Karl on Cars

I really don't care if the guy sold short. If the facts are correct, this is very chilling, and too bad. Just when GM starts making cars that are interesting their past has doomed their future.
 
Final revenge of the Cimarron, Citation, Vega, Aztek ....

How come everyone is talking about Toyota's "green image". Toyota have one serious hybrid: the Prius. A few of their other models are available as hybrids. Probably over 90% of Toyota cars are regular petrols or diesels and have good or very good but not exceptional fuel economy. In short, when I think Toyota, I think "reliable, boring styling, boring driving dynamics". To call Toyota a green company is ridiculous. Maybe it's because I live in Texas and before than in Africa. In both places, Toyota hasn't marketed itself as green. In fact, in Texas, the only Toyota vehicles that are advertised are the Tundra and the Highlander!

brett8210, I just find it hard to take anyone serious when they try to pretend to be someone else. I dont know if his numbers are right or wrong. But IMHO that letter is just wrong... Its a hit piece thats been put in the wild with no disclaimers no hints at it being fake. It will soon be forwarded around the world via email. And people will quote it as truth if they dont know who the real chairmen is.

The tone of the letter makes it obvious that it is tongue in cheek. No Chairman is going to come out and say the things in the letter.
 
And you may be right that it is a hit piece, I don't know. But if the numbers are correct the effect is still chilling.

Even if GM goes bankrupt, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of GM as a viable company. Chrysler went into bk in the 80s and they are still around (not in great shape at the moment).
 
I can see some real advantages to GM if they took the bk way. Clearly there are disadvantages also; and it could/would be disaster for some, like retirees.
 
I thought the open/fake letter from the CEO was clearly identified as such. I've seen this writting device used many times.
 
My best guess is at least one of the domestics will be in bankruptcy in 5-7 years.

You have to wonder why the protesters are at an auto show, when they should obviously be at the pollution-free, oil-free transportation producers show making their demands.
 
And you really have to wonder how they got there... especially in LA.

GM was supposed to bankrupt last year and the year before that and the year before that and in 1992, etc. Same old same old. Its like the boy who cries wolf. While I would love to believe that "this time" GM really is going under I wouldn't bet money on it by any means. People have been saying the same mess for years.
 
None of the Big 3 are going bankrupt.
 
I don't understand why the press continues to link Toyota's success with hybrids. A quick look at the sales reports each month will show you that. About 10% of Toyota's US sales are hybrids and most of them are slow sellers except the Prius of course. Toyota's success is about constantly expanding into new segments where they didnt compete before and getting a foothold. Hybrids are a SMALL part of that and if I'm not mistaken hybrids are a non factor in Europe which is one of the largest auto markets in the world. Toyota sells a lot of vehicles because it competes in every major market in the world with a full lineup of vehicles. They are the only automaker (besides Nissan perhaps) that can say that. GM, Ford and others have a minimal presence in Japan which is the 2nd or 3rd largest market. How can Toyota not sell a lot of vehicles considering their position?
 
Also, one reason for Toyota's huge profits is that they make a lot of their money in other currencies which are all worth more than the dollar. The more money they make in Japan or Europe or China the bette their results will look in US dollars. GM will never have profit margin like Toyota even if they get their business in order.

cowbell,
 
You mean they didnt take the bus? I have yet to meet or hear about a "greenie" with an engineering degree or any knowledge of the auto industry or how a car works. Until I do I have no respect for anything they say. If I read one more comment along the lines of "they have the technology but wont use it to give us 50mpg cars" I will go crazy.

I think Toyotas "green image" partly comes from the fact that they offer the most advanced hybrid drivetrains available in a number of Toyota and Lexus vehicles. Toyota didnt have to just focus on SUV and truck sales (GM-Ford) to make some money or at least break even. So there is some truth to that image. I give them credit here.
 
Any large production car manufacturer would be stupid not to offer some kind of SUV or crossover as this segment has been alive and VERY profitable for quite some time. If the cash is there then why not make a potential profit? GM has been doing this for decades and they have more "green image" advertisments than anyone. So why is Toyota looked down apon for having a green image if GM is dying to have that same image? Do you think GM would be offering hybrid cars if Toyota had never offered them?

I needed to add something else that few have commented on. GM and Ford both purchased multiple car manufacturers (that were already in bad shape) at a time when they REALLY needed to focus on themselves. Instead of GM and Ford playing "Im bigger than you are" they should have used the billions spent on their own vehicle lines and maybe they would be in much better shape today. Makes a lot of sense.....right?
 
So my question is (to GM-Ford), if your own vehicles at the time were not at all competitive what made you think you could fix another companys lineup?
 
I think Toyota deserves to be where they are as GM and Ford bascially GAVE them market share. So in the end it all boils down to the FACT that Toyota has CONSISTENTLY made better, higher quality products than GM, Ford, or Chrysler over the past 2.5 decades even if they were/are boring.

"So my question is (to GM-Ford), if your own vehicles at the time were not at all competitive what made you think you could fix another companys lineup? "
  
I agree with that sort of. I think that Ford did a really good job of fixing Volvo. Today you can buy a Jaguar and it won't leave an oil stain on your garage floor. Jags are exponentially better products than they were pre-Ford. Ford has done well with Volvo, not so well with Jag. No one has yet to make money from British produced vehicles. That's why ownership of British automotive brands are passed around like a hot potato.
  
"I think Toyotas "green image" partly comes from the fact that they offer the most advanced hybrid drivetrains available in a number of Toyota and Lexus vehicles. "
  
Yes. It's only image. The amout of energy required to produce a hybrid engine is actually extremely harmful to the environment. The amout of machinery required to mine for the materials to produce the nickel batteries, the damage done to the surrounding areas, production of dual drivetrains, the safe disposal of spent or damaged batteries is vastly more harmful to the environment than a comparable ICE engine. As a taxpayer, I'm irked that I subsidize this awful technology. If you want to be green, there are lots of effecient conventional cars. Or, be the first to buy a clean deisel when they're introduced stateside.

If you read the entire Economist article, they say that there might be reason to be wary of the Chevy Volt. According to the article, the Volt is going to use Lithium ion battery technology, which is a departure from the current Nickel metal Hydride tech in use today. However, the problem with Li batteries is that they might not be dependable enough to use in a car due to their tendency to overheat and fail. That is why Toyota is sticking to Ni batteries in the next gen Prius.
 
The article says that GM's decision to use Li ion batteries could either be a disaster for GM (if the batteries fail in large numbers), or it could be the thing that could allow Toyota to be "leapfrogged" by GM in the hybrid realm (since Li batteries are lighter and faster charging).

Yes, I'm going to ask Ed Peper (General Manager of Chevrolet) about this very issue (Li technology) tomorrow.

Karl, please ask Ed Peper if Chevrolet has looked at cost and weight vs. range tradeoff of a 20 mile full-electric range Volt-lite vs. 40 miles proposed for the Volt? If I also have an internal combustion engine, I can live with much shorter full-electric range than without the gasoline option and would appreciate less weight and cost.
 
I've always thought of Toyota as the auto company that makes reliable but somewhat boring cars. The Prius I test drove was about as much fun a refrigerator...an appliance for people who don't like cars.
Similarly, the Camry isn't likely to inspire joyriding, aftermarket customization, or future restoration. However, because of Toyota's reputation for reliability, they are able to get customers to buy a new technology, hybrids.
 
I doubt that GM could have had similar sales success if they had been first to introduce hybrids. GM's past failures killed US market demand for all manufacturers diesel cars for a couple decades. Also stunted demand for cylinder deactivation with similar reliability problems. Despite the reliability problems, GM on occasion manages to manufacture vehicles like the Corvette and the Cadillac CTS for customers who really like cars.

"I think Toyotas "green image" partly comes from the fact that they offer the most advanced hybrid drivetrains available in a number of Toyota and Lexus vehicles. Toyota didnt have to just focus on SUV and truck sales (GM-Ford) to make some money or at least break even. So there is some truth to that image. I give them credit here. "
 
I dont give them any credit. GM and Ford dont specialize in small cars because a) their cost structure makes small cars a losing proposition and b)small cars have never been a specialty of US automakers because of the car culture here. Of course Honda and Toyota are better at small cars- thats what they specialize in at home. It only makes sense. The Big 3 never even tried to build compacts until the mid to late 70s and since the overwhelming majority of Americans dont want small cars and their low price tags make them money losers there was no reason to invest heavily in them. Now of course gas is expensive (permanently) and GM/Ford (not sure what Chrysler is doing) know that it is crucial to offer decent small and midsize cars with four cylinder engines.
 
Its also worth noting that many of the small Asian cars sold in the US are imported from abroad due to the high cost of building cars here.
 
"GM has been doing this for decades and they have more "green image" advertisments than anyone. So why is Toyota looked down apon for having a green image if GM is dying to have that same image? Do you think GM would be offering hybrid cars if Toyota had never offered them?"
 
first of all the reason Toyota is getting backlash is because they present themselves as holier than thou when it comes to being environmentally friendly. The reality is their major US investments and major ad dollars are behind the Tundra, not the Prius. gm doesnt pretend it doesn't make trucks and doesn't make commercials that portray themselves as more concerned about the environment than making money like Toyota does. Toyota has set themselves up for this backlash and unfortunately for them some of the bandwagon jumping greenies just got smart enough to realize that Toyota is selling a lot of SUVS, pickups and luxury cars and only plans to sell more in coming years. GM's ads are geared toward getting the word out that they too are investing in hybrids and they to offer more than just V8 gas guzzlers in their lineup. They have to push that message since the media tells us that they haven't made anything but large trucks and SUVs until recently. If you read any auto news in a business publication or paper it will say something like this: "Toyota continues to break sales records and earn billions based on the wild success of their fuel effiicient hybrids like the Prius while GM continues to fade into the background after decades of ignoring cars and focusing exclusively on gas guzzling vehicles that are quickly waning in popularity". Never mind that the Tahoe still outsells the Prius- who needs facts like that?

Again 1487 do YOU think GM would have invested so much in hybrids if Toyota already hadnt done so? My answer is NO!
  
"I dont give them any credit. GM and Ford dont specialize in small cars because a) their cost structure makes small cars a losing proposition and b)small cars have never been a specialty of US automakers because of the car culture here".
  
Oh please stop! GM, Ford, and Chrysler tried smaller cars in the early 80's and all were piles of junk. Bad engineering and lack of innovation was to blame. This is the reason WHY they have failed. They didnt think to cater to a larger demographic and they didnt think on a global scale. You cant just offer a few certain types of vehicles and exepect to increase market share/profits. You have to think outside the box and offer competitive products that interest ALL TYPES of consumers. The domestics just thought about "right now" instead of investing in research on possible/ furture market shits. Evolution and execution are just as important as making a good solid product, if you dont evolve YOU DIE!
  
"GM doesnt pretend it doesn't make trucks ". Since when has Toyota pretended that they dont make trucks/SUVs? Ive seen countless advertisments, articles, media coverage on current and future Toyota SUV's and trucks. Remember all the hooplah surrounding the current Tundra, the new Tundra manufacturing facility, and the bold, in your face Tundra commercials? Yeah....... Toyota really hides that they make large gas guzzlers.
  
I personally dont think Toyota pretends to be "greener" than any other as other manufacturers are currently trying to play catch up. Toyota (and Honda) saw an area where they could offer an alternative product that consumers would buy. No, they dont make huge profits off hybrids either. In my eyes basically Toyota is saying, if you want a fuel efficient, envoronmentally friendly vehicle, we offer them. If you want something light duty that can tow heavy loads we offer that too. Whats so wrong with that? Im not a huge fan of Toyota products (as far as the fun factor goes) but I have to respect their presence and position in the market place.

Im not only saying this because I prefer Honda products but I would say the greenest car company is Honda, as efficiency and environmental responsiblity have ALWAYS been the core of their products/philosophy. I dont think any other vehicle manufacturer can say that.

Can yall imagine the battery explosion issue in laptops reproduced in cars with Li-Ion ones? OUCH!
 
Also let's not forget batteries like these lose their power over time. Sure the Volt can get you 40 miles in your first year. But it'd sure be sad to see you halfway on the highway and it no longer has a charge because the max battery charge is now half what it used to be!
I'm aware people can change batteries. But have you seen how much a brand name replacement one for a laptop costs? YIKES.

Will there be a problem with disposal of the batteries, because of hazardous chemicals?

Well I'm sure you can take them to your local hazardous materials depot like you'd do with certain paints. Dunno how THEY dispose of it though.