The Carmagedonn Thread: FCA and "Consolidation"

[Sniffs]

Northstar3914:in addition to what Yss replied, I wanna add this.
in the fifties, there was very little variety, either. some minor elements were changed, like badges, on the same car. for example, the 120/210/belair were simply packages on the same SINGLE car. the only other thing you could get from Chevy then was the Vette. it was in the 60's when they began to have more than 3 different models. it was also the era of "change the style every year".
what will bother me, is that, for those of us who would still NEED such a thing as a bare bones SUV, will have to settle for vehicles that are so senile due to use, you have to throw them away.

 

[Joey D]

Wrangler's start at $21k for the most basic model, for someone who wants a new SUV with off road capabilities that's about as cheap as you are going to get.

 

[Delirious]

Nevermind Joey Ninja'd me

Also I am a proud owner of a 2008 Focus 2 door and I love it. It has good gas mileage, very light weight and handled better than my old 95 Taurus did in the snow. Sure it can be seen as repulsive but the look grows on you. Makes me glad I bought a Ford and not a GM or Chrysler

 

[Keef]

It was good before, but now it's twice as good.

 

[JCE]

Shame it looks so eye-gougingly awful, isn't it?

The one in the pic I posted doesn't look so bad. The wheels, dark paint and the darker grille color makes it look pretty decent.

 

[YSSMAN]

Looks like Penske has purchased Saturn...



Sounds like the right move, at least Saturn will be staying in the US. I wonder though does this mean Saturn racing cars now .

According to the updated Autoblog post, it sounds like Penske will be trying to bring over models from other brands. Samsung, apparently, could be tapped.

Still, its only the Aura, VUE and Outlook. I'd have figured they could have done without the Outlook, but, whatever...

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The one in the pic I posted doesn't look so bad. The wheels, dark paint and the darker grille color makes it look pretty decent.

I think the look grew on me. It looks pretty good, except the long rear section looks a little boring.

 

[nissan tuner]

I'm surprised that Penske isnt going to keep the Saturn Sky alive, with the company's racing history and all.

 

[Joey D]

I'm sure they are looking more at what makes money, and those three vehicles sell to some degree. I can't imagine the Sky sells in any high number.

 

[Philly]

I can't imagine that keeping the Sky around would necessarily be a bad thing. If anything, it makes the brand a little more attractive. And I'm sure people will start to buy them again when the economy is in a little better shape.

 

[Joey D]

Well they said they are bringing in other cars, maybe Penske has it's own roadster they want to produce instead? Now that would be awesome. I'd totally buy a Penske made vehicle.

 

[Philly]

I'm under the impression that Penske is just the owner of the network and that they'll be finding other companies to supply them with vehicles to sell. It would probably be a while before they start developing their own products to sell, if they ever do.

At the same time, a company like this is a great opportunity for us to start seeing some good cars sold in the US that are only available in other markets. But if we do start seeing that, hopefully Saturn will avoid becoming a brand that sells a conglomeration of rebadged cars from other markets.

 

[JCE]

Maybe this is a good thing? We'll see.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm surprised that Penske isnt going to keep the Saturn Sky alive, with the company's racing history and all.

Two problems:

1) They're closing the Wilmington, DE plant that builds the car

2) They scrapped plans for moving production to Bowling Green, KY as well

3) Penske would likely look outside of the GM parts bin for a new sports car, or even a small "funky" hatch. If rumors are true, aside from the Samsung deal, it sounds like he may source from its parent company, Renault.

Personally, I'd start crossing your fingers for a Clio-based Saturn.

 

[a6m5]

I just heard about the GM's plan with the Pontiac, earlier today. As a fanboy of the brand, I am shocked. I really shouldn't be.

 

[Tornado]

In case that analogy flew over your head (as over 100 years of research and documented health and environmental hazards apparently have), legislation such as this has eliminated lead and (soon) benzene in fuels. Was this a bad thing? Was the substantial investment in changing the way engines consumed fuel worth the time?

I dunno. Were the mandatory-by-legislation EPA clean air policies a good idea in the long run?

Would you be happier with lead-burning, carburetted, 12-miles-to-the-gallon, 3,500 lb., no-seat-belt having, drum-brakes-only, manual-steering behemoth rather than...whatever you drive now? Those changes appeared over time, not all at once.

Since you decided to get all "snooty, high horse riding environmtalist" on Keef, I'll make it my duty to inform you that only two of those things were ever legislated. The rest of them were brought on by the free market. And legislation has made one of them much worse. Which only proves how hilariously stupid CAFE actually is: When people want to buy fuel efficient cars, the companies make fuel efficient cars. When they don't, the companies won't. The government has no right to say "Hey, you buy the cars we force the companies to make," especially when the compulsory requirements were always lower than what companies were producing.

 

[YSSMAN]

Which only proves how hilariously stupid CAFE actually is: When people want to buy fuel efficient cars, the companies make fuel efficient cars. When they don't, the companies won't.

Agreed, I think across the board, as there are better ways to have changes occur. Doesn't mean they're going to, though.

This comes to mind:

 

[harrytuttle]

I think the idea is that we greatly reduce our carbon footprint, which does make a difference no matter what everybody else does. And if we, America to that, other countries may be willing to follow suit.

Yes; everything counts. Every action, every bit of savings, every effort means something. Let's say you're in debt to about $10,000. Should you save $1 by not buying the newspaper, or say "The heck with it, what's $1 compared to $10,000?" The truth is that while that dollar is 0.01% of what you need, it still helps. Continue down that path and you will eventually get out of debt. Stray from it and you'll never get there.

In short, making fuel more expensive might be the catalyst for more fuel efficient vehicles. Who would have thought?

Anyone who either is older than 30 or has any sense of history would have known this. It happened 35 years ago...only without needing to raise taxes. I continue to be dumbfounded by the mass forgetfulness of this country (and other countries, apparently).

I dunno. Were the mandatory-by-legislation EPA clean air policies a good idea in the long run?

Please.

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate.

Are you actually thinking that oil and coal burn naturally? The problem isn't part of the emissions, it's all of the emissions. Aerosols, sulfates, carbon, it all has to go. The earth doesn't have Three Stooges Syndrome; having all that crap in the air does not make for a stable environment. If you want 'balanced' emissions, go to China. Don't forget to check your lungs at the door.

Since you decided to get all "snooty, high horse riding environmtalist" on Keef, I'll make it my duty to inform you that only two of those things were ever legislated. The rest of them were brought on by the free market. And legislation has made one of them much worse. Which only proves how hilariously stupid CAFE actually is: When people want to buy fuel efficient cars, the companies make fuel efficient cars. When they don't, the companies won't. The government has no right to say "Hey, you buy the cars we force the companies to make," especially when the compulsory requirements were always lower than what companies were producing.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I felt car companies product planning should be regulated. The statement(s) was(were) in response to the resistance to change. All the items listed have been proven to be beneficial (and not in a utopia-mobile sense). The truth is that the government isn't regulating what any of the companies produce. They simply stated what limits they have to work with. I fail to see how this is a bad thing, or, more critically, why people bitch and moan about things that might actually benefit them. I'm sorry that neither you nor Keef are old enough to understand this concept, but sometimes adults actually know what they're doing because they've been through this before you. I know, I know; it seems crazy given the last 10 years of US government actions, but there are a select few who aren't like that.


And before any of you get some bizzare ideas that I'm some tree-hugging hippie, you can forget it. I hated hippies. They smelled bad. I use strong soap and am happy to use aerosol deodorant (which is apparently just compressed air nowadays). I have two cars for now: an Impreza STi, and a Civic for work, soon to be accompanied by a '00 Miata. I blast that STI up and down the local highways for all it's wonderful 15mpg every sunny weekend I can. I love cars, computers and all sorts of high-tech gadgetry; I'm on my 4th Blackberry in almost as many years. I am not an environmentalist, but neither am I someone to stomp all over the environment. If I have the opportunity to do something right, I'll do it. I recycle, I keep the lights and A/C low, and I travel only when I need to (um, except the Subaru). I also remember that a lot of people I know who were upset when the Corvette was 'crippled' but US emissions regulations are the same ones who own a modern Z06, far superior to any 427/435 they lusted after 40 years ago...and it meets all modern regulations.

Once in a while, change is good.

 

[Tornado]

The truth is that the government isn't regulating what any of the companies produce. They simply stated what limits they have to work with.

If I break the speed limit, I get a fine. There is no difference between that and this, only the reasoning behind CAFE is inherently flawed.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing, or, more critically, why people bitch and moan about things that might actually benefit them.

The government is imposing regulations based on science that it doesn't have anywhere near the ability to sufficiently explain that essentially acts as a punitive tax for those that don't want to/can't follow it. Forgive me if I don't think that is a good thing.

I'm sorry that neither you nor Keef are old enough to understand this concept, but sometimes adults actually know what they're doing because they've been through this before you. I know, I know; it seems crazy given the last 10 years of US government actions, but there are a select few who aren't like that.

Don't patronize me. I don't have to have lived through the 70s to know the idiocy known as CAFE wasn't worth the paper wasted writing it. It has soldiered on for 35 years or so, and never has amounted to anything more than inconveniencing people and companies who don't want to/can't follow it and scapegoating the overall problem onto the auto industry. Age has nothing to do with it.

 

[harrytuttle]

If I break the speed limit, I get a fine. There is no difference between that and this, only the reasoning behind CAFE is inherently flawed.

Why? So far you've said nothing other than "it's a bad thing". What makes it bad? If all you've got is an opinion, then that's really not much of an argument.

As for whether age has anything to do with it, it actually does. Time can drastically change your perception of things. I may have stated this before (because I say it so often), but you can't teach a 5-year-old what it's like to be a 10-year-old. As much as you can describe things in terms they can understand, their experiences at age 10 will be alien to whatever ideas formed in their head. Part of it has to do with how the brain develops over time (which it generally does until age 30), part of it has to do with simply not having those experiences. "You had to be there" actually has meaning.

As for whether CAFE is worth the time or not, compare it to fat people. By themselves, obese, rotund, fat-asses seem to be harming no one but themselves (unless they fall on you). But the truth is that they actually are harming you. By placing themselves at high risk for all sorts of medical problems, they put a burden on the health care system. This added expense is paid, generally, by insurance companies. Those insurance companies then have to raise everyone's rate to cover those expenses. It's a small effect, but when 33% of your local population is medically obese, you'll notice the difference.

Let's take this back to cars. If Schwarzenegger decided to keep his fleet of Hummers running on diesel, he'd be adding -- in a small, but measurable way -- to the pollution in the air. Forget about global warming, benzene, all that other stuff. Just adding that much more particulates and CO is enough. One man with 7 cars is no big deal, but, again, extrapolate that the millions of other poorly-performing vehicles out there and you see increases in asthma, cancer, emphysema, and all sorts of interesting things. Only this time, the correlation does mean causation.

CAFE wants to reverse that in its own small way by reducing the amount of fuel consumed. In doing so, by definition, we see a reduction in exhaust fumes (and all the corresponding items mentioned earlier). Is this really wrong? Is encouraging fatso to put down the Big Gulp and go out for a walk so bad for either of you?

 

[slowman]

Is encouraging fatso to put down the Big Gulp and go out for a walk so bad for either of you?

It isn't encouraging, its forcing at the threat of violence.


I'd like to state the fact that the U.S. government is the world's largest polluter.

And also the fact that the 15 largest cargo ships in the world produce more nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide than all the cars in the world.

Find something new to complain about.

/thread

 

[niky]

CAFE wants to reverse that in its own small way by reducing the amount of fuel consumed. In doing so, by definition, we see a reduction in exhaust fumes (and all the corresponding items mentioned earlier). Is this really wrong? Is encouraging fatso to put down the Big Gulp and go out for a walk so bad for either of you?

CAFE is more politics than anything else. It doesn't discourage conspicuous consumption, it merely encourages people to buy certain vehicles, as the gas guzzler laws have enough loopholes to drive a 10 mpg hybrid Hummer through... Hell... as long as a vehicle is flex-fuel capable, it gets a free-ride... whether or not the owner actually uses "environmentally friendly" (and, on the side, government-subsidized-by-right-of-farmer's-lobby) ethanol.

Such a ludicrous system makes even less sense than a direct fuel tax... which would encourage conservation on everyone's part without denying them the freedom of choice to pick whatever car they like... and which would tax those who use the most fuel (and thus, contribute the most to pollution and road-infrastructure-degradation) more than the rest of us.

 

[YSSMAN]

The "Cash for Clunkers" Bill Has Passed

The plan worked fairly well in Europe, so it looks like Congress is attempting to replicate it here. The details laid out in a nice chart:

Jalopink's "interesting" view on it:

At first, a look at the chart gives the impression there's a lot of money to be made by trading in your old car for a new one. Unfortunately, the compromises in this bill make it unlikely many people will be able to utilize it and save a great deal. There are two factors working against making this a worthwhile proposition and they both have to do with the logic of the deal.

First of all, operable vehicles are required and there aren't many people driving around with vehicles worth less than $1,500. Many old crappy cars, in fact, can still demand up to $2,500 on the open market. This means you're going to get, max, $2000 for your trade-in. The least valuable qualifying cars, of course, are actually the more efficient compact vehicles, which makes getting the necessary 10 MPG improvement unlikely.

The second problem, stemming from the first, is quantifying the number of people who actually drive around in cars worth less than $2,500 who can actually afford a new car. Our instinct tells us there aren't many people. This means people taking advantage of the program will, typically, have to be excited by the prospect of saving $1,000 or $2,000. These people should already have been swayed by intense discounting from automakers in recent months.

This isn't to say there aren't people who won't be able to get money from the program because, say, they have an old light duty truck and have been meaning to trade up to a newer car for a while. But the greatest number may in fact people who can afford a new car and have, for one reason or another, decided not to. These people will likely be lured in by dealers combining the $4,500 voucher with $2,000 in additional savings for big numbers like "$6,500 a new Focus" that ignore the actual original value of the trade-in.

Either way, the promise of raising car sales by 1,000,000 units this year depends heavily on people with either poor mathematical abilities or an irrational fear of new car dealerships.

Based on what I'm reading here, its going to benefit some people, but not enough to make as big of a dent as it should. Problem is, there still aren't enough genuinely efficent cars out there that will nab the 10 MPG improvement over most (presumably) mid-size family cars that will be traded in. I'd be tempted to push my Mom into trading in the Grand Prix for something new (we'd get an extra $2300 over what the car is worth on a 10 MPG upgrade), but we can't afford it.

Honestly, its more or less there to get people like my idiot step mom to buy something new, getting rid of the wasteful Envoy in the process.




Oh... And The "New" GM Plant?

Looks like GM will be building their new "small car" (Viva or Spark?) at one of the following locations:

1. Lake Orion, Michigan (formerly a G6 and Malibu plant)
2. Spring Hill, Tennessee (formerly the flagship Saturn plant)
3. Janesville, Wisconsin (formerly a Tahoe/Yukon plant)

Meethinks it will likely go to Michigan, but it could be a long-stretch. Non-union-friendly areas like Spring Hill could get the short end of the stick, and lets be honest, there is fare more positive news to come out when GM re-opens a Michigan plant than anything else.

Just sayin'.

 

[Joey D]

I really hope it's the Lake Orion plant since that will help out this area quite a bit.

**Oh and I have no issues with the cash for clunker's deal, my dad should be able to turn in his work van that he no longer needs for something a bit more fuel efficient. I think he wants and Escape Hybrid.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think the following question must be asked in a situation like that:

Do you still get the Hybrid or Diesel tax credit when you make a Cash-For-Clunkers trade in?

 

[Joey D]

From what the Detroit media outlets are saying the answer is yes, however we always seem to jump the gun a bit. If it's true though that would be an epic deal on a hybrid vehicle if you had an old junk lying around.

 

[YSSMAN]

By my calculations:

- 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid: $20K
- 2010 Honda Insight: $12K
- 2010 Toyota Prius: $14K
- 2010 VW Jetta TDI: $16.5K

(all based on $4500 c4c and $3400 hybrid credit, $1300 diesel credit)

 

[Joey D]

A Honda Insight for $12k? Why would anyone buy a Yaris or Civic?

 

[Philly]

I really hope it's the Lake Orion plant since that will help out this area quite a bit.

I'm pulling for that one too. Michigan needs the jobs.

I wonder if I'd be able to get rid of the Volvo (something we're thinking about doing anyway) and sneak away with a new Mazda 3 or Rabbit with the cash for clunkers... Although the car is probably worth more than that.

 

[YSSMAN]

The trick really is getting that fuel economy just right. Using those EPA figures, its tough. I had no idea they knocked so many of the extremely fuel-friendly new cars down so low. As I recall, the Focus is pulling a 27 MPG average now. The Corolla LE is about the same. Only the Cobalt XFE (30 MPG) and Fit (31 MPG) exceed "the ceiling" for small, affordable cars that would be easy to trade-in on.