENT, you might if I was willing to continue :)

Sorry, I can also say I have made clear and concise points etc and raise my hands in frustration and all that because you have such an anti-US bias etc.
And thank you for confirming my views.
I do NOT have an anti-US bias, fed up pointing out how much time I spent working for and in the US.
I have the possible advantage of having seen societies, wester and eastern from inside and outside.
It helps PERSPECTIVE.

I can understand that you and I both feel this is going nowhere but please don't be condescending in the process. It certainly won't make either of us any more right.
The "condescending" tone is a cultural thing. I was reminding you that I'd given data and yet you were repeating the same points.
THe pathetic usual "you disagree with a US point of view so you are anti-US" proves why the argument will go nowhere.
You see it as a patriotic attack. Isee it as multinational economics :(

[Matra et Alpine]

This despite many expert (non-automotive) opinions stating that CAFE isn't a very effective way to control fuel consumption.
WHat reason did these experts give ?
Clearly the CAFE fails because it didn't include light trucks, so free-market capiialists then do the "right thing" and make more light trucks. THe unintended consequences rule :(

The new 35mpg goal makes RWD cars less viable as you have more drive line losses and more weight in a RWD car than a FWD car.
Source ?
There are MUCH larger losses in drive-shafts which have to operate over the angles necessary for a steered front wheel versus the smaller suspension movement in a rear. Beyond that, all the bits are the same and modern carbon-fibre props are light. True there is a small increase in the weight of the extra casting materials for the diff being outside the gearbox...... but that's about the equivalent of the driver eatign a coupel of Big Macs :)

The continued production of trucks in a different mater. First, they already exist so R&D is cheaper/done. Second they fill a specific market niche. You can't build a tow truck out of a RWD sedan. You can build one out of a truck.
Totally agree, it's silly to STOP producing vehiclse that meet market needs .... BUT, they shouldn't have the CAFE quirk to rely on. So when the extra costs to accomodate CAFE are included I'm betting the productino of those would be less justifiable.

[culver]

Petrol and diesel, BMWs are usually better.

BMW 320i (170bhp, RWD, 6M): 6,1l/100km
Honda Accord 2.4 (201bhp, FWD, 6M): 8,8l/100km
Audi A4 1.8T (160bhp, FWD, 6M): 7,1l/100km
Saab 9-3 Biopower (175bhp, FWD, 6M): 7,5l/100km
Volvo S40 2.4i (170bhp, FWD, 5M): 8,5l/100km

And concerning front wheel drive cars, well BMW has already made one, the Mini.

Mini Cooper Clubman (120bhp, 6M): 5,5l/100km
Honda Jazz 1.4i (99bhp, 5M): 5,4l/100km
Renault Clio 1.1T (101bhp, 5M): 5,9l/100km
Ford Fiesta 1.6 (120bhp, 5M): 5,9l/100km

Interesting. Over here you will see that BMW's mileage numbers are no better than similar vehicles from other makes. For instance an Accord V6 returns 19mpg city, 29 highway. A BMW 530 which has similar power a 100lb but heavier curb weigh returns 19, 28mpg. The difference isn't large but it is real. The Accord has an insignificant edge in passenger volume and a similar sized truck. Of course the BMW costs about twice as much so hopefully those extra dollars go someplace.

Now we have the BMW 128 returning 18 city and 28 hw. I am certainly at a loss to explain why.

The problem still comes down to the things I mentioned before. Now in a larger car we can work around the packaging issues. The losses due to the final drive may not be so bad that we can't make them up in other places. However, it gets harder as the car gets smaller. Imagine how space limited a RWD Mini would be. Look at all the criticism of space in the BMW 1 series as compared to the competition. Even if BMW handles weight via spending money it's hard to handle the propshaft through the car and the final drive taking up trunk or gas tank space.

So if the market moves to smaller cars, even if power train efficiency isn't compromised, you have compromised vehicle usability. We might be willing to make that trade off but others won't. In the US the Honda Fit was selling very well and was stealing sales from the Civic even though the Civic is a nicer car. Part of that was because the Fit, being a hatchback was move versatile. Had the Fit lost many of it's practical advantages over the Civic perhaps the sales trend would have been different. The real world mileage difference between the two is rather small.

So again, fuel economy dictates the move to smaller, lighter cars. Smaller lighter cars make the extra weight and packaging limitations of RWD more significant thus the market is less interested in RWD small cars out side of the enthusiast market.

[Ferrer]

Interesting. Over here you will see that BMW's mileage numbers are no better than similar vehicles from other makes. For instance an Accord V6 returns 19mpg city, 29 highway. A BMW 530 which has similar power a 100lb but heavier curb weigh returns 19, 28mpg. The difference isn't large but it is real. The Accord has an insignificant edge in passenger volume and a similar sized truck. Of course the BMW costs about twice as much so hopefully those extra dollars go someplace.

Now we have the BMW 128 returning 18 city and 28 hw. I am certainly at a loss to explain why.

The problem still comes down to the things I mentioned before. Now in a larger car we can work around the packaging issues. The losses due to the final drive may not be so bad that we can't make them up in other places. However, it gets harder as the car gets smaller. Imagine how space limited a RWD Mini would be. Look at all the criticism of space in the BMW 1 series as compared to the competition. Even if BMW handles weight via spending money it's hard to handle the propshaft through the car and the final drive taking up trunk or gas tank space.

So if the market moves to smaller cars, even if power train efficiency isn't compromised, you have compromised vehicle usability. We might be willing to make that trade off but others won't. In the US the Honda Fit was selling very well and was stealing sales from the Civic even though the Civic is a nicer car. Part of that was because the Fit, being a hatchback was move versatile. Had the Fit lost many of it's practical advantages over the Civic perhaps the sales trend would have been different. The real world mileage difference between the two is rather small.

So again, fuel economy dictates the move to smaller, lighter cars. Smaller lighter cars make the extra weight and packaging limitations of RWD more significant thus the market is less interested in RWD small cars out side of the enthusiast market.
Certainly in small cars for Joe Average front wheel drive is the way to go. Packaging is everything as is price. Which why since Fiat made the front wheel drive tranverse engine layout mainstream in 1969 with the 128 it's been ubiquitous.

However there will always be a market for bigger cars. On those where the space constraint isn't there rear wheel drive comes into its own. It offers almost the same fuel efficiency with much better road holding.

And there are always petrolheads like us which like real wheel drive regardless of the size and impracticality. :)

[culver]

Matra, if you are going to argue about CAFÉ I would hope you have actually read or thought about the perverse effects of fuel economy regulations beyond just the truck loophole. Perhaps google could help you out.
Fuel Economy Standards: Do they Work? Do they Kill? (http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM85.cfm)
Opinion: Fuel-economy standards don't work - Autos - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21120245/)
These are two quick example articles I found. If this is the first time you have thought about these points then how can you actually debate the merits of CAFÉ?

Your other arguments are NOT spelled out. If you think they are please guide me through them because I’m not seeing a complete argument in what you are posting.
While you are at it please explain why the articles I posted are not correct and please explain why the CEO of GM is incorrect.

The Atom is a small volume car. I have already said the US laws sadly do not make emissions exceptions. However, that is not protectionist as it doesn’t apply to large volume makes and applies to US small volume makes as well. Additionally, the Atoms which have been sold in the US were not made in England. Let’s look instead at the previous generation Civic Si made in the UK. It’s cost in the US was only slightly higher than a top of the line, US built non-Si. Clearly the US is added a 55% cost adder to imported Civics that we avoid adding to domestic Civics.

I think you completely missed the point of my “US and anti-US” point. Perhaps that was my fault for not getting an idea across.

Are you saying that being condescending is a good thing? You are giving the same limited data and not putting together a complete argument. I am trying to put together a complete argument using hoping that restating the same chain of logic will allow you to see my though process. Perhaps you have understood it the whole time but you haven’t decomposed it in a clear way.

When we look at your CAFÉ points might be right but I see no statements as to why people might think CAFÉ 2007 is a bad idea and why you think they are wrong. The truck loophole argument applies to the first CAFÉ laws.

Carbon-fiber props…. I did say you could buy your way around many fuel economy problems. Unless CF props shafts cost the same as a steal unit that would be a case of buying off the problem. The CAFÉ rules assume all the “drivers” have the same government issued beer gut thus the BMW CAFÉ driver doesn’t get to claim the Civic CAFÉ driver actually is fat. It’s still weight, it also is still subject to the packaging point which I really didn’t push hard enough early on. I got hung up on the mileage part without looking at the real issue which is the cheapest way to improve mileage is build a smaller, lighter car. Unless we want to loose a much of cargo space smaller and lighter usually means FWD.

[culver]

Certainly in small cars for Joe Average front wheel drive is the way to go. Packaging is everything as is price. Which why since Fiat made the front wheel drive tranverse engine layout mainstream in 1969 with the 128 it's been ubiquitous.

However there will always be a market for bigger cars. On those where the space constraint isn't there rear wheel drive comes into its own. It offers almost the same fuel efficiency with much better road holding.

And there are always petrolheads like us which like real wheel drive regardless of the size and impracticality. :)

But that's just the problem. The market for RWD is limited to either bigger cars where we care less about overall mileage (RWD or otherwise) and where the packaging is less an issue. That market is going to shrink. It's not that big in Europe. In the US it was relatively untapped until the 300 came out. That was the first, modern (ie not Crown Vic), lower priced RWD sedan in the US. We had RWD luxury cars but the few sub $30k BMWs and Mercedes were not the same size nor did they offer a V8 for $34k (or around there). Basically the 300C was a modern interpretation of the classical US, big V8 powered car.

Look what happened to sales when gas prices went up. The 300C went from hot to cold and not because people didn't like the car. The Pontiac G8 (Mondaro) hasn't sold all that well either. Again the cost of gas likely hurts that market. Sure, there are some people who would buy those cars if gas were $5/gallon. There are people in England who buy V12 Mercedes despite paying near $10/gallon. However, clearly the size of that large, V8 car market in the US has dropped thanks to gas prices and thanks to the need to hit CAFE standards. Really, name a single BMW 5 series sized car that hits 35mpg HW on gasoline.

Does anyone actually think that CAFE and higher gas prices means that the market for larger RWD cars such as the platform which was canceled would be a good idea in the current US market? It seems like that probably would explain why a large, non-luxury RWD car platform was killed. GM already has a large luxury car RWD platform which underpins the CTS and STS.

[SlickHolden]

That is why they also come with a V6:D. They don't just come out with a V8.

In 2002 a Holden commodore Vy SV8, Ran for 920 liters on one single tank:D.

I'm not seeing a single large/Medium size car that will run 35mpg on petrol?. Unless it's run predominantly on highways it wont capture that. But no car - as above will run that town driving only. So lets drive midget cars only - this would seem the only way to achive this goal?.
Build Diesels case closed.


In OZ we have been through record sales of V8's, Even with the high fuel prices. What the numbers are this year i don't know?.

[LeonOfTheDead]

regarding RWD cars stealing internal space to the passengers...in a recent "confidential" conversation, I came to know that one of the reasons why the recent Maserati has the automatic gearbox at the front just after the engine is also that, thanks to the reduction of power after the gearbox, they could use a slightly littler shaft (and so lighter). the space gained (IIRC just an inch) was very good, but they never thought to use it for bringing more space and comfort to the passengers compartment, but instead they used that space for structural enforcements in first place. probably they planned to use it also for let pass some cables and other stuff, but I don't know nothing about.

[culver]

That doesn't seem to make sense. Not saying it wasn't something like that but consider gear ratios. The size of the prop shaft is largely a function of the torque it needs to carry. A transmission will step down the speed of the motor in lower gears. If we think of a traditional 5spd it would step down the rotational speed (and thus step up the torque) in gears 1-3. 4th gear would be 1:1 and 5th gear would actually spin faster than the engine thus the shaft would see less torque than the engine was outputting to the transmission.

A first gear ratio of say 1:0.5 would require the prop shaft be able to handle twice the torque of the engine thus would necessitate a larger prop shaft than a rear mounted transmission where the propshaft was carrying only the engine torque, not the gearbox multiplied torque.

Perhaps they were referring to a change in the final drive ratio? A shorter final drive such as used by the MX-5 and S2000 results in a faster prop shaft speed but with lower torque loads on the prop shaft thus allowing for a smaller shaft.

Perhaps it was a combination of both? I am not saying something like what you said didn't happen only that I can see how the details fit together just yet.

[LeonOfTheDead]

That doesn't seem to make sense. Not saying it wasn't something like that but consider gear ratios. The size of the prop shaft is largely a function of the torque it needs to carry. A transmission will step down the speed of the motor in lower gears. If we think of a traditional 5spd it would step down the rotational speed (and thus step up the torque) in gears 1-3. 4th gear would be 1:1 and 5th gear would actually spin faster than the engine thus the shaft would see less torque than the engine was outputting to the transmission.

A first gear ratio of say 1:0.5 would require the prop shaft be able to handle twice the torque of the engine thus would necessitate a larger prop shaft than a rear mounted transmission where the propshaft was carrying only the engine torque, not the gearbox multiplied torque.

Perhaps they were referring to a change in the final drive ratio? A shorter final drive such as used by the MX-5 and S2000 results in a faster prop shaft speed but with lower torque loads on the prop shaft thus allowing for a smaller shaft.

Perhaps it was a combination of both? I am not saying something like what you said didn't happen only that I can see how the details fit together just yet.

actually, I need to ask better probably. I'm not very into gearbox really, but that was what that person told me. probably he was confusing things a bit, his main role is in the suspensions' department.

[SlickHolden]

My car runs 20mpg town and 30mpg highway. Not bad for a 2000 large rwd car:D.
It could even be more depending on the stretch of highway.
For Aussie's thats about 13.5-14l/100 city, And 9-10l/100 highway. That is being very conservative on the highway side.

For a large car in my opinion there is no real case against it being rwd. Now unless GM wants to build small cars only?. The ones that fit 163cm 45kg people in them 4 at a time.