Gas Prices: Who's to Blame?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by sycamore

you're posting retreads that you've probably posted 9 or 10 times before over the past 7 threads.

fixed

[tw]

Originally Posted by sycamore

I love my Cobalt...it has everything I want, and is perfect for me.

One who only drove Model Ts would love a 2008 Model T. That is the point. You were driving GM products. Therefore any GM product that is only 10 years obsolete would be a major improvement.

1997 Honda Accord 4 cyl 5-spd: 22/29
1996 Honda Accord 4 cyl 5-spd: 22/29
1997 Chevrolet Lumina 6 cyl 4-spd: 18/26
1996 Chevrolet Lumina 6 cyl 4-spd: 18/26

Return to previously posts facts. GM optimizes their vehicles for EPA mileage testing. Ie. Corvette that would change engine parameters and bypass second gear during EPA tests. I never got 26 MPG out of that Pontiac (Lumina equivalent) doing only highway driving. But then no one should have expected GM cars to achieve those EPA numbers. Look at the numbers. These were only 52 HP/liter engines.

EPA numbers for a 1997 Honda were posted. Actual driving numbers for that 5 speed Honda Accord (now more than 10 years old) were 36 and 38 MPG. Why? Hondas are not optimized for EPA mileage testing. Hondas are designed by car guys - the people who innovate. Therefore that Honda EPA rated at only 29 MPG highway routinely does over 30 MPG local AND 36-38 during a trip of nothing but highway driving.

You bragged about a 2008 Cobalt doing 40. A 10 year old Accord - a much heavier and older car - did almost as good because it was not a GM product.

Facts and numbers were posted repeatedly and previous for Sycamore. So again, you post numbers that contradicts what you have posted. The Honda (designed by car guys) is rated only for 29 and did consecutive tanks of 36 and 38 MPG. If I say it enough times, will Sycamore finally understand it? GM products did achieve their EPA highway figures. GM is a major contributor to high oil prices.

Sycamore - welcome to Summer school. You did not learn when these concepts posted month ago. Back when you were praising the poorly regarded (10 year obsolete) GM J-car (or whatever they now call it). This only repeats what Sycamore did not read previously. Energy prices must increase radically. Why? People such as Sycamore would praise GM and buy their crap products. GM - a company that openly advocated low mileage cars - refused to let car guys innovate if not required by government regulation. The US government gave $100million in 1994 to build a hybrid. No hybrid in 2008 and no plans in the innovation pipeline? But Sycamore still praises GM products. Another reason why gas prices must keep increasing. Add Sycamore to the list. He does not even grasp numbers: a patriotic car (now more than 10 years old) rated 29 MPG highway achieved consecutive tanks of 36 to 38 in the real world. GM ran to the government saying this was not possible (just like they did in late 1960s and 1970s).

Ever work in a GM plant. So much of everything. How can GM be worth so little. View GM product designs such as the Cobalt, their pickups, and SUVs. Explains why America consumes twice as much energy per person. It also explains why the American standards of living may be the next victim. Even Sun Microsystems is worth more than GM.

Lessons from the 1970s. Meat prices will double. Massive inflation will finally appear even on spread sheets as jobs are lost. Companies must be sold to foreigners (ie Hershey, Anhauser Busch). Too many would praise and buy GM rather than support free market principles - buy the best. Add Sycamore to a list of why oil prices must increase.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by sycamore

I love my Cobalt...it has everything I want, and is perfect for me.
...

The Cobalt, which is made in Lordstown, Ohio, is ranked number 2 in most-American vehicle in a survey by Cars.com.

[elSicomoro]

Oh...I forgot to mention that we drove a Ford Edge while out East...I wrote a blog about it yesterday. Check it out!

[TheMercenary]

<~~~~Tips glass to sycamore.

[classicman]

[TheMercenary]

And now this:

[TheMercenary]

I love my Toyota Tundra.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Toyota sales down 21% last month.

[classicman]

How does that relate to the other manufacturers? That better, worse or about the same?

[xoxoxoBruce]

The newspaper chart I saw that in said GM was less, something like 18%, and Chrysler in the 30s. Don't remember Ford.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

How does that relate to the other manufacturers? That better, worse or about the same?

Last month, GM instituted more sales promotion including the 0% financing. This is how GM can claim a profit on this years sale while diverting losses to the financial operations. Those losses from 0% financing will not be felt for many years. IOW to keep sales figures up - an 18% sales drop in June. GM is again mortgaging its future. GM's May sales dropped 27%.

Ford dropped 28% in June compared to only 15% in May. Chrysler 36% compared to a 25% drop in May. Honda sales increased 1% compared to a 12% increase in May. Toyota went from a 4% sales decrease to a 21% decrease.

GM's 18% sales drop would have been in the 30 or 40 percentile without sales gimmicks and money games. The industry averaged a June 18% drop. (May's drop was 6% when GM had no sales incentives and a 27% sales drop.) Using 0% financing, et al, GM managed an average sales drop.

GM was recently hyping their increased quality. IOW GM was doing what others were doing 10 and more years ago. Others had moved 20 years ago to other innovations. One innovation is flex manufacture ring. Toyota plant in IN(?) that builds Tundra’s will be switched over to building Camry’s. No massive retooling. Same machines can build both vehicles because management comes from where the work gets done.

GM has no such abilities. Four SUV and pickup plants must shut down. GM cannot convert any plants to making Cobalts. That required planning in the engineering department - not in the accounting department. Flex manufacturing means cost increases when analysis is performed by bean counters - people who stifle innovation.

GM must mortgage precious capital; use money games to maintain sales of bad products. Last month was the exception. GM sales did not drop anywhere near what market analyst expected.

Few remember that GM was only 4 hours away from bankruptcy in 1991(?). How did GM 'fix' itself? Pension funds were shorted by about $7billion. Pension funds are supposed to be fully funded when the employee retires. Instead, GM played money games so that GM now has legacy costs. How does GM find $7billion for the pension fund when GM is only worth $6.5billion? No problem. PBGC. GM can dump those costs on the US Government.

More money games because GM products have been so crappy for so many decades. GM is estimate to have $20billion in cash reserves - and is eating that up at $1billion per month.

Also unknown is Chrysler. Since Chrysler is not public, then Chrysler's financial state is unknown. Nardelli who was running Home Depot under is now running Chrysler. Chrysler recently had to tap a credit line for $2billion implying that Chrysler had burned through its reserve cash. Well, when AT&T was in this position, nobody noticed. And AT&T was publically traded - its spread sheets were public record. If Chrysler is on the verge of bankruptcy, would anyone notice before the crash?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Chrysler recently had to tap a credit line for $2billion implying that Chrysler had burned through its reserve cash. Well, when AT&T was in this position, nobody noticed. And AT&T was publically traded - its spread sheets were public record. If Chrysler is on the verge of bankruptcy, would anyone notice before the crash?

I found the word "had" to be an interesting choice of yours. One would think that "chose" would be more appropriate for one who does not make assumptions.
Perhaps the "chose" to borrow money because of the lower interest rates.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not to worry, we'll be in clover.

[classicman]

GM Has $15.5 Billion Loss on U.S. Sales Drop, Leases (Update4)

General Motors Corp. reported a second-quarter loss of $15.5 billion, the third biggest in its 100-year history, because of plunging U.S. sales and the declining value of truck leases. The shares fell as much as 11 percent.

The deficit of $27.33 a share compares with a profit of $891 million, or $1.56, a year earlier. Excluding costs GM considers one-time, the per-share loss was 4 times bigger than analysts projected. Labor strikes contributed to a $9.9 billion drop in North American revenue, and sales worldwide tumbled 18 percent to $38.2 billion.

The results step up pressure on Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner, 55, to show he can revive the largest U.S. automaker. Wagoner, in his ninth year as CEO, has posted $69.8 billion in losses since 2004 and is trying to raise as much as $17 billion in cash while speeding the development of fuel-saving cars to replace the sport-utility vehicles being shunned by U.S. buyers.

``They really need those external fund-raising measures to get through to 2010,'' said Brian Johnson, a Chicago-based Lehman Brothers analyst, in a Bloomberg Television interview. ``We cannot count on an economic rebound.''