U.S. Automakes and Unions Want Bailout - But With No Environmental Conditions

[Median Democrat]

The U.S. auto industry is on the verge of bankruptcy, yet they still stubbornly oppose any efforts to increase fuel efficiency standards. Amazing! U.S. carmakers are gettig clobbered by more fuel efficient competition, yet the auto industry refuses to agree to standards that might make them more competitive. Instead, they want a un-conditional subsidy. Shoot, let the auto industry go bankrupt due to their stubborn stupidity.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11auto.html?hp

/snip

Organized labor is not the only interest group with influence in the Democratic Party that is weighing in as Mr. Obama plans his transition. Environmentalists are adamant that any aid be conditioned on the auto industry’s dropping of its opposition to higher fuel-efficiency standards and investing more in new technology. That puts them at odds with unions, who oppose any strings, leaving it to Mr. Obama to mediate.

Both as a candidate and now as president-elect, Mr. Obama has been in contact with former Vice President Al Gore, who last year won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change. In a column published in Sunday’s New York Times, Mr. Gore wrote that “we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new start-up companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available.”

Mr. Obama has said that he wants to meet with the Big Three auto executives, but advisers say no meeting is scheduled. Among his advisers who have communicated with the industry chiefs and their representatives are Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s economic policy director; John D. Podesta, the head of Mr. Obama’s transition; and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, an Obama adviser who is under consideration to be Treasury secretary again.

/snip

[TomInTib]

1. Curb count....

Yesterday, I stepped out onto the sidewalk an counted the nearest 25 vehicles.

3 US vehicles

1 Ford Tempo (with a fully deteriorated paintjob)
1 Ford something else (probably made in Mexico)
1 Harley Road King

All the rest, somewhere else.

[madrchsod]

2. good idea-- let them go broke

tens of thousands of workers with no jobs and billions in lost wages. factor in the hundreds of millions in unemployment and other government help...yup let them go bankrupt.

[NickB79]

5. Baling them out without improving fuel efficiency requirements means they'll still fail later

We give them $25 billion now with no higher CAFE standards, they make stuff that is only marginally better than what they used to make, and 5 years down the line Asian imports will be beating them down again when gas is $8/gal.

Without forcing them to move into the 21st century, any bailout will simply delay their demise. Better environmental standards now will give them the advantage they need later to compete successfully.

[Median Democrat]

13. Exactly - Why GiveThem Money To Make Cars No One Wants To Buy? More Excursions?

Here is what offends me, the Big Three want a bailout, but are STILL fighting higher fuel efficiency standards. In the meantime, Honda and Toyota have clearly taken the lead on making such cars. If the Big Three refuses to agree to some sort of plan to dramatically increase fuel efficiency, then why save them when they are going to go out of business eventually. Oil is not getting any less scarce.

[StreetKnowledge]

20. This post is Garbage

Have you seen Toyota's latest truck offerings? They are the biggest tanks ever in that market! The Corolla and Cobalt are in the same ballpark on fuel efficiency, the Malibu and Fusion top the Camry and Accord, the list goes on.

Oh, the Prius, right? The Volt will wipe the floor with the Prius. This idea that the imports are leading the way on fuel efficiency is a myth, period. They are little different than Detroit is.

[spoony]

23. Yeah but if they don't buy that myth

then they have to stop trashing the Big 3/UAW from their mighty pedestals.

[StreetKnowledge]

27. Good point

And we know that far too many American liberals love to demonize Detroit. Unfairly, and stupidly.

Oh, and another point about Detroit - they actually pay to build new plants. The imports usually get monster handouts. By monster, in one case I'm talking $250 million+.

[NickB79]

28. Then why are they resisting higher fuel economy requirements?

:shrug:

[StreetKnowledge]

52. CAFE is a bad law.

CAFE does nothing to help fuel economy, it just forces automakers to make more efficient vehicles. That doesn't change customer demand. And the fact that pickups and SUVs were exempted killed the large family car as everyone moved to the SUVs. Unintended consequences, anyone?

[ContinentalOp]

54. Haha, um... consumers DO demand better fuel economy. Haven't you been paying attention?

That's why dealers can't keep the Prius in stock and GM is going bankrupt.

[StreetKnowledge]

56. This is true

And they do want better fuel economy. And they can get it from cars like the Astra. The problem is that GM carries far too much of an overhead - too many dealers, product lines and fuel inefficient cars. Having people say they suck and the imports are always better and that GM should go bankrupt and die is not helpful.

Did they look too shortsightedly for way too long? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean they still are. If they were, the Volt woulda never been considered, would it?

[blue_onyx]

61. But we just increased fuel standards (which Toyota fought against too)

I agree, we should make sure they use any bailout money to invest in and produce green vehicles. But why not tax carbon rather than focusing only on increasing fuel economy requirements? It seems silly to only go after the auto companies, which only account for 1/3 of greenhouse gases. The burden of solving our environmental and energy issues shouldn't be placed solely on the auto companies.

[ContinentalOp]

30. Look at this list of the most fuel efficient cars of 2009.

I see a Pontiac and a Saturn. The rest are all foreign.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml

And the Volt? Please. Don't make me laugh. You really want to compare a concept car to a vehicle that's already been in production for 11 years? If the Volt ever goes into production (I seriously doubt it) Toyota will have a plug-in Prius out by that time anyway. And by then they'll be manufacturing the Prius in the US and the prices will probably come down and the supply issues will be worked out.

[StreetKnowledge]

55. Those are the most efficient in each class, not overall

Overall, I don't doubt that the tinny, featherweight Versa, Yaris and Smart get great mileage. But consider this - how far away is the Saturn Astra, Chevrolet Aveo and Cobalt, Ford Focus (and the coming Fiesta - the Fit ain't got nothing on the new Fiesta, believe me) and Dodge Caliber? They all do very well in many aspects.

Ya know which company developed the technology to shut off cylinders when not in use? GM.

Ya know who is pushing turbocharging as a well of increasing the efficiency of small engines? Ford.

Most of this of well known, but you guys are ignoring it, believing the myth - and that's all it is - that all Detroit builds is fuel-guzzlers. That's wrong. And those who say no green = no $$$ are just as off the charts. The fact is that when customers want fuel-efficient vehicles, they will buy them. When they don't, they won't. Oh, and the latest Malibu is EPA ranked at 25/32 mpg - which is in lockstep with the Accord and Camry.

The Volt as well is REAL. It'll be hitting roads near you in 18 months. And after hundreds of millions in development, you better believe it will be built.

Why is it taking so long? Because GM is getting it right the first time, no mechanical problems, no breakages, no malfunctioning batteries (a problem for the early Prius), no stuff going wrong. And it's engine doesn't drive the car at all. It drives the generator, which creates electicity which drives the wheels. The Prius still has a motor driving the wheels - and as such, the Prius' gas engine will still have to deal with road and wind friction and driving habits. The Volt doesn't have to deal with these as much - which means better fuel economy.

40 mpg? Pfft. The EPA says under some conditions (highway driving mainly) it could get 100 MPG. Beat that, Toyota!

[anigbrowl]

31. Thing is, I can get a Prius or suchlike right now.

Similarly, various European carmakers (including Euro subsidiaries of US companies) offer really fuel-efficient vehicles, like 45mpg efficient. But it's hard to get them here, since efficiency standards are held down so low.

[ContinentalOp]

38. Even if the Volt does ever go into production it sounds pretty lame...

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/the-great-hybrid-showdown-chevrolet-volt-vs-toyota-prius/

The Volt is a simple series hybrid, way less technologically advanced than the Prius. It's supposed to get about 32 miles on the electric motor and then 50mpg after that. For $48k!

Compare that to the Prius, which is available right now, gets 46mpg according to the EPA (pretty accurate, I average around 47.5 on mine) and will also have plugin models coming out in the next couple of years for around $25k. Oh and those will be made in America too. There's no contest.

[Median Democrat]

43. Heck, Look At The Smart Car, Its Not Even A Hybrid!

You don't even need new technology so long as you have a well-built car with good gas mileagse. Here's the dirty secret: the Big Three make fuel efficient, well built cars in EUROPE! They just decided not to market such cars domestically.

[Median Democrat]

48. Look At The Honda Fi, While Honda Sales Are Down, Fit Sales Are Up!

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2008/11/03/daily7.html

/snip

Honda’s compact, fuel-efficient Fit jumped by a third to 6,478 vehicles from 4,868 last year. The Fit was the only Honda-division vehicle to see a sales increase for the month.

/snip

[Telly Savalas]

63. Then it certainly looks like the Big 3 are well positioned to meet

fuel efficiency and environmental standards. Hence it's kind of silly for them to be whining about the standards.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

49. They're going to fail anyway.

It's over for the American car industry. They're fifteen years behind the times and nobody wants to buy their shoddy crap. It's over save for the massive expenditure in a failed attempt to keep it afloat. It's done. Like the British car industry, it's been killed by complacency and stupidity.

[taught_me_patience]

22. Do you even understand bankruptcy?

GM is not going to completely go away. They will enter bankrupcy, continue operations, and renegotiate loans. They will get sold or emerge a much stronger company. Even if they are sold, they will likely continue to operate under the GM name until a time when they can be resold to the public. There will be some layoffs, but they will occur whether they enter bankruptcy or not. Please educate yourself on corporate bankruptcy laws.

[tsuki]

3. Does the bail-out include their foreign plants?

[JHB]

36. Now THAT's a point to bring up...

The biggest stings on any aid would be to preserve jobs on US turf. Not to China, Mexico, and Golden Parachutes, but to preserve manufacturing jobs here.

[Double T]

4. Too much big oil influence; higher fuel efficiency vehicles are mandatory NOW!

US Auto and unions want their free cake and have it spoon fed to them too. There should be no more free lunches or bailouts without hardcore conditions.

[Why Syzygy]

6. Since we are so anti-socialist. LET THEM FAIL ..

Someone knows how to make energy conscious vehicles. Let them have the market!

[Mind_your_head]

7. The "Big three" shouldn't be bailed out unless they bring BIG INNOVATIONS

to the table, right now! All of those electric car/battery patents, et al.....use 'em or lose 'em. (yeah, you prolly thought you could bury it all.....but bring out your BEST/BRIGHTEST IDEAS now or lose it all.

It's way past time to play hardball with these petulent children.

[PATRICK]

8. No go without a plan

They repressed alternative cars and their bad behavior makes a good answer impossible. A bailout will be worse than temporary if it cannot move the delayed work on the new electric cars forward. Small companies unburdened by trying to transition a dying infrastructure would do best- but they are small.

Maybe something along the lines of WWII war production transitions would be a model because peacetime factories had to convert to making weaponry.

[HPD]

9. Here's the test for the Democrats

Force the big three to adopt higher fuel efficiency. Since most Americans were against the Financial bail out, the Big three are in no position to being stubborn.

ANd the unions are in no position either considering the state of the auto company. It's simple, be grateful of the bailout money and in return make more fuel efficient cars. Duh. What's wrong with them?

Or instead...give that $25 Billion to Tesla Motors...I think with the right capital, they can one day soon make an affordable all electric family car.

[B Calm]

10. The unions need money too?

[ixion]

11. As with the others, I'm against a bailout...allow American innovation to the reigns

because the "big 3" have been strangling innovation for decades. High efficiency batteries and carburetors and motors have been killed in the crib by these swine, and now they want us to pay to support their continued tyranny.

To hell with them.

I fully understand that there would be an unemployment back lash, but in the long run it will mean better jobs and innovative companies that are finally allowed to take lead.

I blame these guys for the lack of flying cars. I was promised flying cars. :evilgrin:

[Romulox]

12. You "free market" hypocrites need to take to the streets NOW to protest the $140 billion AIG bailout

[Median Democrat]

14. Romulux - An Anti-Environmentalist Hack?

I would think that you would agree to some support for higher fuel efficiency standards. Perhaps you are also denying the existence and causes of global warming. As for the AIG bailout, at least the U.S. has an equity stake, and the bailouot comes with conditions. What is the auto industry offering? Nothing. They still oppose higher fuel efficiency standards.

[Romulox]

19. Median Democrat - A Corporatist Hack?

"I would think that you would agree to some support for higher fuel efficiency standards."

Nonsense. If Wall Street gets money no strings attached, why shouldn't Detroit?

"Perhaps you are also denying the existence and causes of global warming."

You know, it must be easy to win an argument in which you are the sole participant. Where do you get off ascribing viewpoints to me that I've never expressed? :wtf:

"As for the AIG bailout, at least the U.S. has an equity stake"

Actually, the equity stake is a recent (as of this week) addition. The $100 billion previously pledged did not include any equity stake. I set aside for a moment the question of what an "equity stake" in an insolvent company might be worth...

"the bailouot comes with conditions. "

Ummm, what conditions? :shrug:

"What is the auto industry offering? "

Actually, the $25 billion in loans that the government is proposing are specifically earmarked for updating the capacity to make fuel efficient vehicles. :hi:

[Median Democrat]

45. You Seem To Miss The Part That The US Automakers Oppose Those Conditions...

While AIG is stuck with the conditions you mention.

[Telly Savalas]

66. "Corporatist"? The Big 3 are mom 'n' pop organizations?

If there is minimal default risk on these loans then they should have no problem securing them from private lenders. Why should taxpayers be on the hook for this exposure?

And isn't the crux of your argument that because Washington was stupid enough to dish out cash to AIG with no strings attached that any asshole asking for money should get the same treatment?

[Romulox]

67. Read between the lines: he's trying to figure out how to defend the Wall Street bailout w/o

allowing any monies to go to working people.

"And isn't the crux of your argument that because Washington was stupid enough to dish out cash to AIG with no strings attached that any asshole asking for money should get the same treatment?"

Yep. Do you sense a flaw in the argument? Because if you do, shouldn't you be protesting the ongoing bailout of AIG instead of a potential bailout of the Big 3? :eyes:

[spoony]

24. That's like saying we'll bail out homeowners

on their foreclosures, but in exchange they have to tile their bathrooms in gold. Where the fuck do you think the money is going to come from? Bailouts will be used to maintain day to day manufacturing, so how exactly are they supposed to suddenly find the money to satisfy YOU? If they HAD that money they wouldn't NEED a bailout. Fuck!

[Ganja Ninja]

15. Let them fail and then make a deal with the companies that come in and buy the remains.

Don't give money to these losers. They deserve to die. Give the companies that buy up their remains the loans.

[flvegan]

16. Bailout in stages.

The article states that they need immediate cash for payroll and expenses. Fair enough loan to make if they stipulate that they'll sit down with Obama and his admin to work through an agreement that isn't unconditional. Make them agree to higher mpg standards w/in 3 years, plug-in hybrid options available for 50% of the models within a reasonable time. Make them agree to create jobs for Americans and end further outsourcing of jobs. IOW, keep the beast on life support, knowing the plug can be pulled if deemed unfit for salvage.

Sack the Boards and the upper level execs and transfer power over the company to the workers. A bailout that is in truth largely a loan, when done reasonably is to me, a good idea.

[crazylikafox]

17. The President of GM is a major global warming denier

Sorry, I can't remember the idiot's name

[Median Democrat]

18. GM's Bob Lutz Says Global Warming Is A "Crock of Shit" - Why Save GM?

Will a bailout save GM from this kind of anti-science stupidity:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2237297620080222

/snip

DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a "total crock of s---," saying his views had no bearing on GM's commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.

Lutz, GM's outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.

In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday, Lutz said those "spewing virtual vitriol" at him for minimizing the threat of climate change were "missing the big picture."

"What they should be doing in earnest is forming opinions, not about me but about GM and what this company is doing that is ... hugely beneficial to the causes they so enthusiastically claim to support," he said in a posting titled, "Talk About a Crock."

GM, the largest U.S. automaker by sales and market share, has been trying to change its image after taking years of heat for relying too much on sales of large sport-utility vehicles like the Hummer and not moving faster on fuel-saving hybrid technology.

"My thoughts on what has or hasn't been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors," he wrote.

/snip

[ContinentalOp]

35. Lutz is a total sleazebag. Did you see him on Colbert? He was supposedly there to promote the Volt

and yet he said stuff like this:

COLBERT: Is it sexy? Will it get me laid?
LUTZ: I think so... you might have, um--
COLBERT: It might change the type of woman I'm attracting, maybe, exactly--
LUTZ: You're gonna get a lot of very nice, no make-up, environmentally--

His "promotion" of the Volt was totally half-hearted and phoney. Anyone who thinks that GM is really going to put a decent plug in hybrid into production with people like this at the helm is dreaming.

[spoony]

21. Workers before trees.

Sorry, those are my priorities. It seems like in a lot of these threads, the OPs' dreamland is a place of slightly less pollution and three-mile long soup lines.

And I love when people act like the US auto industry is the primary culprit in killing the environment, as they sit in too-big houses heated by filthy coal burners planning their next trip on a 747 to China or something nearly as hypocritical.

[anigbrowl]

40. Workers get hit by environmental degradation just as much as trees.

This false dilemma is BS. It sis not a case of saving the economy or saving the environment, and I reject the idea that America's economic wellbeing depends on churning out dirty inefficient vehicles, just as I reject the idea that we should unleash massive subsidies to bring back the horse and buggy industries.

The US auto industry is in the toilet largely because they failed to adapt to the realities of the marketplace and were caught with their pants down when the oil price went through the ceiling earlier this year. Although it's fallen way back for now, it'll go up again because recessions don't last forever and we still have a limited supply of cheap oil. To the extent that they've made their vehicles more efficient, they've offset much of it by adding features that people don't especially want to pay for. I have no idea why anyone would shell out hundreds more for a built-in video screen or two when you can get a portable DVD player for $30 or $40 at Radio shack.

If the automakers want a big pile of public cash at a low interest rate, OK...just come up with a long-term business plan that's going to be viable over the life of the loan. That's not too much to ask. UAW et al are just going to have to get with the program along with everyone else. Frankly, I surprised they're not also pushing for the auto industry to be more competitive, since having a product that sells is the best guarantee of job security.

For your information I don't in a too-big house, use much heat (I prefer insulation), or fly all over the place. I have a negative carbon footprint just by living reasonably simply and practicing some basic economies.

[Median Democrat]

42. Toyota and Honda Managed To Avoid That Choice...

I think if the Big Three are stupid enough to think that fuel efficiency does not sell, then perhaps they should fail.

[StreetKnowledge]

59. They do know that

Hence they tout it in lots of commercials. Hence their cars match their rivals in this regard.

It's just that people THINK they cannot match up. When people see that they can, the opinion tends to change.

[earth mom]

25. I want a bailout of the automakers for the sake of the Union workers, but it's a deal breaker

if they refuse to make fuel efficient cars or help the environment. :argh:

[StreetKnowledge]

26. Reality, Gentlemen

Folks, all the talk about forcing innovation is idiotic. What do you think these guys can do? One post said make half the model range plug-ins. The costs of those are beyond ludicrous. The battery technology is not anywhere near the point where those are viable alternatives to internal combustion engines, and even then modern batteries in the size needed for cars are highly expensive - we're talking $15,000-$20,000 a set here. The public perception that the big 3 only make fuel-guzzlers is straight up wrong. The imports aren't nay better than Detroit is now - in fact, they in many cases are worse. Honda is the exception, but Toyota's latest Tundra is a beast that drawfs the Silverado and F-150. And they can't sell 'em, either.

Folks, if you want more efficient vehicles, raise the price on gasoline. That's the only option that will work. When gas was $2.50 a gallon, fuel efficiency wasn't so much of a concern. When the price raced up to $4 a gallon, everyone raced to small cars, and now that the price is going down again sales or larger vehicles will probably go up again. All the automakers are going to make what the customers want, aren't they? Saying to GM "We'll give you the bailout if you blow it all on unviable technologies (and anybody thinking that they'd bury goods technology is lying through their teeth - why give away a big competitive advantage?) just puts them back where they started in a couple years, which is no good, is it?

Here's a better idea. Scrap CAFE (bad law which really did create the SUV boom) and instead charge a purchase tax on vehicles. If a car gets over 35 mpg, charge nothing. 30-35 mpg gets a $1250 tax, 25-30 mpg $2000, 20-25 mpg $3500, 15-20 mpg $5000, under 15 mpg $8000. Make this applicable to everyone who sells cars in North America. A big SUV will now cost $5000 or $8000 more. Combine that with a rise in the gas tax (say 50 cents a gallon) and you'll get a big rise in the sales of smaller cars that'll probably stay. No purchase tax on diesel-fueled vehicles - this will move the bigger trucks and SUVs to diesel power (which is a major help to their fuel economy) and will also encourage the development of newer diesel engines. (Ford and GM have been working on this for years already.)

As part of the bailout, have GM sell 2-3 of its eight North American divisions to someone else. Require that to be a private investor who is not currently in the auto industry, and make sure the federal government ensures this company is able to stay alive long enough to get new products out there. Also give Tesla a bunch to ensure their big dreams and plans come to fruition too, because they have money issues right now, too.

In addition, charge a tax on the import makers for the priviliege of selling their cars here. I don't give a damn if they have 16 plants in North America. GM has 54. Ford has 35. And all of those import plants were supported by monster handouts from federal, state and local governments - in one case, $250 million+ in handouts. They usually aren't paying as much tax as Detroit is, too. You wanna sell here? Great. But don't get mad at us when your taxpayer-supported companies start hurting our domestic industry and we answer back.

Gore's ideas about getting rid of carbon-based power in a decade is awesomely stupid - it's unaffordable, and even if it was, does everyone want nuclear reactors in their towns or neighborhoods? Or would you prefer intermittent power because of the vagrancies of wind turbines and solar cells? For some facilities such as hospitals, this is extremely dangerous. Better idea would be to promote the reliable sources that don't require fossil fuels - nuclear reactors, hydroelectric dams and where it can work, geothermal energy. Wind turbines are alright, but they aren't very reliable. Solar cells are worse still.

[Median Democrat]

46. Your Proposed Tax Alone Would Kill The US Auto Industry...

Because it would make US gas guzzlers that much more uncompetitive. The problem is that people would factor in that tax, and suddenly well-made, fuel efficient foreign cars become even more attractive relative to U.S. Models.

To make the tax workable, you would also need to offer some sort of loan to the U.S. auto industry that is funded by the tax, which can be used for re-tooling.

As for CAFE, you are referring to the SUV exception, which I believe is about to expire, but I do agree that the exception was stupid while it was in effect.

[StreetKnowledge]

53. So do US fuel-efficient vehicles

Ya might want to consider the fact that very few cars get 35 mpg or better, import or domestic. Some domestic models, notably the Chevrolet Aveo, do get that kinda mileage. The Cruze, which is due early-mid 2009 as a 2010 model, will be able of taking on anybody.

You are saying we have to force them to build efficient cars, whereas I am saying give the customer a reason to do so. If people want big cars and SUVs, they'll buy them, and if Detroit is forced out of that business by the bailout terms, then they will be more screwed than before. And note that diesel-fueled vehicles are exempt - that will move most of the big truck sales to turbodiesels, which get far better mileage than similar gasoline-fueled vehicles do.

And note that this would be part of a bailout.

[Median Democrat]

58. I Think They Would Need To Phase In A Fuel Efficiency Tax..,

Also, you mention that American automakers do make fuel efficient cars. The big problem is that they suck compared to the models they make in Europe. That's right, America's best, well-made fuel efficient cars are made in Europe. In the U.S., American consumers are stuck with bare bones economy models that stink. This is what is infuriating. American car companies are at fault for creating this stereotype that fuel efficient = economy car. The Prius and the Fit are very nice cars, which also happen to be fuel efficient. They aren't just a cheap economy model.

I recall reading that American automakers have only begun to re-tool their plants to make their European models domestically. This is good. However, in the interim, I would defer any fuel efficiency tax for a couple of years to allow American auto makers to get off the ground.

[StreetKnowledge]

62. I would agree on all of that.

It's been a mystery to me for a while why it took this long to get GM's European offerings sold in North America. Ford has a valid reason - their first attempt at this, the Contour, flopped badly. The Chevrolet Malibu is as good as the Accord or Camry in any aspect. The Volt will be as nice as the Prius, the Cruze will beat the Fit (the Astra already comes close), and this will continue.

Ford is already under fire for not bringing the European Focus here, because its better than the North American one. It won't be long until that happens. The Fusion is a very good car by any standard. New Ford models will go with smaller displacement engines and turbocharging, along with six-speed transmissions, which will improve mileage.

The American car companies are at fault for creating the small=cheap garbage, yes. But that idea went bye bye a decade ago for Detroit. They aren't as out of touch as some think they are, and what is good for them (and may be bad for the imports) is that Detroit really is growing a us vs. them mentality. The first glances of this are arriving - the six-speed automatic in the Ford Escape and in several GM models is the same unit. Ford's EcoBoost technology has GM assistance. Ford is planning out usages for GM's cylinder deactivation.

They got the message years ago. This bailout will probably be used mostly to design and build new cars, which will have better fuel efficiency than their past models, and indeed most of the imports.

[sub.theory]

29. No green = No green

If Detroit doesn't agree to completely change the way in which they do business and become a green industry we MUST NOT save them. Whatever damage occurs from the failure of the American car industry is an infinitesimal nothing compared to the catastrophe of global warming.

The Big 3 are functionally bankrupt anyway. If they don't change their business model, they are doomed anyway. No green, then no green.

[ellie]

32. Well then

Sayonara!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[spoony]

34. Oh, NOW look who wants a bailout!

:P

[ContinentalOp]

39. I'll only donate to grovelbot IF...

he swaps out those incandescent lightbulbs in his eyes to some energy efficient LEDs. :P

[spoony]

44. LOL

[Selatius]

37. Fuck it. Obama should nationalize the Big Three and then turn ownership over to the UAW.

Let the workers run the Big Three as three gigantic labor co-ops. Sack the current executive leadership.

The current executive management at these companies are unworthy of taxpayer funded bailouts. The workers are.

[ellie]

51. Yes! I love this suggestion.

[StreetKnowledge]

60. British Leyland

You want me to bring them up?

I agree on the point that plenty of GM's top brass are idiots. But nationalizing them will make a bad situation far worse, trust me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. It's the P.T. Barnum school of economics tagging us as the suckers.

Did anyone notice we're in a worldwide recession? Who the hell is going to be buying cars except the capitalists we pay to bail out?

[Median Democrat]

47. The Local Toyota Dealer Still Has A Waiting List On Prius and...

The Honda Fit is selling very well, too:

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2008/11/03/daily7.html

/snip

Honda’s compact, fuel-efficient Fit jumped by a third to 6,478 vehicles from 4,868 last year. The Fit was the only Honda-division vehicle to see a sales increase for the month.

/snip

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Alas for them. My '93, and my wife's '91, Toyotas show no sign of wearing out.

But, they do give indications that they will outlive us both.

[ContinentalOp]

57. Actually, for anyone thinking of buying a Prius, beware of the "shortages" and "waiting lists"

I think it's a bit of a scam. There is somewhat of a shortage of cars but they are out there. Many dealers are trying to use the idea of a shortage as a way to add a bogus profit on top of the MSRP. Some dealerships around here in the L.A. area are trying to add as much as $5000. But I actually found two dealers who had multiple cars in stock (although they pretended they only had one or two) and finally was able to buy one for MSRP. And this was in July at the peak of the gas prices.

[gollygee]

64. I wouldn't mind a bunch of money with no conditions

Where can I sign up for that?

[StreetKnowledge]

65. Just a bit of info for people here

Mileages

Honda Fit: 28/35
Nissan Versa: 27/33
Suzuki SX4: 22/30
Chevrolet Aveo: 27/34

Honda Civic: 26/34
Toyota Corolla: 27/35
Nissan Sentra: 24/30
Volkswagen Jetta: 22/29 (requires premium gas)
Chevrolet Cobalt: 25/35
Ford Focus: 24/35
Dodge Caliber: 24/30

Honda Accord: 22/31
Toyota Camry: 21/31
Nissan Altima: 23/32
Mazda 6: 21/30
Hyundai Sonata: 22/32
Chevrolet Malibu: 22/33
Ford Fusion: 20/29

Still gonna say Detroit makes all gas-guzzlers? Cause the numbers prove you WRONG if you do.
Ch