Honda Car Forum

In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p94ga@4ax.com>,
me <noemail@nothere.com> wrote:

> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>
> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>
> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>
> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
> have said hastened its recent decline.
>
> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."

blah, blah, blah.

Here's the ad they WANTED to run:

http://www.buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg

"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:hus0k4d43atfopvd2498le4jd1jmncrd2o@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:18:34 -0600, Oscar Finkleheimer
>
> GM paid advertisement. Read the article.

House OKs $14B auto bill - but it's still in peril
WASHINGTON - A $14 billion rescue package for the nation's imperiled auto
industry sped to approval in the U.S. House Wednesday night, but the
emergency bailout was still in jeopardy from Republicans who were setting
out roadblocks in the Senate.

Democrats and the Bush White House hoped for a Senate vote as early as
Thursday and enactment by week's end. They argued that the loans authorized
by the measure were needed to stave off disaster for the auto industry - and
a crushing further blow to the reeling national economy.

The legislation, approved 237-170 by the House, would provide money within
days to cash-starved General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Ford Motor Co.,
which has said it has enough to stay afloat, would also be eligible for
federal aid.

Republicans were preparing a strong fight against the aid plan in the
Senate, not only taking on the Democrats but standing in open revolt against
their party's lame-duck president on the measure.

The Republicans want to force the companies into bankruptcy or mandate hefty
concessions from autoworkers and creditors as a condition of any federal
aid. They also oppose an environmental mandate that House Democrats insisted
on including in the measure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it represented "tough love" for U.S. auto
companies, and "giving a chance - this one more chance - to this great
industry."

The White House, struggling to sell the package to congressional
Republicans, said earlier that a carmaker bankruptcy could be fatal to the
auto industry and have a devastating impact on workers, families and the
economy.

"We believe the legislation developed in recent days is an effective and
responsible approach to deal with troubled automakers and ensure the
necessary restructuring occurs," said Dana Perino, the White House press
secretary.

But the measure faces a difficult road in the Senate, where it needs 60
votes to advance. Rank-and-file Senate Republicans skewered the bill during
a closed-door luncheon with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, who was
dispatched to Capitol Hill to make a case for the rescue package.

Besides providing cash for the auto companies, it would create a government
"car czar," to be named by President George W. Bush to dole out the loans,
with the power to force the carmakers into bankruptcy next spring if they
didn't cut quick deals with labor unions, creditors and others to
restructure their businesses and become viable.

Behind the scenes, Senate Democratic and Republican leaders scrambled for a
deal that would allow votes on the bill on Thursday. Some GOP senators were
demanding votes on an alternative that would order the automakers to take
specific actions to restructure - including steep wage cuts and debt
restructuring - in return for any federal money.

me turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
> SUV's and trucks

Something wrong with SUV's and trucks?

I'd rather have one of them than a car.

I drove a compact Maxima for a few years. Way too small.


--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
Hock

On Dec 10, 6:53*pm, me <noem...@nothere.com> wrote:
> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>




Sad, sick, and disgusting.



Bad enough having to defend GM from the likes of you, now, we have to
defend them from the top-brass of GM, as well.



"Vehicle trends"??????????


THF is that?????



The only "trend" is that EVERYONE, INCLUDING TOYOTA and HONDA are
building LARGER vehicles.


And they are the ones that SELLS!!!!!!!!!!!



Quickly now, tell me, outside of the tax-credited supported Prius, how
many cars does Toyota sell that are more fuel-effecient than American
nameplates??????



What are some of their most popular vechicles????


Camry?????


Does it get better gas mileagle than similar American nameplates?????


Of course not, in many cases it gets worse gas mileage.


Is it more reliable?????



Of course not!!!!


In many cases, it is LESS reliable.




Toyota has also invested BILLIONS of dollars in its full-sized pickup
truck line.


Does that sound like THEY think pick-ups are vehicles "no one wants to
buy"??????


Of course not, it is the single most PROFITABLE vehicle made on the
planet today, and they realize it.


And of course, our BIg Three, led by Congressional mandates tied into
loans they will recieve, will hand over truck sales to the Japaneses,
and they will make a fortune on the market.


All the Americans will do is lose more jobs.




As far as admitting to building "low-quality cars", they are going
against what many have been arguing about for years, that GM makes a
damned-good car.


I might believe them if I never owned a GM product, but having owned
many of them over the years, I know this is another lie.


My GM cars have not suddenly turned to junk simply because of an ad
designed to help the company beg for money.


But, I wonder about those who have never owned a GM product, but maybe
were thinking about checking into it.



Does this full-page as sound like a ringing endoresment?????



Will it help sales??????


Of course not!



But, I guess I would resort to anything lies, if my family were
starving to death.









> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>
> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>
> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>
> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
> have said hastened its recent decline.
>
> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."

On Dec 10, 7:42*pm, dbu' <nos...@nobama.com> wrote:
> In article <grovgrgrovel@ grovel >,
> *Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Oscar Finkleheimer wrote:
> > > In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p9...@4ax.com>,
> > > *me <noem...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > >> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
> > >> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
> > >> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
> > >> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
> > >> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
> > >> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>
> > >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>
> > >> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
> > >> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
> > >> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>
> > >> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
> > >> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
> > >> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>
> > >> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
> > >> have said hastened its recent decline.
>
> > >> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
> > >> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
> > >> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>
> > > "unsigned open letter". * Maybe from the autoworkers union?
>
> > I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
> > Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. *That
> > pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
> > more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but
> > I'd still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical.
> > What a spineless wanker. *Don't apologize for s**t you didn't do, that
> > just makes you look like you're begging (of course, he probably is at
> > the "begging" point now...)
>
> > unfortunately I can't find a news link yet, but I bet it will show up
> > shortly.
>
> > nate
>
> They are groveling for money like pigs at the trough and will say
> anything to get it, snort.....
> --
>
> "It's deja vu all over again"
> Yogi Berra- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You hit the nail on the head!


Of course, the money the get will be at the expensne of the automobile
buyer, and even more so for those working in the industry!

On 11 Dec, 05:42, coachros...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 10, 7:42*pm, dbu' <nos...@nobama.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <grovgrgrovel@ grovel >,
> > *Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > > Oscar Finkleheimer wrote:
> > > > In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p9...@4ax.com>,
> > > > *me <noem...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
> > > >> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
> > > >> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
> > > >> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
> > > >> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
> > > >> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>
> > > >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>
> > > >> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
> > > >> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
> > > >> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>
> > > >> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
> > > >> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
> > > >> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>
> > > >> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
> > > >> have said hastened its recent decline.
>
> > > >> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
> > > >> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
> > > >> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>
> > > > "unsigned open letter". * Maybe from the autoworkers union?
>
> > > I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
> > > Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. *That
> > > pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
> > > more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but
> > > I'd still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical..
> > > What a spineless wanker. *Don't apologize for s**t you didn't do, that
> > > just makes you look like you're begging (of course, he probably is at
> > > the "begging" point now...)
>
> > > unfortunately I can't find a news link yet, but I bet it will show up
> > > shortly.
>
> > > nate
>
> > They are groveling for money like pigs at the trough and will say
> > anything to get it, snort.....
> > --
>
> > "It's deja vu all over again"
> > Yogi Berra- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You hit the nail on the head!
>
> Of course, the money the get will be at the expensne of the automobile
> buyer, and even more so for those working in the industry!

It is interesting that Ford is not willing to receive money under the
terms the government is offering.
GM has no option but to crawl on the knees and hat in hand take the
money if they are to get any.
The best thing is to let them go into C11
Anything else is just plain stupid.
What else is there to be expected form Bush.
The question is if Bush is the most clever guy in the US?

Gosi wrote:

>What else is there to be expected form Bush.
>The question is if Bush is the most clever guy in the US?

Are you saying this is Bush's fault also or are you saying Bush is
smart for not going along with this?

--
"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but
I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." ~
Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:ghpmqu0mhk@news6.newsguy.com...
> I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
> Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
> pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
> more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but I'd
> still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical.

Besides a few of their large SUV's, what cars do GM sell that are hybrids?

I will agree that when (if?) the Volt comes out that it ought to sell very
well and will be a much needed improvement over the existing Japanese
hybrids which rely far too much on their gas engines. If GM could have
released the Volt earlier this year, when gas was over $4 per gallong, they
would have sold every single one they rolled off the production line. A car
that used zero gas for my commute to/from work, but still has a gas engine
for long distance traveling, would be freaking nirvana!

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

On 11 Dec, 12:33, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njna...@roosters.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ghpmqu0mhk@news6.newsguy.com...
>
> > I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
> > Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. *That
> > pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
> > more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but I'd
> > still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical.
>
> Besides a few of their large SUV's, what cars do GM sell that are hybrids?
>
> I will agree that when (if?) the Volt comes out that it ought to sell very
> well and will be a much needed improvement over the existing Japanese
> hybrids which rely far too much on their gas engines. *If GM could have
> released the Volt earlier this year, when gas was over $4 per gallong, they
> would have sold every single one they rolled off the production line. *A car
> that used zero gas for my commute to/from work, but still has a gas engine
> for long distance traveling, would be freaking nirvana!
>
> Jeff
> --
> "Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
> My own standards have changed too." *-- Freeman Dyson

There are a lot of electrical cars coming.
The dependency on oil is going down.
Even if some places need to burn somthing to create electicity it
needs not be oil.
It can be coal, there are also several other methods of creating
electricity in powerplants.

Chevy Volt: The future is electrifying.
The Extended-Range Electric Vehicle that is redefining the automotive
world is no longer just a rumor. In fact, its propulsion system is so
revolutionary, it's unlike any other vehicle or electric car that's
ever been introduced. And we're making this remarkable vision a
reality, so that one day you'll have the freedom to drive gas-free.

Chevy Volt is designed to move more than 75 percent of America's daily
commuters without a single drop of gas.(2) That means for someone who
drives less than 40 miles a day, Chevy Volt will use zero gasoline and
produce zero emissions.(1)

Unlike traditional electric cars, Chevy Volt has a revolutionary
propulsion system that takes you beyond the power of the battery. It
will use a lithium-ion battery with a gasoline-powered, range-
extending engine that drives a generator to provide electric power
when you drive beyond the 40-mile battery range.

Chevy Volt. Fully charged 2010.
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27...over-the-road/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle

At 2008 fuel prices, battery powered buses are more economical than
diesel or gasoline powered buses. The additional cost of the batteries
is made up for[citation needed] by the low operating cost in the first
half of the typical million to two million mile (three million
kilometer) life of the bus.
Chattanooga, Tennessee operates nine free (no fares) electric buses,
which have been in operation since 1992 and have carried 11.3 million
passengers and covered a distance of 1.9 million miles. They were made
locally by Advanced Vehicle Systems. Two of these buses were used for
the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.[3][4]
Wrightbus has a new a hybrid-electric driveline for the StreetCar RTV
which has been developed in conjunction with the ISE Corporation of
California and incorporates Siemens ELFA traction components and a
Cummins ISL engine. The chassis is built to Wright Group
specifications by Swiss trolleybus specialists Carosserie Hess and is
powered by Valence Technology lithium phosphate batteries .
Beginning in the summer of 2000, Hong Kong airport began operating a
16-passenger Mitsubishi Rosa electric shuttle bus, and in the fall of
2000, New York City began testing a 66 passenger battery powered
school bus, an all electric version of the Blue-Bird TC2000.[5] A
similar bus was operated in Napa Valley, California for 14 months
ending in April, 2004.[6]
The 2008 Beijing Olympics used a fleet of 50 electric buses, which
have a range of 130 km (81 mi) with the air conditioning on. They use
Lithium-ion batteries, and consume about 1 kWh/mile. The buses were
designed by the Beijing Institute of Technology and built by the
Jinghua Coach Co. Ltd.[7] The batteries are replaced with fully
charged ones at the recharging station to allow 24 hour operation of
the buses.[8]

So where is Toyota's apology letter for some of their mistakes? How
about an admission they screwed up something on thousands of engines
that lead many people to have sludge problems, or that the monster
Tundra is a huge mistake. Or that they have built some of the most
boring vehicles ever conceived. How about an apology for the older
4Runners that had one of the highest death rate for any vehicle ever
sold in the US?

Ed

"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
news3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p94ga@4ax.com...
> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>
> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At
> times
> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>
> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely
> read
> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>
> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and
> critics
> have said hastened its recent decline.
>
> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point
> where
> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We
> also
> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>
>