On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:10:37 -0600, Dan J.S. wrote:


Yup it was Bush causing GM and Ford to build crappy vehicles that no one
wants. And to arrange for stupid "go for broke" union contracts.

One of the major reasons GM's cars aren't selling, is gas mileage.
Perhaps, the lower CAFE standards for small trucks and SUVs, was a little
short sighted.


Should we give credit to Bush for Toyota's success? They are constantly
growing, selling more cars and trucks.

Yup.

Yup, smaller more fuel efficient cars and trucks.

Hey its snowing. Lets blame Bush.

Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do better
than the CAFE standards?


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:10:37 -0600, Dan J.S. wrote:


Yup it was Bush causing GM and Ford to build crappy vehicles that no one
wants. And to arrange for stupid "go for broke" union contracts.

One of the major reasons GM's cars aren't selling, is gas mileage.
Perhaps, the lower CAFE standards for small trucks and SUVs, was a little
short sighted.


Should we give credit to Bush for Toyota's success? They are constantly
growing, selling more cars and trucks.

Yup.

Yup, smaller more fuel efficient cars and trucks.

Hey its snowing. Lets blame Bush.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:01:56 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do better
than the CAFE standards?

I would argue that some things have to be regulated. The fact is, car
mileage has increased from 12 mpg to 27 mpg because of CAFE standards.
American car manufacturers were screaming that is couldn't be done. Well,
it was done, and because of government regulation. How about seat belts?
They weren't even an option until government required them. How about the
environment? When was the last time a river caught fire? Not all
government regulation is good, but some.

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer will
buy?


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:01:56 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon
government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do better
than the CAFE standards?

I would argue that some things have to be regulated. The fact is, car
mileage has increased from 12 mpg to 27 mpg because of CAFE standards.
American car manufacturers were screaming that is couldn't be done. Well,
it was done, and because of government regulation. How about seat belts?
They weren't even an option until government required them. How about the
environment? When was the last time a river caught fire? Not all
government regulation is good, but some.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:30:14 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer will
buy?

Well, as Toyota is eating GM's lunch, I would say they should use
initiative to do better, as Toyota did. However, I will also say car
manufacturing has to be a tough business. Predicting the market 5-10
years out, borders on needing a crystal ball.

Thunder,
Most manufacture industries are a tough business, which requires a crystal
ball to be able to look into the future. That is why we don't want to put
the government in charge of making decisions. It can result in US companies
being non competitive in a global marketplace. Over the years, the
marketplace has proven to be the best method of allocating limited
resources.

In reality, US automakers should be able to predict rising oil prices and
offer cars and trucks offering high fuel efficiency and those offering high
power and torque.



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:30:14 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer will
buy?

Well, as Toyota is eating GM's lunch, I would say they should use
initiative to do better, as Toyota did. However, I will also say car
manufacturing has to be a tough business. Predicting the market 5-10
years out, borders on needing a crystal ball.

If I recall correctly, Toyota can build a care with less man hours per car
than GM, and the hourly cost is lower, so they naturally can offer more car
per dollar than GM. The GM bureaucracy means it taks years to get a car
from concept to production. I remember in the mid 80's when I was doing
work at the BOC engineering facility in Flint, they were mocking up 96-98
cars. The problem is obvious.

Not to mention the onerous union problems



"Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my knighthood. wrote in message
...
Thunder,
Most manufacture industries are a tough business, which requires a crystal
ball to be able to look into the future. That is why we don't want to
put
the government in charge of making decisions. It can result in US
companies
being non competitive in a global marketplace. Over the years, the
marketplace has proven to be the best method of allocating limited
resources.

In reality, US automakers should be able to predict rising oil prices and
offer cars and trucks offering high fuel efficiency and those offering
high
power and torque.



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:30:14 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer
will
buy?

Well, as Toyota is eating GM's lunch, I would say they should use
initiative to do better, as Toyota did. However, I will also say car
manufacturing has to be a tough business. Predicting the market 5-10
years out, borders on needing a crystal ball.

Besides the fact that increasing cafe standards has costs thousands of lives
and millions of dollars........but that doesn't matter to the liebrals.

"Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my knighthood. wrote in message
. ..
Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer will
buy?


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:01:56 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon
government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do
better
than the CAFE standards?

I would argue that some things have to be regulated. The fact is, car
mileage has increased from 12 mpg to 27 mpg because of CAFE standards.
American car manufacturers were screaming that is couldn't be done.
Well,
it was done, and because of government regulation. How about seat
belts?
They weren't even an option until government required them. How about
the
environment? When was the last time a river caught fire? Not all
government regulation is good, but some.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Besides the fact that increasing cafe standards has costs thousands of
lives
and millions of dollars........but that doesn't matter to the liebrals.

Cost lives? How's that?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:54:55 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Besides the fact that increasing cafe standards has costs thousands of
lives
and millions of dollars........but that doesn't matter to the liebrals.

Cost lives? How's that?

The theory is that small fuel efficient cars are not as safe as land
sleds. I've read an estimate that CAFE standards might have added 2000
additional traffic fatalities since the 70s.