: Are these first three paragraphs serious?



Lord Cadillac
11-25-08, 03:56 PM
Seriously.. Just click and read.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/20/the-decline-of-the-north-american-car/

Lord Cadillac
11-25-08, 06:06 PM
I'm guessing the silence means a sad "yes"... :helpless:

ted tcb
11-25-08, 06:14 PM
I read the article, and its just not jumping out at me.
The Paris show is apparently the place to showcase new technologies and designs which anticipate future market trends.

They suggest that GM put very little effort into the show, renting a small booth in a poor location.
Then, they stocked it with giant SUV's.
The author suggest that GM is missing the boat by not featuring smart designed, fuel efficient cars.

Is there something wrong with these paragraphs,or am I missing it completely?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-25-08, 06:18 PM
I guess the point is that GM is missing the point when it comes to the proper way to introduce a very important car at a high profile show....

hueterm
11-25-08, 06:20 PM
I fail to see what is so exciting about a Cruze or a Corolla, or a Civic, or whatever econobox du jour is on stage. Volt, maybe due to the new technology...... I'd rather see an Escalade Hybrid (OK, forget the Hybrid part....).

But I'm also not an automotive writer....and the French are going to criticize whatever was put up there anyway....

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-25-08, 06:21 PM
Yeah, but what's more important to GM? Especially when the economy is in such a downturn and people are super concerned about efficency and economy...not to mention that that segment is incredibly competitive...and the Cobalt ain't really cuttin' it.

gary88
11-25-08, 06:52 PM
I fail to see what is so exciting about a Cruze or a Corolla, or a Civic, or whatever econobox du jour is on stage. Volt, maybe due to the new technology...... I'd rather see an Escalade Hybrid (OK, forget the Hybrid part....).

I guess GM also failed to see what was so exciting about fuel-efficiency and quality, hence their current position.

thebigjimsho
11-25-08, 08:38 PM
Oh come on. Putting on a big show costs at least 3 plane rides to and from Washington D.C. This is not news. This is crap. GM is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Whatever...

LS1Mike
11-25-08, 08:48 PM
Oh come on. Putting on a big show costs at least 3 plane rides to and from Washington D.C. This is not news. This is crap. GM is damned if they do, damned if they don't. Whatever...

I do agree.

hueterm
11-25-08, 11:26 PM
I don't have a problem w/the American car companies developing and selling the best small cars available. There is a market for all kinds of cars: from Cruzes to H2s.

My point is that Americans like big cars. We're panicked and fickle, and as soon as things get back to "normal" -- people are not going to be satisfied with a small car -- they're going to want a larger car, or a crossover, or a large SUV.

Your average 4-5 person suburban or rural family -- if they're going to travel for hours to see Grandma, or carry anything with them, or play soccer mom w/all of the prerequisite crap -- cannot realistically do so in a subcompact car.

America isn't Europe....(at least not yet).

orconn
11-25-08, 11:27 PM
Symbolically I think GM may be quilty of a "Freudian slip" here. After all France was the birthplace of the all time great economy car, the Citroen Deux Chevaux! While the international automobile journalistic fraternity, ney even GM's PR people, nor perhaps GM's management, got the significance, I doubt that it was lost on the French. Viva La Petite Charade! Congratulations GM even if some consider it a "faux pas!"

orconn
11-26-08, 12:02 AM
I don't have a problem w/the American car companies developing and selling the best small cars available. There is a market for all kinds of cars: from Cruzes to H2s.

My point is that Americans like big cars. We're panicked and fickle, and as soon as things get back to "normal" -- people are not going to be satisfied with a small car -- they're going to want a larger car, or a crossover, or a large SUV.

Your average 4-5 person suburban or rural family -- if they're going to travel for hours to see Grandma, or carry anything with them, or play soccer mom w/all of the prerequisite crap -- cannot realistically do so in a subcompact car.

America isn't Europe....(at least not yet).

You are right ..... America is not Europe and small cars may not best suit the needs of American families. But I hope the recent reprieve from $4.00 per gallon gas isn't going to put us back on path of a 5000 lb. SUV in every middle class garage. I have never been against this type of vehicle for those that need them for practical reasons, but the necessity of every housewife and middle-class suburbanite needing one on these things to support some sort of self-image or lack thereof at the expense of billions of dollars being sent to a small group of questionably allied nations leaves me questioning the long term viability of our great nation.

I am afraid T. Bone Pickens is right, we need to reconsider our priorities. The wanton waste of our produtive wealth throught the profligacy of our "fashions" must be be reconsidered. As a Republican I have over the past forty years watched the United States illiminate the checks on greed in the name of "de-regulation" and watched the greedy without conscience violate the best interest of the nation. Five serious scandalous, violations of trust preceded our present financial catastrophe .... and yet we proceeded, under both Republican and Democratic regimes, to re-enforce scoflaw behavior which has led us to our current "mega" melt down of trust in the world's financial environment.

It isn't really about the cars we drive, or the "Mac Mansions" we aspire to, it is really about how we allocate our resources so that we can sustain a reasonable lifestyle for all Americans (which means most of us here on this Forum) while accomodating the rising aspirations of the world's population. If we can't, it will mean the demise of the American way of life as we know it.

hueterm
11-26-08, 12:58 AM
Well, we have off shore and in Alaska enormous supplies of oil that the enviro-freaks sue to keep blocked off. The Chicoms and the Cubans are rooting all around our shores bringing it up -- and you KNOW they're not doing it as carefully or as environmentally sensitively as we would be.

We have about 800 billion barrels of oil shale, that if developed would become more and more efficiently produced and would cause the cost of crude oil to PLUMMET. Let the Chinese and the Indians keep the oil sheiks in business. And if T. Boone can get his CNG pumps started and autos start to convert, then there is a whole new level of energy independence. Apparently CNG is all the rage in Utah...

We're importing (Canada notwithstanding) oil because we CHOOSE to -- not because we have to.

The only conclusion I can reach on the "reasonable lifestyle for all Americans" and the "rising aspirations of the world's population" paragraph is taking more of my money in taxes and "spreading the wealth". I'm just not a follower of the whole "...be sustainable for the benefit of the world..." bit. None of these countries that we're supposed to limit ourselves for are going to restrain themselves one WHIT in developing an advanced (dare I say American) standard of living.

Are we better off with pollution controls -- yes, no question. But clean coal can provide all the electricity we need, and today's environmental controls on cars are pretty strict -- even on big SUVs. We're not the ones who have to shut our entire production base down over half the country when the Olympics comes to town...

I wish everyone success in making, selling, and buying small economy cars. I don't like them. I don't want one. I don't want to be told to drive one. And I stand opposed to the Envirohack PC Police that say I should drive one because of "climate change" which is the biggest hoax ever propagated on mankind (well, maybe next to socialism). If I lived in downtown Chicago or San Francisco, I'd feel differently.

But I don't -- and I like and will continue to drive my 5000+ lb. SUV that gets 11-12 MPG in town w/a heavy foot. I do so for several reasons:

> Sometimes I have 4 average-to-large adult males to drive around on business. We all like each other, but we all have our personal space needs, and don't have the desire to brush hips in a Yaris.

> Sometimes I have to haul large (or large quantities of) things.

> Sometimes I have to tow a trailer.

> Sometimes I have to drive in deep, unplowed snow and want the ability to do that.

> Sometimes I just feel like it.

I also like large cars and V8 engines that have plenty of HP and a scintillating growl... Not big on Corvettes, or even CTS-Vs -- I like more room than those offer -- but if someone wants a 500-600HP engine -- buy it. Someone will make more gas...don't worry.

Buy what you like and buy what you can afford. If you want greater fuel efficiency, then buy it. If you want an H2 -- buy it. If you want a ZR1 -- buy it. I personally don't care what people drive -- but they need to stay out of my garage and my business.

orconn
11-26-08, 01:39 AM
I think your key phrase is "if I lived in Chicago or San Francisco." You don't and you don't see the total see the continual waste of resources wasted on one little "mama, transporting her kid to daycare and then driving herself through "stop and go" traffic to her job to support her credit subsidized lifestyle" (which by the way is being subsidized by foreign US dollar debt instruments). Reagan's retoric had no intention of encouraging the unethical and just plain greedy to jeopardize American capitalism by playing fast and loose with what little trust was to be had for the world's financial system.

I agree with you phrase "Buy what you like and buy what you can afford" just be sure you are not "affording" with third world loans to make possible credit to be buy what you like! There in lies the fallacy of our current American way of life.

If you really value the freedoms to do the things you enjoy and deem necessary for the enjoyment, you need to pay attention to what is really happening in the world, so that we as Americans can sustain ourselves in the future. This is not about some liberal platitude of supplying the third world with a better life, but rather with planning that will permit us to maintain a lifestyle for our children. If we don't the Third world will take it away from us, just as we took it away from Europe!

Global warming may be debatable, but the finite nature of our our energy is not. We can take measures today to make a transition to renewable forms of energy or we can wait till we are forced to make the a drastic transition.
A better future for our children is possible, but we need to plan ahead.

hueterm
11-26-08, 02:18 AM
I think we're hijacking the thread.....but anyway.....

We should hold both the politicians pushing a social engineering agenda of trying to get people into houses who had no business doing so -- and the people in charge of these companies causing the financial meltdown -- accountable for this mess. I'm in my 30s...the odds are I've got 30+ years before I'll retire and the market should recover by then, and will probably be on a whole new downturn. However, people close to retirement now are royally screwed. But there's a huge difference in holding those people accountable and interfering with personal choice and freedom to choose what we want to drive and how we want to live. We've got enough of a nanny state as it is.

And I have no problem with developing renewable sources of energy -- it's in our best interest -- but I don't want to stop using fossil fuels out of some misguided left wing agenda. Nor do I want some little tin can shoved down my throat because it's PC, trendy, or going to "save the planet". We have many energy options. We may have to pay a little more for them in the short run, but that would be well worth it.