NationStates Jolt Archive

So here's my plan, instead of turning GM, Chystler, and Ford's productline into something that only someone from San Francisco or France would buy, have them build green cars that appeal to the average person. Bring back the 60s-70s body styles, but make small changes for aerodynamics, while massively improvingfuel economy but not butchering performance, and make them affordable. Power and affordablity are would drove the big 3 in the 60-70s. Bring that back by adding what everyone wants right now, fuel economy. Detriot muscle cars were their bread and butter for 20 years. They did then, they can do it again.

Can't be saved. The US banking cartel has already sold them. So whatever you plan, no matter how sensible, means nothing.

Why does it cost more to build a car in a factory in the US than in a factory in Canada?


Cost of health care.

Can't be saved. The US banking cartel has already sold them. So whatever you plan, no matter how sensible, means nothing.

They can be saved. I refuse to believe that America's auto industry will die like this.

Why does it cost more to build a car in a factory in the US than in a factory in Canada?


Cost of health care.

What are you getting at?

Ford says they are fine. the other two need bankruptcy to save them.
the Bailouts were only an attempt to get votes from Union workers anyways.

They can be saved. I refuse to believe that America's auto industry will die like this.

Well, engaging in logical fallacies sure isn't going to save them, either. The only reason there's such an outcry over the death of these firms is because it's been very suddenly thrust into the public limelight. These entities have been on a financial backslide for a long time, and I see no reason why I should have to shell out cash to support and change companies that can't support themselves.

How to Save the Detriot Big 3

Um...we don't?

Well, engaging in logical fallacies sure isn't going to save them, either. The only reason there's such an outcry over the death of these firms is because it's been very suddenly thrust into the public limelight. These entities have been on a financial backslide for a long time, and I see no reason why I should have to shell out cash to support and change companies that can't support themselves.

And my plan would solve their problems.

Um...we don't?

Why not?

This is plan requires none of the taxpayers money, not a dime. This could save them.

Chrysler's nearly bankrupt and is probably going to merge with Fiat while the US government part-nationalises it, GM is selling off it's European wings while trying to avoid going under, and Ford just might scrape through unharmed.

That about sum up the present situation?

And my plan would solve their problems.

If you're so confident of it, try to contact them and explain the details to them.

And my plan would solve their problems.

takes 8 years to design a new car. From the ground up.


all that happens when they declare bankruptcy is the assets they have that are making profit are separated from the assets that are not making profit.
then the assets that are not making profit are sold off and used to pay the debt of the company as much as possible. I think the current offer was 16 cents on the dollar. which is largely because of the massive loan the Government gave them at the end.

They can be saved. I refuse to believe that America's auto industry will die like this.

Yes they can. But we have to choose between the banking industry and the autos. And we chose the banks.

So stop thinking about it.

What are you getting at?

Oh, I dunno. Ford and GM spent $4.6 and $2.2 billion last year on health care. Just sayin...


Of course, it certainly doesn't help that GM and Segway have teamed up in an effort to create the worst automobile ever conceived by man

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_adWhW0JWGZo/SduXmeerc9I/AAAAAAAADYk/psa2Vt4UjEM/s400/segway_gm_puma_1.jpg

This is plan requires none of the taxpayers money, not a dime.
Designing and producing a new car would need a big investment; money that at least Chrysler and GM don't have.

Moreover, GM has stated it's going to dramatically cut production of cars in order to stay afloat.

takes 8 years to design a new car. From the ground up.


all that happens when they declare bankruptcy is the assets they have that are making profit are separated from the assets that are not making profit.
then the assets that are not making profit are sold off and used to pay the debt of the company as much as possible. I think the current offer was 16 cents on the dollar. which is largely because of the massive loan the Government gave them at the end.

But its from the ground up, its a retooling of the cars that defined them for a generation.

The problem with promoting green cars is that some large industries (such as the oil industry) will cry loudly at the thought of their profits plummeting when everyone switches to a greener fuel.

Numero uno .. executives made too much money .. isn't it like that everywhere? Why do we allow this shit?

Number 2 .. Unions. What a croc .. we haven't needed unions since the 70's.

Somewhere in here is Pensions. Draw Social Security. Or make money off your stock profit.. or make none off your stock losses.

Live within your means!! Oh Noes!


Number 3 .. workers making 30-40 dollars an hour to turn a fucking nut.

Number 4 .. Public buying in to this shit.

Number 5 .. Government = 1

But its from the ground up, its a retooling of the cars that defined them for a generation.
Even if that's the case, it'd still take a fuck-load of cash that isn't available.

phase 1: choose three completely different detroit businesses - i'm thinking a couple fast food joints and an enterprising drug dealer
phase 2: call them 'the big 3'
phase 3: profit

this plan is sure to work, since it actually has a phase 2.

The problem with GM releasing a green car is that they'd have to become Toyota to do that.


Power and affordablity are would drove the big 3 in the 60-70s.
Yes. Bring back 600 horsepower engines, built extremely cheaply so they weigh a ton, and doing 4 miles per gallon.

phase 1: choose three completely different detroit businesses - i'm thinking a couple fast food joints and an enterprising drug dealer
phase 2: call them 'the big 3'
phase 3: profit

this plan is sure to work, since it actually has a phase 2.

let's face it though. you'll never be an honest broker about the big three.

Numero uno .. executives made too much money .. isn't it like that everywhere? Why do we allow this shit?

While most of your arguments make sense, this one doesn't. I'm not trying to slight you in particular, but it's a 'meh' argument regardless.

I personally couldn't give a shit about how much executives make. If they want to go buy personal yachts and what have you, that's perfectly fine with me. That's the entire point of trying to make your way to becoming top dog in a corporation.

Yes. Bring back 600 horsepower engines, built extremely cheaply so they weigh a ton, and doing 4 miles per gallon.

That intrigues me. I would probably buy that.

The problem with GM releasing a green car is that they'd have to become Toyota to do that.



Yes. Bring back 600 horsepower engines, built extremely cheaply so they weigh a ton, and doing 4 miles per gallon.

You forgot the second part of my plan. They all put out cars with power, affordability and fuel economy, and it will solve their problems.

But its from the ground up, its a retooling of the cars that defined them for a generation.

The engines hydraulics and what have you different. Your going to need to heavily modify the chassis to support these changes. Not to mention many of the designs of the 50 and 60's would not pass safety standards for new cars today.
The big time taker will be the engine anyways that's normally 4 years of a redesign right there.

The bankruptcy of these companies wont be the end of American Auto industry. It will just reduce them to their core profitable models and let them expand again, as they adsorb start up car companies.

That intrigues me. I would probably buy that.

Why don't you? Buy any old and large body-on-frame car, and add a 600-horsepower crate engine to it. The car will set you back 3-5 grand, the engine 7-8.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/HUP-COMPLETE-400-SBC-600-HP-ENGINE-KIT-DART-BLOCK-406_W0QQitemZ130291166639QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMotors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories?hash=item130291166639&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A3|39%3A1|240%3A1318

You forgot the second part of my plan. They all put out cars with power, affordability and fuel economy, and it will solve their problems.
Why don't they just turn lead into gold?

Power, affordability, economy, pick two.

Why not?

This is plan requires none of the taxpayers money, not a dime. This could save them.

Because if we bail them out, then all we're doing is reinforcing that it doesn't matter if they have bad business practices, that we'll always be there to hand them a bag of money.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to let things fail.

Why don't they just turn lead into gold?

Power, affordability, economy, pick two.

you can get all three but it will be an engine on wheels.

Isn't the engine and associated computer system most of the production expense anyways?

They can be saved. I refuse to believe that America's auto industry will die like this.

Accept it.

My relatives had 4 generation in the industry. My uncle retired. My two cousins left and they made sure their children don't get involved in it.

They all say the industry has had it.

Because if we bail them out, then all we're doing is reinforcing that it doesn't matter if they have bad business practices, that we'll always be there to hand them a bag of money.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to let things fail.

This isn't a bailout. Its the companies saving themselves.

While most of your arguments make sense, this one doesn't. I'm not trying to slight you in particular, but it's a 'meh' argument regardless.

I personally couldn't give a shit about how much executives make. If they want to go buy personal yachts and what have you, that's perfectly fine with me. That's the entire point of trying to make your way to becoming top dog in a corporation.


I understand where you are coming from also. I just don't like people who take enormous pieces of a pie for ..*shuts up* ..

It's always been like this .. everywhere.

The head honchos make the most monchos .. but only a few of these honchos actually deserve those monchos.

Head honchos always make insane -- disproportionate amounts of monchos.

Tho the worker honcho doesn't care as long as they are getting their big fat monchos (disproportionate). (Pension = $$ sometimes 3k or more a month)

This is why it's fucked. Greed.

Along with all the lawyers or advertising or whatever the hell else.. Everyone is out to rip whoever they can, for whatever they can.

This isn't a bailout. Its the companies saving themselves.

The companies will do what they want. If they recover financially or fail miserably, it'll be of their own merit.

This is why it's fucked. Greed.

Hey, man, that's the human condition. Accept it or... deceive yourself, I suppose.

The companies will do what they want. If they recover financially or fail miserably, it'll be of their own merit.

Exactly, and this a plan to recover

This isn't a bailout. Its the companies saving themselves.
If they could do it, surely they would have done it by now?

If they could do it, surely they would have done it by now?

Precisely. Binary, your plan's not all that revolutionary. Not to insult it, but it's highly likely that it's crossed the minds of the honchos and their planners at some point during this crisis.

The problem is that the car companies in the US are too large and there are too few of them. When they collapse, too many dominoes collapse with them. The best way to permanently stabilize to automotive industry is to encourage the existence of numerous smaller independent car companies. Do you think GM, Ford and Chrysler could be convinced that it's in their best interests to sell the names of their extraneous divisions to independent operators?

Precisely. Binary, your plan's not all that revolutionary. Not to insult it, but it's highly likely that it's crossed the minds of the honchos and their planners at some point during this crisis.

I know its not revolutionary. I got the idea from a popular Mechanics article on how PM is trying to modify an 09 Charger to be way more fuel effiecent without sacrifcing power.

The companies will do what they want. If they recover financially or fail miserably, it'll be of their own merit.

Hey, man, that's the human condition. Accept it or... deceive yourself, I suppose.

No I think you are confusing Avarice with Greed.

Simple greed usually don't destroy a company for ones gain.

Problem is we have given up the act of creation for the act of making money. Any idiot can make money.

When gas shot way up last summer, why did they keep building SUVs? why is there very rarely a commercial that highlights gas mileage for cars ? I mean, damm em if they're not even going to try!

The problem is that the car companies in the US are too large and there are too few of them. When they collapse, too many dominoes collapse with them. The best way to permanently stabilize to automotive industry is to encourage the existence of numerous smaller independent car companies. Do you think GM, Ford and Chrystler could be convinced that it's in their best interests to sell the names of their extraneous divisions to independent operators?

Making tanks for vehicles didn't help.

On top of that .. Foreign competetors coming in and selling their shit for less. And for a period of time , those foreign cars were more reliable.

Can't say the same now.

They do not have the over head our companies have. They also came along later so they imo . were always watching and a bit behind .. learning from our mistakes.

Of course now.. they are basically running the same practices we have been, at least here in US - minus major pensions.

So all are hurting.

the people to really get screwed over will be the retirees. they will get about 16 cents on the dollar for the expected benefits.

I don't know how long Toyota has been here, or Honda .. but they'd be better off keeping their production in their home country. And just making deal for exports. IMO.

Hell they might've been forced to come here for all I know.

Problem is we have given up the act of creation for the act of making money. Any idiot can make money.

I assert 'we' have always been in it for personal gain, creation or not.

Making tanks for vehicles didn't help.

On top of that .. Foreign competetors coming in and selling their shit for less. And for a period of time , those foreign cars were more reliable.

Can't say the same now.

They do not have the over head our companies have. They also came along later so they imo . were always watching and a bit behind .. learning from our mistakes.

Of course now.. they are basically running the same practices we have been, at least here in US - minus major pensions.

So all are hurting.

Well, I'm referring to the industry not the companies. If the companies screw up and sell shoddy products people don't want at prices people won't pay then they deserve to go under. The problem is that when a company the size of GM goes under, it threatens the entire nation's economy. The government has to spend taxpayer money to fix the damage done by poorly managed business or let the whole system tank. That's an intolerable choice to make so I think that steps should be taken to not only save the auto industry but make sure that no one company can hold the system hostage again.

I assert 'we' have always been in it for personal gain, creation or not.

Not always. The PC guys weren't thinking about the money they could make when they were tinkering away. It may have been in the back of their minds but it wasn't the guiding force as it is today.

Good ideas are tossed all the time because the profit factor isn't quick and or large.....

Scrap your car industries. You don't know how to design them properly, anyway.

Bring back the 60s-70s body styles, but make small changes for aerodynamics...
This is a taste thing, and hardly something to base a recovery on.

...while massively improvingfuel economy but not butchering performance...
Hmm, low-pressure turbos, more variable valve timing, etc. It's possible, the Europeans are doing it.

...and make them affordable.
That's where the problem is. Firstly, the US is not a low-cost location for car manufacturing. Secondly, all these innovations you're asking for cost money.

Porsche can add another 100bhp to an engine without increasing fuel economy. But that's because a Porsche costs a lot of money.

Renault can reduce fuel consumption by a quarter without sacrificing performance. But that's because Renault builds small cars "only someone in France would buy", not 70s style barges.

Detriot muscle cars were their bread and butter for 20 years. They did then, they can do it again.
No, they can't. Muscle cars cannot be fuel efficient, that's the whole point of them. Do the things that you need to do to get fuel efficiency (small capacity + turbos, low weight, etc) and what you get isn't a muscle car anymore.

And even if it can be done (look at the BMW 135i Coupe for an example), the Big 3 are not the ones capable of doing it.

So regardless of the merits of the general arguments about the Big 3, your plan just doesn't hold a lot of water.

Not always. The PC guys weren't thinking about the money they could make when they were tinkering away. It may have been in the back of their minds but it wasn't the guiding force as it is today.

Why do you assume personal gain means money? Fulfillment and recognition aren't exactly selfless motives.

Will people stop even thinking that the soi-disant 'big' three have any future. I recommend that everyone goes and watches NL's excellent derivatives post and think about the bit at the end when bob merton talks about right way trades. And then think about GM/F &ct.

It's not politically acceptable to save them.

Scrap your car industries. You don't know how to design them properly, anyway.

Says someone from a country with a completely failed Auto Industry :D At least Ford is still in the green :D


But really, Ford will be fine. GM will also be fine after they go bankrupt and restructure the company.

Will people stop even thinking that the soi-disant 'big' three have any future. I recommend that everyone goes and watches NL's excellent derivatives post and think about the bit at the end when bob merton talks about right way trades. And then think about GM/F &ct.

It's not politically acceptable to save them.

They have a future, it will just be whats left after Bankruptcy.

Says someone from a country with a completely failed Auto Industry :D At least Ford is still in the green :D


But really, Ford will be fine. GM will also be fine after they go bankrupt and restructure the company.

Oh yeah, our industries were a joke too. But American cars are ugly.

Oh yeah, our industries were a joke too. But American cars are ugly.

To be honest, British cars were great until BL came along.

Some are, but think of some of the American greats, the Charger, Mustang, Impala, Cutlass, Malibu, the Viper? The Corvette? The Ford GT40? The Challenger and Camero?

I wouldn't call them ugly.

To be honest, British cars were great until BL came along.

Some are, but think of some of the American greats, the Charger, Mustang, Impala, Cutlass, Malibu, the Viper? The Corvette? The Ford GT40? The Challenger and Camero?

I wouldn't call them ugly.

True, there are some American classic cars, but the trend lately has been towards boxy and bigger, and I've seen nothing interesting for at least a decade. This trend isn't just an American phenomenon, of course, but American cars seem to be advancing towards fugly much faster than any others.

Well, I'm referring to the industry not the companies. If the companies screw up and sell shoddy products people don't want at prices people won't pay then they deserve to go under. The problem is that when a company the size of GM goes under, it threatens the entire nation's economy. The government has to spend taxpayer money to fix the damage done by poorly managed business or let the whole system tank. That's an intolerable choice to make so I think that steps should be taken to not only save the auto industry but make sure that no one company can hold the system hostage again.


I don't want to see it go under either.. but some major things have to change. And as far as I can tell it's just handing out money. I dunno.

They can be saved. I refuse to believe that America's auto industry will die like this.

Live with it. It's happening, and it's about damned time.

Instead of vastly increasing economy by lowering the weight of vehicles while retaining safety (the 14-piece carbon-fiber body shown on the recent PBS Nova "Car of the Future (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/)" episode, for example), the US industry convinced consumers that because they couldn't make an efficient and small car worth a damn for over 20 years, that what they really wanted, now that gas was cheap again, was a fucking Ford Excursion or a Cadillac Escalade.

Average fuel economy, which had risen from about 13 mpg in the early 70s to just over 22 mpg in 1987, fell back to 20 mpg by 2003.

Instead of looking forward, the "big three" milked low gas prices as long as they could. FUCK THEM, and fuck the employees for not taking a more active role in shaping the future of their own company. I understand that millions will be directly affected by these failures, but whose fault is it? If you work in a field that can be seen collapsing from miles away, and you do nothing to either insulate yourself or head in another direction, who's to blame?

Says someone from a country with a completely failed Auto Industry :D At least Ford is still in the green :D


But really, Ford will be fine. GM will also be fine after they go bankrupt and restructure the company.

Uh, no.

Lost $1.4 Billion in the first quarter. Burning through cash at a slower rate than expected and likely won't need bailout funds until 2010, but hardly "in the green" -- by the way, that's "in the black", if you're talking about profitability.

To be honest, British cars were great until BL came along.

Some are, but think of some of the American greats, the Charger, Mustang, Impala, Cutlass, Malibu, the Viper? The Corvette? The Ford GT40? The Challenger and Camero?

I wouldn't call them ugly.

Of course you wouldn't. You like them. The Charger and Cutlass, Viper and Challenger were hideous. You don't have to agree, but you're not speaking for everyone.

Scrap your car industries. You don't know how to design them properly, anyway.

Aw come on! The US auto industry is the best at making cup-holders that double as ill-suited commuter jalopies!

So here's my plan, instead of turning GM, Chystler, and Ford's productline into something that only someone from San Francisco or France would buy, have them build green cars that appeal to the average person. Bring back the 60s-70s body styles, but make small changes for aerodynamics, while massively improvingfuel economy but not butchering performance, and make them affordable. Power and affordablity are would drove the big 3 in the 60-70s. Bring that back by adding what everyone wants right now, fuel economy. Detriot muscle cars were their bread and butter for 20 years. They did then, they can do it again.
Err... those were big-assed cars that weighed a ton. To give cars like that good fuel economy you'd need to make them out of fibreglass, which isn't really a good product For The Average Person due to its cost and all that.

So here's my plan, instead of turning GM, Chystler, and Ford's productline into something that only someone from San Francisco or France would buy, have them build green cars that appeal to the average person. Bring back the 60s-70s body styles, but make small changes for aerodynamics, while massively improvingfuel economy but not butchering performance, and make them affordable. Power and affordablity are would drove the big 3 in the 60-70s. Bring that back by adding what everyone wants right now, fuel economy. Detriot muscle cars were their bread and butter for 20 years. They did then, they can do it again.

Too bad that to have fuel economy you have to:

-make the car lighter: hence, 60s-70s body styles cannot go (too heavy, too much steel)
-have a better aerodynamics: hence, again, 60s-70s body styles suck
-performance? what performances? american cars usually feature huge cylinders with low compression ratio => big torque, lousy power output, low top speed compared with european motors of the same specific fuel consumption, or with the same cylinders' volume.

Too bad that to have fuel economy you have to:

-make the car lighter: hence, 60s-70s body styles cannot go (too heavy)


Not if they are made out of carbon fibers:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/07/toray-nissan-ho.html

The Nikkei reported that Toray Industries Inc., Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. will work together to develop a new carbon fiber material for use in auto bodies, with the goal of developing mass-market carbon fiber cars.

The group aims to establish mass production technology for the new material by the mid-2010s. By replacing most of the steel used in cars, they hope to develop vehicles up to 40% lighter than their steel counterparts.

Carbon fiber boasts one-quarter the weight of iron, but is 10 times as strong.


Then throw in a biofuel-electric-hybrid engine and voila!

I think people would buy classic remakes. 57 Chevy, 69 Charger and such if they could get great gas mileage.

Not if they are made out of carbon fibers:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/07/toray-nissan-ho.html
Then throw in a biofuel-electric-hybrid engine and voila!


Mh. Nice!
Though I wonder, maybe carbon fiber is a bit too rigid, and that's not very good in a crash - the frame is supposed to deform and absorb part of the impulse.

Maybe carbon fiber for non-structural parts, plexiglas instead of glass, plus lithium-alluminium alloy for the structure. And ceramics for the engine.

Mh. Nice!
Though I wonder, maybe carbon fiber is a bit too rigid, and that's not very good in a crash - the frame is supposed to deform and absorb part of the impulse.
Actually carbon fiber acts very well in crashes. There was a McLaren SLR in Qatar that crashed at 190mph. The driver's cell was completely non-deformed. You could open the door if it was still there. The rest of the car shattered to tiny pieces, protecting the cell.

A drawback: Very expensive. Also can't be repaired if you do manage to break it.

However... Even if you lighten the body, it still has massive drag.


Maybe carbon fiber for non-structural parts, plexiglas instead of glass, plus lithium-alluminium alloy for the structure. And ceramics for the engine.
Glass is used for scratch resistance. Plexiglas scratches too easily.
Ceramic engines are tested once in a while, but are too much of an unproven tech as of yet. They're not all that much of an improvement anyway, though. Just a good Al/Mg engine should do well, if you keep it small and high-tech.

Camless valves might be the next step. I'm afraid, though, that they'll only appear in Porsches for the first 10 years, and Ferraris for the next 5, though. Very hard to implement, expensive. But a potential improvement of as much as 20% in fuel economy, with no sacrifice of power. And when you consider weight savings, up to 25%.

They could have put out a product that appealed to and was worth it to the consumer instead of letting foreign cars (one of which I own) give far more bang for the buck in every way.

Most people aren't gearheads. Most people need to get themselves and their families from point a to point b and don't want or need a vroom vroom penis replacement.

So here's my plan, instead of turning GM, Chystler, and Ford's productline into something that only someone from San Francisco or France would buy, have them build green cars that appeal to the average person. Bring back the 60s-70s body styles, but make small changes for aerodynamics, while massively improvingfuel economy but not butchering performance, and make them affordable. Power and affordablity are would drove the big 3 in the 60-70s. Bring that back by adding what everyone wants right now, fuel economy. Detriot muscle cars were their bread and butter for 20 years. They did then, they can do it again.

I confess I rather gave up after the emboldended part. Congratulations on achieving rare levels of idiocy.

They could have put out a product that appealed to and was worth it to the consumer

And they could have done so a loooooong time ago.

I confess I rather gave up after the emboldended part. Congratulations on achieving rare levels of idiocy.

What's wrong with saying that they should build cars that are appealing to the vast majority of Americans?

only someone from San Francisco or France...

fun fact (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/13/719435/-Poll:-Americans-love-France,-San-Francisco,-Europe,-and-NYC):

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of...?
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/europefavorable.jpg

Why not just rip out the senoir management of all 3 companies and replace them wth successful execs from other industries?

That way you get an influx of new business ideas alongside a lack of preconceptions about the car manufacturing industry.

I vote prawn industry.

Actually carbon fiber acts very well in crashes. There was a McLaren SLR in Qatar that crashed at 190mph. The driver's cell was completely non-deformed. You could open the door if it was still there. The rest of the car shattered to tiny pieces, protecting the cell.
A drawback: Very expensive. Also can't be repaired if you do manage to break it.[/quote]
Well, if the driver didn't hurt himself too much and no one on the outside was hurt by the carbon-fiber-shrapnel, well, that's perfect.


However... Even if you lighten the body, it still has massive drag.

That's why old aerodynamical profiles suck massively.


Glass is used for scratch resistance. Plexiglas scratches too easily.

Really? Iirc the Germans in WW2 used plexiglas on the Messerschmitt BF-109.


Ceramic engines are tested once in a while, but are too much of an unproven tech as of yet. They're not all that much of an improvement anyway, though. Just a good Al/Mg engine should do well, if you keep it small and high-tech.

Mh. Well, Al/Mg should be lighter than Fe/C .


Camless valves might be the next step. ...
But a potential improvement of as much as 20% in fuel economy, with no sacrifice of power. And when you consider weight savings, up to 25%.
I still dream of a plain 150 kW axial-flow turbine on an hybrid system...

The question is, why would we want to? just keep the factories operational for when we need to mass produce tanks, etc...

and keep the Asian and European car makers afloat, afterall, they actually hire Americans, whereas the Big 3 hire mostly Mexicans and Canadians...

Well, if the driver didn't hurt himself too much and no one on the outside was hurt by the carbon-fiber-shrapnel, well, that's perfect.
The driver died, of course. G-forces are too high - racing drivers are trained very extensively to withstand them, regular people aren't. But at least he got to be buried in one piece. If that was a regular car (with some huge turbos), you'd be lucky to gather a third of him.


Really? Iirc the Germans in WW2 used plexiglas on the Messerschmitt BF-109.
Many modern light planes do too. You have to be careful when cleaning them, however, and scratches are common.
Racecars sometimes use plexiglas or lexan windshields, but these aren't road-legal for safety concerns.


I still dream of a plain 150 kW axial-flow turbine on an hybrid system...
Turbines rapidly lose efficiency if working at less than full power. That is a problem, since even a 2-ton car only takes 40kW most of the time.

Well step one for GM is to release the new Camaro. There are plenty of people who have put off buying a new car waiting for its release.

The next step is to build more fuel efficient cars. The quickest way to do that is to cut weight. They need to drop a good 1000lbs off every car they make. To do that a good start would be fiberglass bodies its cheaper than carbon fiber and much lighter than steel.

They don't need to sacrifice power for fuel economy, considering I have a car that is 15years old and has a 5.7L V8 that gets 27mpg highway, runs way to rich on top of that. Yet for some reason brand new cars with an engine half the size only get 31mpg highway, it really is sad.

Hmm, low-pressure turbos, more variable valve timing, etc. It's possible, the Europeans are doing it.


Indeed. A certain hypocrite by the name of Lee "Buy American" Iacocca supposedly designed a car that I purchased in a moment of "national support" Well, if you looked under the hood. It had a Japanese engine, a German turbo and a French breaking system.

...the trend lately has been towards boxy and bigger, and I've seen nothing interesting for at least a decade. This trend isn't just an American phenomenon, of course, but American cars seem to be advancing towards fugly much faster than any others.
American car companies, around the year 2000, were losing market share and looked across the lake to Europeans to design an American car. Apparently, they felt out of touch, and thought that foreigners had a much better grasp of what an American car looks like. Those folks certainly had an idea in mind, and the idea was huge. That's when the big boxes on wheels began to be rolled out, such as the Hummer H2 and its cousins, and such designs met a very positive reception initially but have proved only to be moderately popular since yet not practical in the least. Their popularity does not compensate for their fugliness.

Forget about the sheer ugliness of Aztecs for a second and the fact that the big three thought that the main problem about their models was the appearance.

I would argue that it is mostly the culture surrounding the auto industry that have driven it into the red. Workers feel just as entitled to overcompensation as their executives. As was mentioned before, the health care for former workers is still costing the companies huge sums of money, but such plans were scrapped about decade ago now for existing employees. Today the problem seems to be more related to management. The business model being run at present is simply not as competitive (too many prototypes are built for example).

...the Big 3 are not the ones capable of doing it.
Certainly, if the big three prove that they are not viable companies, then they should fail without spending public funds. There are more pressing concerns on the country's plate. However, it appears that Ford may be able to make it through this rough patch. I think it is too early to be making this call yet, Leonstein.

let them build narrow gauge multiple unit railway carrages!

fun fact (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/13/719435/-Poll:-Americans-love-France,-San-Francisco,-Europe,-and-NYC):

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of...?
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/europefavorable.jpg
That is an awesome poll.

While I wouldn't want to live in San Francisco, I still think its a beautiful and interesting place, although with a large amount of weird people. I understand (though disagree [with]) why some people dislike it. What I don't understand is how anyone can dislike NYC??? It's like the epitome of America. :confused:

i wouldn't want to live in any large city, but i'd rather live in san francisco then new york or l.a.

(er, how did that have to do with 'saving' u.s automakers? cars and cities absolutely do NOT belong in the same place at the same time!)

i wouldn't want to live in any large city, but i'd rather live in san francisco then new york or l.a.

(er, how did that have to do with 'saving' u.s automakers? cars and cities absolutely do NOT belong in the same place at the same time!)

detroits new car is rumored to be so big and fuel inefficient it can move cities. .1 miles per gallon.

That is an awesome poll.

While I wouldn't want to live in San Francisco, I still think its a beautiful and interesting place, although with a large amount of weird people. I understand (though disagree [with]) why some people dislike it. What I don't understand is how anyone can dislike NYC??? It's like the epitome of America. :confused:

That poll makes me feel like a pariah.....Although, this close to Cajun country, we're probably all pariahs in comparison to the rest of the south when it comes to France and Europe, lol..