Death of the American Automobile Industry

[pain]

Speaking as one who was born and raised in Michigan, and whose entire family, most of my friends' folks, and nearly everyone I knew or met that lived in Michigan was in some way or another supported by the Big 3 automakers, I can say with confidence, that they haven't a *clue* what the American public wants. They never had to bother before.

Why? Because for many, *many* years, they told *us* what we wanted. And we, the sheeple, (this is a generalization of Americans at large, and I note that there are many exceptions to the market-driven *average* person) ate it up and bought what they told us to buy. During the heyday of cheap, abundant gas, we bought those big gas guzzlers. I can't bow out of this, I did it too. I've always loved Mustangs. I've owned 2. I'd love to get me a Saleen, but I just can't justify the gas vs. the fun right now. Now that the worm (or the economy) has turned, and suddenly we are being forced to stop and consider that while Hummers are cool, can I really afford the $400/month of gas I'd spend driving it to work? there are a *lot* of folks who blindly bought into the 'impress your friends with your Hummer' ads, and are now stuck in upside-down loans because the trade-in value is in free-fall.

However, the Big 3 are nothing if not resilient, and they're re-tooling as fast as possible. They're learning they have to win our business now. Tho, I have to say, the recent Ford commercial that touts, "Our quality is up to that of Toyota now" makes me cringe. What marketing dildo put *that* out there, and why hasn't the guy to ok'd it to go live been fired??? That doesn't make me want to buy Ford, it makes me think, "Oh, maybe I should look at Toyota".

Me? I've got:

- The venerable 1995 full-size Ford Bronco XLT 4x4 w/ 351 engine (ahh, Detroit iron!!) (13 MPG), with 200,000+ miles, running on a re-built engine and tranny <--this will likely be my daughter's car until we can get her something else
- My beloved 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX wagon (love this car!!!) with 120,000 miles, still running strong! (20-28 mpg)
- Our trailer puller/hay hauler - 2006 Dodge RAM 3500 Turbo Diesel (19 mpg hwy) with around 40K miles. This stays parked except when we go to shoots and camping trips
- The new baby (and my car now) - 2008 Toyota RAV4 (<1000 miles), which should get around 23 city, near 30 highway (and runs regular!!)

 

[Muirghein Tarot]

There is a car company in europe that is working on the idea of a compressed air car. two tanks under the car filled up at your home from a compressor give the car about 120 mile range. Sounds good till you see it. It's smaller than most sub compacts around the size of a cooper mini. Seats three small adults.

Lets flip this idea around some. Lets take a car the size of a 50s Chevy or a big modern SUV put that type of engine in it. Replace that 24 gallon gas tank with a two sided air tank. Put an air compressor with an electric motor in the back of the vehicle, now put a solar panel on that huge roof.

the solar panel gives the compressor's motor it's power on sunny days, a large battery on cloudy. Unlike the idea of solar or batter powered cars your not trying to power the whole car from a dead stop with them, just the 'what?" 20hp compressor motor. The compressor fills up both sides of the tank from the moment it starts to get light in the morning. You use one side of the tank till its done then flip to the other one. The first one gets a recharge from the compressor while your running off the second side of the tank

you have a car that is powered by the sun, with unlimited range, and seats 10. Build them out of the modern composites so their lighter and, an even less powerful motor would give that powerful acceleration we all want.

There are probably a dozen reasons why this wouldn't work quite as easily as I have put it down, the first that comes to mind is what do you do when the sun goes down, but it's one idea that's outside the 'fuel' box we seem to be stuck in. Some of the ideas that are out there are not much better, (a car run off a tank of compressed hydrogen "shudder") using corn as a fuel when there are still people starving in some parts of the world.

have a laugh at the high school drops out idea but then think where are the high IQ people and what are they doing to fix this problem their buying stock in the gas companies.

one pirate's opinion

Tarot :icon_pirat:

 

[jt852]

Compressed air cars periodically keep reappearing as though they're something new, but nobody has ever been able to solve the infrastructure problem yet, or deploy a critical mass to encourage the development.

So, lets examine your idea of a solar powered air car. There's a reason we don't have an unlimited range car that runs on pure solar yet. Its just simply impractical. To run your hypothetical 20HP compressor (I have no idea if this is realistically what it would take), you would need roughly 1200 square feet of solar panels. Anything less and you will be having a net energy loss when you drive the vehicle. (for those that want to check the math, 1HP=756Watts, and typical solar panel efficiency is about 12Watts/ft^2)

Since the vehicle is obviously incapable of continuous driving on solar alone, lets store the energy somehow. Except that compressing air is actually fairly inefficient and results in substantial losses from heating the compressed air, as well as friction within the compressor. We're much better off just storing the electricity that solar panels provide in a battery. This puts us right back to where we currently are with battery powered electric vehicles.

I also don't understand people's fear of hydrogen. Sure, its flammable, but you know what, so is gasoline. And unlike gasoline, hydrogen is lighter than air so in the event of a leak or accident, hydrogen will rise away from the ground and be rapidly dissipated by even the slightest breeze. Gasoline vapors on the other hand are heavier than air and will tend to concentrate in low spots. However, I won't pretend that hydrogen is the miracle fuel some people claim it is. Right now, just about every method of producing hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. However there are alternative methods that don't require them. Additionally, its extremely difficult to make a hydrogen tank that can effectively keep hydrogen in a gaseous state, but again, there is work being done to store it in a solid and release it through reversible chemical reactions.

 

[Arjan]

guess there are more innovative things besides the compressed gas etc.

take a look at a concept car from BMW (car with a skin!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnd9VsoETrM

 

[pain]

There are a lot of good ideas out there, and some of them have been floating around for 20-30 years. Problem is, the Big Three would either buy the idea up and bury it, buy the *inventor* up and bury him, or just make the guy/idea disappear. They have way too much invested in fossil fuels to let the American auto industry move away from what they're pushing.

Sad, isn't it? Fortunately, the Big Three have less and less power to force trends in this country, and now with the hybrid movement finally making some chinks in their armor, I'm hoping that we'll start to see some real advancements in car technology. I'm hoping that the Toyota RAV4 is the last gas-burner I'll ever buy......

 

[Angus]

Update

Communication with Ford Customer Service:

"If I am interested in a Ford vehicle, please contact the sales department to discuss the many models currently available in the U.S., one of which will almost certainly satisfy your needs. "
"But I would like a Mondeo, or at least the opportunity to have one."
"We are sorry, but there are no plans to manufacture that model for the U.S. market."
"Why?"
"Because we already have a line of vehicles that are currently made for the U.S. market."
"Why not the Mondeo?"
"Because it does not fit the current U.S. market."
"How did Ford come to that conclusion?"
"Because it is made for the European market."
" <long pause> So your conclusion that the Mondeo will not sell in the U.S. is because it is made in Europe?"
" Yes."
"Thank you. Goodbye."

 

[CBBaron]

There are a lot of good ideas out there, and some of them have been floating around for 20-30 years. Problem is, the Big Three would either buy the idea up and bury it, buy the *inventor* up and bury him, or just make the guy/idea disappear. They have way too much invested in fossil fuels to let the American auto industry move away from what they're pushing.

Sad, isn't it? Fortunately, the Big Three have less and less power to force trends in this country, and now with the hybrid movement finally making some chinks in their armor, I'm hoping that we'll start to see some real advancements in car technology. I'm hoping that the Toyota RAV4 is the last gas-burner I'll ever buy......

I think you have a slight misconception about the engineering challenges to replacing the oil powered ICE (internal combustion engine).
Gasoline and diesel store a very large amount of energy is a small volume of liquid that is easy to handle. It is also fairly inexpensive to produce this fuel source and distribute it. Much of that reason is because the infrastructure is already in place.
The ICE is a reasonably efficient mechanism form transforming the energy from chemical potential to mechanical energy. It handles a wide variety of environmental situations and performance situations.
Combined they make a portable power source for an auto that is difficult to best. Even today hybrids do not beat straight ICE combinations as a cost effective solution.
As fuel prices increase however alternative energy sources become more economical.

The purpose of most auto companies is to sell more vehicles with a better profit margin. If some technology was available that would allow them to produce a less expensive car that outperformed the competition then they would jump all over it. However most technologies that might make significant differences in fuel efficiencies either cost much more to manufacture or hurt vehicle acceleration. The majority of auto buyers would not make that tradeoff when fuel was cheap. Even today at $4 a gallon gas it would take nearly 100k miles to pay for a hybrid vehicle over the equivalent straight ICE.

As for selling Euro cars in the US market, it costs a considerable amount of money to qualify a car from a safety and EPA regulations to sell a car in the US market. It also costs money to ship a car from Europe or to retool US plants for production. If that Ford ends up being priced at $30k+ it probably won't sell enough to make a profit in the market. The decision may have been wrong but the executives have alot more information about the situation than we do and the decision is much more complicated than you might first think.

All that said, I still do not like most of the choices I have for transportation options. Luckily I can build a very nice commuter bicycle for a reasonable price. I have been commuting and running many errands by bicycle for the last 4+ years. That combined with living in a neighborhood that is close to work, schools and shopping mean that my family spends much less on gasoline than the average American family. Its still more than I would like but gas prices have not made a big impact in our budget.

Craig

 

[Angus]

As for selling Euro cars in the US market, it costs a considerable amount of money to qualify a car from a safety and EPA regulations to sell a car in the US market. It also costs money to ship a car from Europe or to retool US plants for production. If that Ford ends up being priced at $30k+ it probably won't sell enough to make a profit in the market. The decision may have been wrong but the executives have alot more information about the situation than we do and the decision is much more complicated than you might first think.

Questions on this point then. What costs more, designing and testing a new vehicle, or certifying it for use in the U.S. market? Then, how much does it really cost to retool production for a new model? You are probably correct that the heads of Ford probably are working with information that we do not have access to. But, since they know that BMW and Merc are selling big here, and they already have a vehicle that bears some of the same aspects of those two, what can it possibly be that is a major barrier to trying to sell it here?

As for alternate fuel vehicles, I am excited to see what the manufacturers come up with, but am not holding my breath. I think electric vehicles is the future, but they need to have cheaper energy production (Fusion is the answer but is probably 15 years away at least), and more efficient and lighter batteries.

One thing I do notice is the number of cars in the morning with only one occupant. If we can get more people to carpool, the number of vehicles on the road will drop dramatically, which will result in less need for gas (dropping prices due to supply and demand), less smog, less wear on the road infrastructure etc. etc.

Angus

 

[ucflumberjack]

Ive not done enough research or owned enough vehicles to contribute much other than that i think that hydrogen will be the next popular fuel.

"hydrogengarage.com" i have a friend that actually has made one the things on this site and she claime it works and has increased her fuel efficency 50%. i havnt tried it but i dont think shes making it up.

california is going pretty hard after the hydrogen idea..... well ... arnold is...... and ive seen it work myself in small model cars. my high school even had partial power from a hydrogen electricity cell. plug power is the company that im partially farmiliar with just from the model cars and the high school but there are others out there that are doing research to fogure out how to make hydrogen fuel a real possibility. literally millions a year are being poured into the research by the various companies.

 

[jt852]

As far as the onboard generators producing hydrogen from water, they won't improve mileage. In fact, for them to improve mileage, they need to violate the law of conservation of energy. The thing that is commonly forgotten is that the electricity to power the generator needs to come from somewhere. Drawn from the battery like in all systems that I'm aware of, that ultimately places an extra load on the engine through the alternator resulting in a mileage decrease. Theoretically, the electrolysis of water is at most 94% efficient, and thats using a specialized reactor. The more common homemade type is closer to 60%. The rest of the electrical energy ultimately ends up wasted as heat.

Usually why people that install such devices claim to see improvements is from a placebo effect. When someone installs this sort of device, they're looking to stretch the mileage so they unconsciously do things like gentler acceleration and more coasting combined with less aggressive braking. These subconscious efforts add up to produce increased mileage. If this really did work as claimed, don't you think that either cars would come with it standard or there would be a huge aftermarket industry built up around building and installing them? Basically if it sounds too good, it probably is.

 

[beninak]

Let me disclaimer this post by saying quite clearly that I serve in the US Air Force, and am a F'n patriot who bleeds red, white, and blue. :usa2:

I have always bought American cars strictly on principle. My most recent car, a Cadillac Catera that I got a very good deal on, however was a total lemon. After numerous repairs, I finally got so frustrated with it and the dealership that I got it from, and all of the "certified GM Goodwrench technichians" that worked on it that I decided to cut my losses and get something else. I really kind of wanted a truck, but I vowed never to do business with that GM dealership aagain so I shopped at the Ford dealership in town. (unlike where some of you live we only have approximately one dealership for each auto maker).

The salsemen and pricing schemes at the Ford dealership were sooo shady I finally got frustrated with them too and went shopping elsewhere about town.

Anyways, long story short I wound up at Toyota and between being impressed with their business practices, customer service, quality of cars, and because of the current fuel prices, I'm currently driving a Toyota Prius


which is why I can appreciate this parable about the auto industry in the US...
(not meant to offend anyone, just to explain why after 14 years of driving American cars, I've finally bought a "Japanese" car and have never been more satisfied with a purchase)



Toyota and Ford decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to
investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.



Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents, and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the one person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners, and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes, and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment.

The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India .
Sadly, The End.

Here's something else to think about:
Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US . The last quarter's results:

TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.

 

[CBBaron]

As far as the onboard generators producing hydrogen from water, they won't improve mileage. In fact, for them to improve mileage, they need to violate the law of conservation of energy.

That was my first thought also. However thats not completely true. Gasoline engines only convert around 25% of the energy available in the gas to usable mechanical energy. If by injecting hydrogen and oxygen into the engine they could improve the combustion efficiency then you could improve the efficiency of the vehicle without violating laws. I have read about a company working on introducing this type of system into long haul semis. That is one area where fuel efficiency has a big payoff and where extra weight and cost are less significant. My understanding is that the expense of the system was still cost prohibitive for smaller lesser used vehicles like autos.

Craig

 

[CBBaron]

As for selling Euro cars in the US market, it costs a considerable amount of money to qualify a car from a safety and EPA regulations to sell a car in the US market. It also costs money to ship a car from Europe or to retool US plants for production. If that Ford ends up being priced at $30k+ it probably won't sell enough to make a profit in the market. The decision may have been wrong but the executives have alot more information about the situation than we do and the decision is much more complicated than you might first think.

Questions on this point then. What costs more, designing and testing a new vehicle, or certifying it for use in the U.S. market? Then, how much does it really cost to retool production for a new model? You are probably correct that the heads of Ford probably are working with information that we do not have access to. But, since they know that BMW and Merc are selling big here, and they already have a vehicle that bears some of the same aspects of those two, what can it possibly be that is a major barrier to trying to sell it here?

I'm guessing here but it may be that the car if brought to the American market would cost significantly more than the BMW and Mercedes models. Therefore they don't expect they would sell the quantities necessary to pay for the retooling and qualifications necessary and still make a profit. However they may be planning on introducing a related model here in the future if the market appears to be shifting. I know all of the major manufacturers are reconsidering plans given the market shift from SUVs to smaller cars. Out local paper pointed out the days of the Big 3 losing money on each small car sold will have to change soon. I guess there are already adjustments in plans to have the next gen small cars from europe be the basis for small cars in the US. Currently the small cars sold by GM and Ford in Europe are considerably more up level and expensive than those sold in the US.

Craig

 

[Angus]

Here's something else to think about:
Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US . The last quarter's results:

TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.

Not wanting to kick the hornets nest too much on this one, and correct me if I am wrong, but the big 3 moving production out of the U.S., I think, has more to do with moving away from the Unions. If I am correct, the Toyota plants are non-Union, and therefore can manufacture here without all of the additional costs that are forced on companies by Union pressure, e.g. not allowed to fire poor performers, pay for performance, eliminating redundant positions etc.

Unions were, 100 years ago, necessary. Since then, the courts ensure fair employment practices, leaving nothing for the Unions to do except destroy industries. England used to have steel and coal industries until they became too expensive to maintain. A guy I knew in England worked on a coal sizing line. Then they invented a machine that did it automatically. The union made sure this guy was not fired (which is good), but he was also not allowed to be moved to another position as he would then be taking away a job from someone else. Instead, he sat in a chair next to the machine for 8 hours a day reading and getting paid. When it costs more to make something than you can sell the product for, you are finished. The big 3 have been hurt by Unions, and the only way to get away from them is to move.

Angus

 

[jt852]

Craig,
You're indeed right that the hydrogen can cause a more complete and efficient combustion. This is exactly why propane injection systems are used on many heavy duty diesel vehicles. HOWEVER, while it does cause a more complete combustion it still takes more energy to create the hydrogen onboard than you get out from the increased efficiency. If we generated the hydrogen somewhere else and simply filled a tank, then it certainly could work.

 

[GrantLee63]

Perhaps Ford will start building your Mondeo here in the States Angus:

http://tinyurl.com/665xaf

- GL63

 

[Angus]

Nice!

Thanks for hte update. Let's see what happens on Thursday then.

Angus

 

[welder]

1985 CUCV 6.2 diesel (military 4x4 chevy k30) 22mpg
2002 dodge 2500 Cummins 21mpg
2005 jeep liberty diesel 27mpg

 

[fatbloke]

Not wanting to kick the hornets nest too much on this one, and correct me if I am wrong, but the big 3 moving production out of the U.S., I think, has more to do with moving away from the Unions. If I am correct, the Toyota plants are non-Union, and therefore can manufacture here without all of the additional costs that are forced on companies by Union pressure, e.g. not allowed to fire poor performers, pay for performance, eliminating redundant positions etc.

Unions were, 100 years ago, necessary. Since then, the courts ensure fair employment practices, leaving nothing for the Unions to do except destroy industries. England used to have steel and coal industries until they became too expensive to maintain. A guy I knew in England worked on a coal sizing line. Then they invented a machine that did it automatically. The union made sure this guy was not fired (which is good), but he was also not allowed to be moved to another position as he would then be taking away a job from someone else. Instead, he sat in a chair next to the machine for 8 hours a day reading and getting paid. When it costs more to make something than you can sell the product for, you are finished. The big 3 have been hurt by Unions, and the only way to get away from them is to move.

Angus

Now that just sounds like a history lesson, from a "right wing" teacher Angus, a.k.a. FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt).

When unions were first thought of, it was about protecting the work force from exploitation. So called "free markets" still exploit whatever their given area is. What do you think the "credit crunch" and "sub-prime" business is all about ?

The move away from traditional areas of manufacturing, is more to do with enabling those industries to continue to exploit. I'm unsure where "US Automotive" are moving too, but Western Europe industry is tending to move to Eastern Europe, India, China, etc, because not just wages, but working conditions, taxes, land and building costs, etc etc etc are lower and/or less restricted.

Think on why it is, that big corporations fight so hard to prevent the news of exploitation of any type, becoming common knowledge/public domain. Nike and the various scandals about low wages and child labour. Or Coca-Cola and the extraction of water in already parched areas of India, etc etc.

It's quite simple, exploitation and greed are "the nature of the beast". Whether it's the imaginary concept of the value of paper money, or the harder, more tangible currency of gold, diamond or other "valuables". If shareholders are involved (whether it's a sole owner or an incorporated business/PLC etc), then it's the increase in value and reputation of the company that's more important to the senior exec's, rather than the actual quality/reliability of actual goods and services.

Hence, "the co-operative" idea is probably the fairest one i.e. everyone involved in "it" owns a share. As long as they enjoy are reasonable standard of living for their particular location etc etc.

Of course, it doesn't stop greed/exploitation etc creeping in, it just takes longer, as the varying political influences nullify the excesses of the "left and right". In the same way, governments are often "fairer" if they're coalition, rather than one way or the other.

In the longer term, once the so called "third world" has gone through the same processes that the 1st and 2nd worlds already have, it will have come full circle and may then be "cost effective" to produce in the original areas - the only thing that might prevent that is the availability of natural resources. They're expensive to move. The "thinkers" are easy, they can be bought and sold like any other commodity.

To move back to the original point though, using "semi's" as an example. Are any of the "US makers" still actually owned by US companies ? I understand that most, if not all, are now owned by the European manufacturers. As for cars.....well I understand that maybe Ford or GM might be the biggest for cars, but some of the Japanese companies actually dwarf them because they are so much more diverse in their range of products. I might be wrong, but that's how I understood it.

It's a logical conclusion of capitalism, that either one company "owns it all" or owns so much of "it", that it has undue influence over "the market". Then when they get caught out exploiting whatever, it's governments that step in and raise legislation, breaking them up until it starts all over again (again, unless the governments raise further legislation to prevent "monopoly").

That's my 2 cents (OK, maybe 50 cents) worth : :laughing7:

regards

fatbloke

 

[liff]

Sorry to kick up an older topic....

Buisness exploiting labor and labor exploiting buisness are two sides of the same problem.

If labor says, "Pay us more or we will stop working." How in anyones mind is that statement not Extortion?

I think Fatbloke has it right when he says the 'collective' way of buisness is probably best. Everyone gets paid better when the buisness does good, and everyone gets paid worse when the buisness does bad. Utopia in my world right there.

However, Fatbloke has it wrong when taking potshots/insults/labeling other people in statements like:

Now that just sounds like a history lesson, from a "right wing" teacher Angus, a.k.a. FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt).