Gas Prices: Who's to Blame?

[xoxoxoBruce]

But Radar, the government has so little land to spare.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Really? I've never heard that. How do you eat hemp? Like a typical green leaf, or does it need to be prepared in some way?

Go HERE and read Chapter 8. In fact read all the chapters.

Other than hempseeds, cannabis is great in baked goods, lollipops, and plenty of other things.

[Flint]

Let them eat lollipops!

[tw]

How bad are GM products? What happens when a company stifles innovation for 30 years, hypes "Buy American", gets the naive to buy a 1995 technology car in 2008 - and praise it ... A GM stock investor now must go back to 1955 to see his capital investment increase. GM stock price reflects how bad GM reliability, design intelligence, and fuel economy really are. GM market capitalization is now so low - a paltry $6.5 billion - that even Sun Microsystems is worth more.

Buy GM; sell off its buildings and machines. Reap a profit. GM products suck that much. Is an investment opportunity approaching as GM stock drops to where it should have been 15 years ago?

How did we know this problem existed in GM? Their management (who don't have driver's licenses) joined the mental midget in touting hydrogen as a fuel. Anyone with access to any science knew hydrogen as a fuel was as real as Saddam's WMDs. Flex fuel vehicles? More hyped nonsense. GM getting as good as Toyota and Honda – the propaganda only six months ago? More lies.

GM management are bean counters - business school graduates - don't know anything about cars. Management so stupid as to even hype hydrogen as a fuel. That irrefutable fact – the hydrogen claim – said GM products were that bad. What happens when a company stifles innovation for 30 years, hypes "Buy American", gets the naive to buy a 1995 technology car in 2008 - and praise it ... A GM stock investor now must go back to 1955 to see his capital investment increase. GM stock price reflects how bad GM reliability, design intelligence, and fuel economy really are. GM market capitalization is now so low - a paltry $6.5 billion - that even Sun Microsystems is worth more.

How did we know these problem existed in GM? Their management (who don't have driver's licenses) joined the mental midget in touting hydrogen as a fuel. Anyone with access to any science publication knew hydrogen as a fuel was as real as Saddam's WMDs. But GM management are bean counters - business school graduates - don't know anything about cars. That irrefutable fact visibly identified GM as a major reason for America's excessive energy consumption. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.

The only GM investor who reaped a capital profits is one who bought GM stock in March 1955 because GM products suck. How can that be? Six months ago, GM was touting ‘competitive with Honda and Toyota’? Well GM does these same lies about every five years – and so many consumers believe it for the same reason they believed Saddam had WMDs. Look at the products. Cobalt, G-6 given away by Oprah, Suburban, Volt, Hummer - all crappy products – and no innovations in the GM innovation pipeline.

Is a great investment opportunity approaching? Buy GM cheap. Get rid of their only problem. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Only then do we start addressing the reasons for higher energy prices. GM is an example of the problem that also exists in other American industries, government, and consumers.

[Flint]

Even equivalent Hondas got better mileage 20 years ago than they do now. The reason is tighter emissions controls.

[HungLikeJesus]

Someone's got a scratch in their record.

[classicman]

Gez - tw did you get a lemon from GM or what? We got the fact that you think GM products suck - You're done now - ktxbai.

[HungLikeJesus]

Maybe tw lived in Poletown in 1981.

[lookout123]

or maybe tw's just a one trick pony disguised as a belligerent asshole. could you imagine this guy after a couple beers at the corner bar?

This is Duff Roberts reporting live from Squeaky Bum's Bar and Grill. The scene here is astounding. Mob violence like you have never seen it before. Rodney King has nothing on this man, identified only as TW. Apparently he whipped the crowd into a frenzy by pointing out repeatedly that he knew everything and they knew nothing. The violence was reportedly sparked when his own mother stood up and was heard to shout, "Shut the F*$@ up already you useless twat!" and began beating him with her oversized purse. What's remarkable in this case is that unlike most fights, not one person came to the victim's defense. Even the police officers responding to the call have begun beating him with their nightsticks. There is a rumor that the National Guard is being called in to hit him with firehoses. And now, the crowd seems to have started chanting... wait...yes, it is - they have picked up his mother's battlecry. It is amazing! The crowd is chanting "Shut the F*$@ up you useless twat!" over and over again.

Now back to you in the studio, Christie. I have a twat to beat with a microphone.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Gez - tw did you get a lemon from GM or what?

Posted are facts without emotion. You end up seeing today what I was posting about defective and anti-American companies typically 5 years earlier. I said same about AT&T. As a result, AT&T was sold off for little but its name. If you think GM is bad, you have not yet seen how bad it can get - unless you read my post.

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

Maybe tw lived in Poletown in 1981.

Poletown? A GM trophy of excellence created by Roger Smith (of Roger and Me)? That got the Baldridge Award because quality increased so much in one year and was still a lowest quality plant even in GM.

Originally Posted by Flint

Even equivalent Hondas got better mileage 20 years ago than they do now. The reason is tighter emissions controls.

After Sycamore praise the 40 MPG numbers from his 2008 GM subcompact (J-car or whatever it is called today), I did some long trips. Decided to see what this mid 1990 Honda Accord would do.
196.5 miles 5.136 gal ($19.00)
218.2 miles 5.823 gal ($22.01)
297.6 miles 7.768 gal ($30.44)
Consecutive tanks got 38.3, 37.5, and 38.3 MPG. Well my 1980 Honda Accord was only doing about 30 MPG and never more than 34 MPG. Why does the heavier car get better mileage? Tighter emissions controls mean higher gasoline mileage - if properly implemented.

So why does the much larger and 10+ year older Honda Accord do mileage numbers approaching Sycamore's? One company innovates. GM eventually uses the technology when finally forced to.

Those who know how bad GM products really are find nothing unusual in the tone of that post. GM is that bad. GM management is so misguided as to even believe and preach hydrogen as a fuel. How many innovations in the GM innovation pipeline? One. The Volt. A failed concept. New GM designed engines still use push rods - an technology obsoleted starting in the 1970s.

Why is GM stock so low. GM has virtually nothing to address America's energy problems - other than do what the competition was doing ten and twenty years ago. Where is this Malibu that routinely does 30 to 34 MPG as my 10+ year old Honda Accord does routinely?

GM is doing to America only what American enemies would do. Some so hate America as to buy GM products. GM is a major reason why America consumes twice as much energy per person as any other nation. Today, GM's Rick Wagoner was talking about GM products doing a major increase - 23 MPG. The national average held down by buying politicians was 26 MPG. To address our energy problems, GM products must average 40 MPG. My every Accord (and a GM car I owned in 1975) routinely exceeded 30 MPG. GM stifling innovation is a major reason and perfect example for higher energy prices.

[lookout123]

Today, GM's Rick Wagoner was talking about GM products doing a major increase - 23 MPG.

Wagoner is an asshat, but no reason for you to be. You didn't say it, but you seem to imply that is for GM cars. That number includes the light trucks (1/2 ton and smaller) which would logically carry with it a lower than expected average. No, I don't like GM products I just despise sanctimonious liars more.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Wagoner is an asshat, but no reason for you to be.

Everything I have posted is what your best friend and an honest person would say. Nothing posted here by me is typical of an asshat. If you don't think so, well, thank you for your honesty and sorry you don't know what honesty looks like.

Half ton pickup is a perfect example of why GM products consume so much energy wastefully. A pickup properly designed would be front wheel drive (drive wheels should be located where most of the vehicle's weight is located), would weight less than a passenger car (pickups don't have therefore don't need more weight than a same size car), would be much lower, and would have higher ground clearance like a Humvee.

But that means a pickup must be designed. Pickups are a hodgepodge thrown together without integrating the design. Why are pickups so high but have so little ground clearance? Consuming all that more space and adding additional steel (that adds weight but does not increase strength) are easier to design and build.

Why is that pickup truck bed so high? If should be only half as high while the pickup has more ground clearance. But again, that would require an integrated design, using front wheel drive, and stop using simpler parts from other older vehicles.

Of course, an integrated design would mean more engineering. Better is to cut costs, keep the truck heavy, make it higher (to appease egos), and still use those 1968 technology drive trains and engines. Then a pickup that could easily sell at a profit for maybe $12,000 can be hyped into a $25,000 truck.

Pickups are a perfect example of obsolete technology vehicles, grossly overweight, with poor ground clearance for a vehicle so high - but hyped like another poor technology product - Harley Davidson motorcycles. GM makes a $5000 profit on pickups. Why make them better, fuel efficient, with the bed at a respectable height, and so much less weight including front wheel drive? Profits on the poor technology vehicle can be hyped even using fancy interiors for a $5000 and $10000 profit. GM profit on cars is estimated to be as high as $300. Better to keep hyping that obsolete technology pickup as 'cool'.

No reason for a pickup to be rear wheel drive - except that it maximizes profits using same 1968 technology engines. No innovation and a hyped image resulting in higher profits. Why is that pickup bed so ridiculously high? Why does a truck with so little weight so much? A properly design pickup should have better fuel economy than a mid sized car. The whole back end is empty space. But that means engineering the truck.

[Undertoad]

GM management is so misguided as to even believe and preach hydrogen as a fuel.

You failed to pay attention to what I posted earlier. Honda believes in and preaches hydrogen as a fuel -- their HYDROGEN car starts selling in California this month!!!

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest get the second one in California

[lookout123]

what you fail to understand is that it doesn't matter if a truck is the cutting edge technology, if it isn't what the consumer wants to buy. Some people buy their trucks for actual work. Some people buy them for legitimate recreation purposes. Most people buy them because that is what they like. They like the way they look and the way they drive. If a company veers too far from that they lose the customer loyalty.

Customers want what they want and they won't let you tell them what they want. If customers really cared about fuel economy and technology the H2 would have never sold a single unit. We would all drive a Prius for daily drivers and work trucks would be small panel vans with fuel sipping engines. That isn't America. Maybe it will be someday, but not today.

GM's management sucks, but you act like they have a public that won't buy the product because we're all waiting for the next technological marvel. People buy cars that they like the looks of, that fit their lifestyle, and fit within their budget. Anything else is icing on the cake.

You are going to have to take your engineer's blinders off and try to understand the world around you is a world full of humans, not machines. Your ideas on technology and products may be correct 90% of the time but you miss the bigger picture 99% of the time.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You failed to pay attention to what I posted earlier. Honda believes in and preaches hydrogen as a fuel -- their HYDROGEN car starts selling in California this month!!!

Yes, CA had a law that all but required all cars to run on hydrogen. That law was eventually repealed. But Honda finished the design anyway. Honda and Mercedes have hydrogen powered cars just like Honda also has walking and running Robots. Honda has the product that some governments threatened to the require. And the work could eventually lead to some other technologies - where the fuel cell is a replacement for the NiMH battery. Honda finished a design that was original only justified by CA laws. The Honda hydrogen car will be sold much like a trophy (as was the Insight or S2000). But hydrogen as a fuel obviously makes no sense.

I did not ignore your post. It just was not relevant once basic thermodydnamics are known. Selling this experimental technology is an opportunity to refine that technology. Even though hydrogen as a fuel makes no sense, the technology could lead to something useful by testing this technology on some consumers. Hydrogen as a fuel never made sense, as should have long been obvious.

Hydrogen as a fuel makes as much sense as our mandatory ethanol nonsense.