Honda Car Forum

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u0l1l.578$mY6.352@newsfe10.iad...
> "Hairy" <hairy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6qm3r2Fd6slnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> wrote in message
>> news:7vedndLqlo04CtnUnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>>
>>> "Hairy" <hairy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6qjdolFcpgi7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>>> newsan.2008.12.14.03.15.03.889425@e86.GTS...
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:13:06 -0600, dbu' wrote:
>>>>>> In article <-_mdnXvFNou5utnUnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>>> "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadotdeedot.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Hairy" <hairy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:6qgl62FcbbksU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> > "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> > news:a85797f5-dbad-4228-80bb-bd26ddb65921@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> >> Hairy wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> >>> news:e5a7a$4942830f$927a2cda$5977@FUSE.NET...
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>> > There is a reason that many people are getting fed up with
>>>>>>> >>> > seeing gas
>>>>>>> >>> > guzzling full size SUV's on the road.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Yeah, it's called jealousy.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Why would anybody be jealous of impotence?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Why do you anti-suv guys turn every suv discussion into something
>>>>>>> > sexual?
>>>>>>> > I get it! You see suv's as reminders of your sexual inadequacy.
>>>>>>> > No wonder you don't like suv's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SUVs are needed by most people... how? They aren't. They are
>>>>>>> *wanted* by
>>>>>>> some people (whose numbers appear to be shrinking) - for whatever
>>>>>>> reason(s).
>>>>>>> SUVs offer a lot of space along with low gas milage, for a
>>>>>>> relatively high
>>>>>>> purchase price. If you (plural you) don't need all of that space,
>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>> get good-to-excellent mpg, and don't want to spend more than is
>>>>>>> reasonable
>>>>>>> for a vehicle that fits your needs, you don't want an SUV since it'd
>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>> waste of money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cathy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not everybody likes driving a tomato can. Not everybody drives
>>>>>> places
>>>>>> you drive. Larger vehicles are much safer than little tiny cars.
>>>>>> Don't
>>>>>> try to control other people to suit your idea of how it should be.
>>>>>> As
>>>>>> for "waste of money", it's not your money so why should you worry
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> it, or tell others what to drive. Get a life.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the price of gas goes up, and they do the "Man in the Street"
>>>>> interview, they invariably choose someone with an Excursion crying
>>>>> about
>>>>> the price of gas.
>>>>
>>>> That being the case,(if it is), how do you explain the fact that the
>>>> only
>>>> whiners in this NG are small car owners?
>>>
>>> *Which* ng? This is x-posted to 4 of them!
>>
>> Which one are you posting from?
>>
>
> She's in alt.autos.toyota.

Thanks. And thanks for partially answering your own question.

"Hairy" <hairy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6qm4ofFca58mU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:lmk1l.569$mY6.252@newsfe10.iad...
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:41a07f99-e302-435c-9c1a-239d5df74c46@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Hairy wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>>> newsan.2008.12.14.03.15.03.889425@e86.GTS...
>>>
>>>> > When the price of gas goes up, and they do the "Man in the Street"
>>>> > interview, they invariably choose someone with an Excursion crying
>>>> > about
>>>> > the price of gas.
>>>>
>>>> That being the case, (if it is),
>>>
>>> It is, and you'd know that if you were even slightly aware of news
>>> events.
>>>
>>>> how do you explain the fact that the only
>>>> whiners in this NG are small car owners?
>>>
>>> You need to be more careful with your use of the word "fact".
>>
>>
>> Is my Tacoma 6 cyl double cab a "small car"? I'm not sure.
>>
>
> It is compared to my Silverado Crew.


Oooh. A Silverado Crew.

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2cl1l.580$mY6.125@newsfe10.iad...
> "Hairy" <hairy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6qm4ofFca58mU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:lmk1l.569$mY6.252@newsfe10.iad...
>>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>> news:41a07f99-e302-435c-9c1a-239d5df74c46@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hairy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>>>>> newsan.2008.12.14.03.15.03.889425@e86.GTS...
>>>>
>>>>> > When the price of gas goes up, and they do the "Man in the Street"
>>>>> > interview, they invariably choose someone with an Excursion crying
>>>>> > about
>>>>> > the price of gas.
>>>>>
>>>>> That being the case, (if it is),
>>>>
>>>> It is, and you'd know that if you were even slightly aware of news
>>>> events.
>>>>
>>>>> how do you explain the fact that the only
>>>>> whiners in this NG are small car owners?
>>>>
>>>> You need to be more careful with your use of the word "fact".
>>>
>>>
>>> Is my Tacoma 6 cyl double cab a "small car"? I'm not sure.
>>>
>>
>> It is compared to my Silverado Crew.
>
>
> Oooh. A Silverado Crew.

No need to feign being impressed. I'm not.

"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:g9t5k4dif2mqdurfnb6k4gk62v8skqmv8a@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:04:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
> <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>So GM migh get 15 billion, AS A LOAN. Worst case, GM goes under, and
>>can't repay the loan. So the average taxpayer middle class taxpayer
>>losses a $300 investment in a company that employess thousands of
>>fellow taxpayers. Meanwhile, the goverment has shoveled 700 billion
>>to
>>comanies that have blown billion on bad loans and hyper inflated
>>salaries.
>
> You won't catch me arguing in favor of any bailout. Loan or not,
> they're wrong.
>>
>>> Despite their mismanagement being pointed out repeatedly by people
>>> from across the business spectrum for decades, they've stuck to
>>> their
>>> pig headed approach and ignored everyone who did not agree. Now
>>> they
>>> are reaping the rewards.
>>
>>What exactly were the people pointing out that constitutes gross
>>mismanagement? What did GM do that is so different than what Toyota
>>did, or rather what has GM done, that Toyota hasn't tried to do as
>>well?
>
> I don't have time to identify all of GM's obvious mistakes. Here are
> a
> few: First, GM failed to adopt TQM and improve quality. It's a LONG
> TERM strategy that the Japanese adopted in the 40'5 and 50's. The
> results of TWM are long term customer confidence and quality
> products.

Japanese cars in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and even the 80's were not
particularly high quality. In fact, they sent over some real junk. And
although GM might not have improved quality as much as Toyota, it is
impossible for you not to admit that GMs cars of today are far better
than GM cars of the 70's and before.

> GM's preference was for "cost cutting" and producing a cheaper
> product
> that would increase SHORT TERM profits. Note that the Japanese now
> enjoy a reputation for quality cars that bring buyers back again and
> again, while GM has a reputation for crappy cars no one buys again.
> The proof is in the pudding.

I don't think the reputation is deserved - on either side. The
difference in quality between the current average GM car and the
current average Japanese car is insignificant.

> Second, GM refused to acknowledge where the auto market was going.
> Instead of taking a small hit today to guarantee a market tomorrow,
> they continued to build for quarterly profit. Trucks and SUV's ruled
> the day and they didn't listen to anyone who told them that it was a
> bad strategy. Whoops - proof in the pudding again.

You ignored my point (and deleted what I said). Maybe devoting a lot
of production to SUVs and trucks was a bad decision, but Toyota,
Nissan, Honda, and almost every other car company selling vehicles in
America made the same decision. Toyota upsized almost every vehicle.
Toyota and Nissan entered the full size pick-up and large SUV market.
Even Honda started building pick-ups and SUVs. If GM management was
wrong about this, so was the management of almost every car maker
operating in the US.

> Third, every time GM got someone on the Board who had a clue about
> how
> to run a company, they pushed him off. They didn't want to
> modernize,
> they didn't want to change. Innovation was not only not encouraged,
> it
> was actively discouraged. Buck the trend and you're out of a job.

I have no opinion on this comment.

>>Too bad GM
>>management let the engineers go out on a limb with a risky engine
>>design.
>
> Aluminum cyl's without liners? That's not engineering, that's
> stupidity.

Oh, you mean like Mercede's and Porsche's engineering? Both of those
companies use what is essentially the same technology in some of their
engines.

>>I wonder what people would have said about the Vega if GM had
>>just imported a European 4 cylinder design to power the car. They
>>had
>>excellent engines designs available from Opel they could have tooled
>>up in the US. But instead, they took a chance on technology that
>>didn't work out for them.
>
> You want to know how GM thinks? They bought a majority stake in Saab
> in the 1990's. Saab had a rock solid, powerful 4-cyl turbo known for
> easily running 300K miles with outstanding power and tuneability for
> more power. Did GM wholeheartedly endorse Saabs motor and adapt the
> engines / technology to their line? No, they ordered Saab to install
> a
> crappy (30K timing belt changes) Opel V6 in the cars because "a V6
> is
> what American buyers want". WRONG. Not only did they alienate the
> loyal people actually buying Saabs, they blew a golden opportunity
> to
> innovate in their own line.

You have to be kidding. Saabs from that era were junk! In 45 years of
living at the same place in a rural area, exactly one car has broken
down in front of my parent house - a Saab 900. One of sister's friend
bought Saabs in the 70's and 80's Not one made it to 100k miles. The
Saab 4 cylinder you like so much was originally a British Leyland
design. Saab was going to buy engines from BL, but the quality was so
bad, they had to build them themselves.

> That's just one example, my typing time is limited.
>
>>I still don't understand how the Government can throw hundreds of
>>billions at banks and mortgage companies that were so much more
>>mismanaged than GM and not even throw GM a little bone.
>
> All bailouts are wrong.

GM has been saddled with all sorts of Government mandates. The latest
financial panic is a direct result of bad decisions by the Government.
The Government allowed the UAW to have what constituted an auto
manufacturing labor monopoly for decades. Foreign competitors to GM
frequently receive assistance from their Governments. I don't like
bailout either, but it is not fair to GM for the Government to screw
things up and walk away from a mess they had a large hand in creating.

>>Ask yourself this - If this recession gets a lot worse and Toyota
>>start spiraling down, what will the Japanese government do? Toyota
>>blew billions on a factory in Texas that builds at inferior product
>>that they have to literally sell at a loss to move off the lots. How
>>come you guys are not trashing Toyota mismanagement?
>
> I'm not a Toyota fan, but they aren't asking for UG Gov't money so I
> don't really care what they do. In fact, when the first 25B
> "modernization" loan program for the big three passed Congress a few
> months ago, Toyota and Nissan were eligible to participate but both
> declined to apply for the loans.

Toyota has the Japanese Government they can ask for money any time
they need it.

Ed

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/gm-...-and-pinheads/

When I was growing up in Rhode Island, the state was run by the mafia.
Politicians, police, priests, judges, juries, firemen, trash
collectors, teachers, unions– anyone who had power owed that power to
Raymond L.S. Patriarca. Period. In the last forty years, the mob’s
stranglehold on the Ocean State has dissipated– even if the stench of
corruption remains. But it’s too late. The mob-controlled unions and
their corrupt enablers destroyed Little Rhody’s industrial base. The
state will never be a locus of, well, anything. And yet people call
talk radio and wax lyrical about “the good old days.” Justice was for
sale. Racism endemic. Violence systemic. Priests buggered little boys
with impunity. “But at least you could walk the streets without fear.”
This, Detroit, is your future. And you can thank your godfather, GM.

You can almost feel the anger coming from Detroit these days. The
sense of betrayal radiates from hometown journalists like heat off a
desert parking lot. How could Washington turn its back on us? How
could they treat us like goombas? Don’t they know who we are? Yes,
they do. And they don’t care. Why kow-tow to yesterday’s boss? But
that’s not really the point. Detroit’s anger is fully justified.
Something bad has happened. Something that could have been avoided.
Should have been avoided. But this animus, this furious indignation,
is entirely misplaced.

It is GM that betrayed Detroit, not Washington. Instead of sorting out
their business, GM’s capos spent the last four decades dining at fancy
restaurants, smoking fine cigars, flying around in Gulfstream jets and
doing… nothing. And then, when they finally grasped the fact that
their goose was cooked, they ran to Uncle Sam and said, “Let’s do a
deal.” GM CEO Rick Wagoner faced the Senate and told Dodd et al that
he’d agree to anything to secure the bailout bucks. Oversight? Car
Czar? Deadlines? “I think we would could live with that.”

As a friend of ours likes to say, there is no honor in this. GM’s CEO
should not have come crawling back to D.C. in a Malibu hybrid to beg
for a taxpayer handout. At the very least, Wagoner should have
resigned after his first, disastrous Congressional appearance. Either
that or he should have poured bankruptcy expert Jay Alix a stiff
whiskey and told him to file for Chapter 11. Wagoner would have spared
his employer the final indignity of watching Congress and the
executive branch remove GM’s ability to determine its own fate.

“But no one will buy a car from a bankrupt automaker.” Excuse the
profanity, but who the **** cares? GM is bankrupt. Its liabilities
currently outweigh its assets by a factor of ten. A government loan
will simply add another creditor to a long list. Head of the line,
back of the line, big whoop. The fed’s $13b will keep GM on life
support for what? A month? Three? And then what?

As there’s nothing GM can do to generate the profits it needs to cover
its overheads, as any real turnaround would take over $100b and at
least five years, sooner or later, GM is headed for more public
humiliation. How much more of that can GM take?

It’s one thing to get steamed at a politician for pissing away $700b
of your hard-earned money for his or her best buds on Wall Street. All
you can do is not take out a loan from TARP-blessed banks (that won’t
give you a loan anyway) and/or vote the offending politicians out. You
know; later. But if a carmaker is blowing your taxes, retaliation is
easy. You don’t buy their products. You want my business? Sorry, but I
gave at the office.

Mark my words: if GM uses taxpayer money to stave off bankruptcy, and
then comes back for more, executive haircuts and public equity stakes
won’t do squat to mollify an enraged public. There will be a consumer
backlash that will make bankruptcy seem like a J.D. Power Award.

Meanwhile, GM and its camp followers are dazed and confused. Just like
the little old ladies who used to promenade up and down Atwell’s
Avenue without a care in the world, they don’t understand why things
have changed. They will never understand that they sat atop of a
pyramid of abusive exploitation. In the same sense, GM’s customers
subsidized Detroit’s sense of wealth, safety and entitlement by buying
shoddy vehicles. But only because they had to.

As soon as they didn’t have to, they didn’t. And then it was only a
matter of time before the old corrupt system collapsed. Reform? The
man who could have created life-sustaining change for GM through C11
(albeit three years ago) is in federal custody. Powerless. Someone
somewhere else is large and in charge. Depending on your perspective,
you might even call it progress.

GM is a corrupt mafia and it deserves to be put down like a mad dog

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

>>
>> If I have a midsize SUV like my Avalanche or a Suburban or an Excursion
>> or a
>> Land Cruiser I take up the same parking space as a small compact SUV like
>> my wife's Vue or a Rav4 or a CX6.
>
>
> Word question: A Suburban is "midsize"??? Â*What do you consider "full
> size"?
> :-)

F-650.

http://www.f650pickups.com/indexb.html


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

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

Hairy wrote:

> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:4edde4ef-b5f1-428e-8897-fcc89127dbb5@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

> > Why an opinion rather than the facts? Oil consumption can be
> > measured, so there's no reason to inject baseless opinion.
>
> Tell that to your clone, Joe. He's quick with the insults, but dead in
> the water when it comes to verifiable facts.
>
> > He's not my clone, and your answer doesn't depend on him.
>
> Perhaps not, but you almost certainly share DNA (in one way or another).

No more or less than you do.

> > You said SUVs getting the same fuel economy as sedans wouldn't affect the
> > amount of oil we imported but that this was just your opinion.
>
> As a matter of fact, that isn't what I said. Please try again.

Here's a quote of the original post:

> "If all the suv's suddenly were capable matching the mileage of the average
> sedan, the difference in the amount of imported oil would be negligible, if
> noticeable at all. (my opinion)"

I suppose "difference in the amount of imported oil" and "amount of
oil" aren't the same thing, but it's not worthy of raising an
objection.

> > Because gas mileage and oil consumption can be measured, it's silly to
> > state that as an opinion rather than as a conclusion based on facts.
> > Are you one of those people who doesn't like to be confused by the
> > facts?
>
> It was not silly for me to state my opinion, since I didn't have verifiable
> facts.

Actually it was, because you weren't referring to things that are
definitely unprovable opinions, like the beauty/ugliness, intelligence/
stupidity, or virility/wimpiness of SUVs, even though everybody knows
that a big SUV driven in sunny LA is ugly, stupid, and wimpy.

> Unlike you and your clone, I don't try to pass my opinions off as facts.

Show where I've represented my opinion as fact. I haven't. But when
you said that replacing all the cars with SUVs wouldn't change our oil
consumption, you weren't merely giving an opinion, despite your claim
otherwise, but were presenting facts, even though you weren't certain
of them. OTOH if somebody said that today's SUVs could be made to
use as little fuel as the average car, then that would be an opinion.











> Since you inexplicably seem to require a conclusion based on facts this
> time, feel free to enlighten me when you aquire them.

PerfectReign wrote:
>
> > "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:0a6b4d96-c038-4fcd-baa1-d146e327aa5c@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> > SUVs are fine for people who can benefit from
> > them, but it's silly for a sole person to drive one in a clear weather
> > metro area and take up too much space in the parking lot.
>
> Erm, my SUV takes up as many spaces in in a parking lot as my wife's
> Saturn.
>
> If I have a midsize SUV like my Avalanche or a Suburban or an Excursion or a
> Land Cruiser I take up the same parking space as a small compact SUV like
> my wife's Vue or a Rav4 or a CX6.

Only if everybody keeps the doors closed.

I'd rather park where there's a motorcycle instead of a Hummer in each
adjacent space.

PerfectReign wrote:

> JoeSpareBedroom turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
> If I have a midsize SUV like my Avalanche or a Suburban or an Excursion
> or a Land Cruiser I take up the same parking space as a small compact
> SUV like wife's Vue or a Rav4 or a CX6.
>
> > Word question: A Suburban is "midsize"??? *What do you consider "full
> > size"?
> > :-)
>
> F-650.

Even Dubya doesn't have to cover up that much inadequacy.

coachros...@hotmail.com wrote:

> By the early 90's, GM built cars that were as good as,or better than,
> their rival Japanese auto manufacturers.
>
> Gas mileage had caught up, at that point, also.
>
> But alas, Consumer Reports, and the media, kept hammering away at the
> general public, that the domestic autos were inferior to the almighty
> Japanese.
>
> Fast forward, to the year 2008.
>
> Domestic autos, are proven to be at least, and in most cases superior
> to the Japanese autos, and get better gas mileage.
>
> But, thanks two two decades of hammering away at the domestics, the
> Japansese still enjoy the "reputation" of having better quality and
> better fuel economy than American nameplates.
>
> Both are totally false.

I haven't heard Americans say that Japanese cars get better fuel
economy when size is considered. OTOH a lot of Americans won't buy
small cars that aren't Japanese or German because, let's face it, the
typical Saturn, Cobalt, or Caliber isn't as good as most Corollas,
Golfs, or Civics.

Americans do tend to think Japanese reliability is better, and the
numbers tend to bear this out, especially after the cars are a few
years old. But polls of Americans show that they don't think all
Japanese car brands are more reliable, and Nissan and the smaller
Japanese car makers haven't fared better than GM/Ford/Chrysler.

> GM sells more vehicles that gets 30 mpg or better than anyone,
> (dispelling the "gas guzzler" myth), and has far fewer recalls than
> the Japanese (dispelling the"quality" myth). Of course, Consumer
> Reports "reports" this every month!

So if a company produces just one model and it gets better MPG than
75% of GM's models, is that company inferior to GM in this respect
simply because GM has more models? And should GM's closely related
models, such as some Pontiacs and Chevys, really be counted
separately? If so, why not lump the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe
twins together, even though their brands are from almost completely
separate firms? My point is, counting the number of models of a
company that achieve a certain goal is silly. Even counting the
percentage of models that do so is almost as silly because different
manufacturers can have different market niches, e.g., BMW isn't
interested in producing economy cars.

> > Second, GM refused to acknowledge where the auto market was going.
> > Instead of taking a small hit today to guarantee a market tomorrow,
> > they continued to build for quarterly profit. Trucks and SUV's ruled
> > the day and they didn't listen to anyone who told them that it was a
> > bad strategy. Whoops - proof in the pudding again.

Yep, plus their factories weren't designed to handle changes in models
as well, and development costs for new models have been higher .

> Trucks in particular, and large vechiles, in general, continue to sell
> well. That is what people want.

But truck buyers wouldn't mind if their vehicles got 10 MPG better
fuel economy, at no extra cost to them, of course.

> Toyota, and Honda both realize this, and continue to make more trucks
> and/or LARGER vechicles in general.

And Toyota, despite its disaster with the new Tundra, can much better
afford low truck sales.

> Do you think the Camry is a small car???
>
> Has the Honda Accord been downsized in the past 20 years???
>
> Of course not.
>
> When they started making it LARGER, it became a very good seller.

Or Japanese car executives are just as stupid about the bias for big
size.