Do US auto makers deserve $25B taxpayers for new mpg goals?

[BinzerBob]

Originally I thought yes but now I say no

Originally I thought that GM should get the bail out because if not it would further hurt our economy... But then my father said that if they go into bankruptcy protection they would get rid of all the high paying labour jobs and would rehire them at what the value of that labour work is (as it stands there are likely many people making near the $40/hr mark for which this should not be the case... maybe $18 and some should be down in the $11/hour).

So in short,,, I now believe that GM needs to restructure big time. Pay people a good wage but not what they are paying them now.

Don't get me wrong... I like people getting paid a good wage well into the $40 / hr range, but it just stopped working for GM.


That simple. my 2 cents.

[theremart]

The bottom line.

The best options we have is what we have. Government will continue to feed those that pay to elect the officials into place. I do not look to them for help.

If we want a good car, we will have to get a shop to modify the poorly made cars coming off the line to something that will work properly. We will have to do this ourselves, and not count on the car companies. There is no money in it for them to give us cars that run on less.

There are mechanics out there that can get the job done. I am sure if we take the cars that be and make them better than the ones new, that slowly there could be an industry grow that will crush or reform the auto industry. It takes time or crisis to make such things happen.

I drive a Honda Accord because,..... it don't break. The maintenance of these cars are outstanding. The resale value of the car is great, however I do not find this to be the case for the vast majority of American cars.

It is so hard when you look at the size of the oil / car / pharma industries to think that we can make any change. But I do believe we can choose to buy products that work, and stop buying products that don't.

I do love the movies like "what ever happened to the electric car" because they show us reality.

I have not lost all hope, as the internet is creating new opportunities that were not there before, many are having their eyes open to the thought..... we can try something different.

[Ingram]

Do US auto makers deserve $25B taxpayers for new mpg goals?

NO!

Rather if companies are too large to let them fail, break them up and regulate the industry.

Insofar as the auto industry, apply the above and place ownership of individual plants under local employee ownership and let them elect their own board of directors and executives. I assure you that executive waste and lack of profitability will shrink dramatically as the stockholders will be watching the executives closely.

[ashtweth]

Jib that is article material , Dam man, i try and have a relaxing weekend and a few beers, and out comes your typing and i gotta work on another article

BTW found this

The Truth About Bailouts

As the Federal bailout bonanza prepares to spread beyond the mortgage and financial sectors to fill Detroit's depleted coffers, few economic or policy analysts have spared a thought for the destitution of the U.S. government itself. Put simply, our government doesn't have enough spare cash to bailout a lemonade stand let alone a bloated and failing industry that is losing tens of billions of dollars per month. Washington can only offer funds that it has borrowed from abroad or printed. Unfortunately, the nation is in the grips of a delusion that money derived from these sources has the power to heal. But history has clearly shown that borrowed or printed money only has the power to destroy.

The argument that energizes the pro-Detroit camp is that the government should extend the same courtesy to the rank and file auto workers that it lavished upon the fat cats of Wall Street. While two wrongs certainly do not make a right, the fact remains that the Wall Street firms are still floundering despite the bailouts. What's worse, the money spent was either printed or borrowed from abroad. Both options are destructive to America.

When it comes to bailouts, the real discussions are not centered in Washington but rather in Beijing, Tokyo, and Riyadh. With no money of our own, our ability to bailout our own citizens is completely dependent on the world's willingness to foot the bill. While I am sure that Bush and Paulson are doing their best to convince the world that open ended financing of the United States is in the global interest, my guess is that, unlike Congress, our foreign creditors will see through the self-serving nature of our plea.

Like any bailout, our foreign creditors should consider the moral hazard of rewarding bad behavior, and the old investment adage of not throwing good money after bad. By continuing to "lend" us money, the world is merely delaying the necessary rebalancing of our upside down economy. By continuing to subsidize our reckless and outsized consumption, the world merely delays the inevitable re-balancing and exacerbates the underlying problem at the root of the current global financial crisis.

If Washington [via Beijing, Tokyo, and Riyadh] bails out General Motors, the funds will never be recovered. GM will simply burn through the bailout money and then be back for more. Talk of designing a new fleet of "green" cars that will pave the way to profitability by spurring a new buying spree is simply delusional. Given the staggering "legacy" costs of health care and pensions for millions of current and former workers, Detroit cannot produce cars profitably. Unless these costs are seriously brought down, and there is very little chance that they will be, Detroit will remain a bottomless money pit.

Similarly any money that the world lends to America to finance more consumption will never be repaid. We will simply blow through it, and be back, hat in hand, begging for more. As we painfully learned in the housing bust, lending people money that they cannot pay back makes no sense. This applies equally to foreign central banks lending to America as it does to commercial banks lending to homeowners.

So for the same reasons that Washington should not bail out General Motors, the world should not bailout America. Like GM, our economy is in desperate need of a restructuring. Spending must be replaced with savings, and consumption with production. The service sector must shrink and manufacturing must expand to fill the void. The dollar must fall, wages in America must be brought down to a competitive level, and hopefully government spending and burdensome regulation can be reduced.

This transformation will not be fun, but it is necessary. Our standard of living must decline to reflect years of reckless consumption and the disintegration of our industrial base. Only by swallowing this tough medicine now will our sick economy ever recover. By accepting a lower standard of living today, we will eventually be rewarded with a higher one tomorrow.

-- On Sun, 23/11/08, Michael Logos <zarathustraplatonicus> wrote:

Let me recommend Peter Schiff here. He was on CNBC on Nov 19, 2008. He predicted that 'Gold' would hit $ 1,000 [US] this year and it did. Schiff now thinks 'Gold' will hit $ 2,000 [US] in 2009.

It didn't hold which is why GUY ADAMI on the popular business show CNBC's 'Fast Money', a former Goldman Sach's trader [one of the principal firms which shorted gold for the US Treasury] has tried to discredit him.

If you have access to CNBC's 'Fast Money'... notice how GUY ADAMI every
chance he gets talks down gold while his beloved 'Goldman Sachs' and all
the financials are getting decimated.

Citibank closed below $ 5 [US] a share which means that they are now worth less than the $ 25 Billion in market capitalization that the US Federal Government lent them [they are worth $ 20 Billion...]. How could any company manage to do that ? [That means they were worth a $ (-) 5,000,000,000 by todays numbers.]

Schiff was on the Larry Kudlow show [also on CNBC] July 2, 2007 when he predicted the current crash which I believe still has a few more legs to go downward.

At that time the DJIA was 13,500 and some change. It's now around
8,500. Gold was $ 659/oz [US] then and now it's around $ 770/oz [US].

So I ask you which asset class has weathered the derivatives time bomb
at least to this time more effectively ?

But GUY ADAMI and the gold bashers all point to the fact 'Gold' reached
$ 1,000, came down and didn't run higher through this market downturn, but in a deflationary sprial there's no reason for gold or any commodity to escalate in value since its leverage which is syphoned out of the system, adding value to the currency not commodities.

For 'Gold' to hold its own and then make some change since the Market top,
me thinks is quite an accomplishment.

What I've heard is that the US has to throw NOT $ 700,000,000, 000 into the
wind or is it into the pot to grease up the machine but $ 10,000,000,000, 000
to make things sunny, bright and all whole again...so that the consumers can once again, do what they do best,...consume all over again.

So if 'Gold' is in the $ 700 + range and hyperinflation hasn't lifted its
ugly head as of yet, I can see 'Gold' at between $ 3,000 - $ 5,000/oz
[US] at least within a decade or so. That of course is contingent upon the
GUY ADAMI'S, Goldman Sach's and other financial gangsters in the world losing their ability to artificially control, contrive and regulate the Gold market and its cleansing effect.

Here's a nice piece on Peter Schiff [from Europacific Capital] on CNBC warning the jerks on the show [and the US public] that the bear market was about to lift its ugly head long before it did....despite objections to the contrary by the dollar pumping, oriented, establishment, greedy bull cheerleaders on July 2, 2007...well before this current meltdown.

www.europac.net/media/Schiff-CNBC-7-2-07_lg.wmv

the Frater

[FuzzyTomCat]

I don't understand why the auto manufactures especially "GM" or Chevrolet needs a bail out to retool for something they made in 1996 thru 1999 and dumped ..... I'm talking about the "EV1" electric automobile and truck. It's like know one ever thought of these vehicles and now they need money to do exactly what ?? I realize many people are affected by this, back in the late 1970's Oregon lost most it's timber industry and it almost crushed the economy of the state and at that time the whole county was in tough shape.

General Motors EV1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://thejaffes.org/rory/ev1/ev1.pdf

I sure hope someone knows what there doing, this is getting old ....

Fuzzy

[rickoff]

Reply to Jessica and all:

Rick,

I believe you have left out what I consider a vital element of the update, which is that there would be conditions on the money and/or that the money would be only a loan. I still think it is possible for this to be a good idea, but it would have to be done in the right way.
Jessica

Hi Jessica,

I suppose that I did leave that out, and yes - these would be vital elements for any such bailout. Problem is, though, the CEO's all came to the table with no clear plan in mind as to how they would actually use the bailout money in such a manner as to return their corporations to financial viability. Their only plan was to use this as operating capital to get them through some rough times. Well, times are probably going to be tough for quite a while, and in the end the only companies, corporations, and employees left standing will be the ones who made the necessary sacrifices to stay afloat, and who are able to offer the public the best product available for the money paid to purchase it. Under the current financial structure of the big 3 automakers, and with their current lineup of car and truck models, the prospect of remaining viable is utterly doomed to failure. The CEO's have been asked to go back home and come up with some plans that make sense, and I guess we will see how that turns out. But no plan will have a snowball's chance, in a blast furnace, of working unless major pay concessions are made by corporate executives and line workers alike. Quite simply, the cat is too fat.

Likewise, none of their plans can possibly work unless they start building the kind of quality and energy efficient cars that people need and want now - not ten years down the road. Toyota and Honda vehicles have the best resale values of any brands - about twice the value (after 5 years) as any car made by the big 3 automakers. An automobile is second only to one's home in cost, and so it is an investment that all of us must consider carefully. I prefer to buy American products whenever it makes sense, but I opted for a Toyota Prius in 2007 because no American manufacturer had anything like it available. The Chevy Volt is really the only GM model set for future production that shows any real promise, but it won't be available for sale to the public until the end of year 2010, and only 10,000 units are planned for the first year. If GM wants to be a viable company, they should immediately drop all unprofitable product lines and focus on getting the Chevy Volt out to the public much sooner, and in higher numbers that will allow a more reasonable price tag than the $40,000 current estimate. If they can't do that, or won't do that, then they cannot remain competitive and are doomed to failure. The same goes for Chrysler and Ford. So let's see if they can all come up with the plans to accomplish this in the very near future, while accepting the pay sacrifices that must be made to achieve success. Then, and only then, should the American taxpayer be willing to extend them a loan, and this is what we need to make clear to our representatives in Washington. Short of this, a loan should be out of the question.

The only remaining option is restructuring under bankruptcy. The CEO's, the Union bosses, and the auto workers, are very much against that idea, and say that no one would consider buying a car from a maker who is in bankruptcy. That seems to make sense, but is anyone more likely to buy their product when it is known that these corporations are really just existing on borrowed time and borrowed money - money that no other creditors are willing to put at risk? I would be far more willing to invest in a new US made automobile if I knew that the maker was relieved of current debts, and had restructured its financial obligations and business model into a leaner and far more efficient one with a real chance of survival in a highly competitive industry. The fact that they would be 25 billion dollars further in debt, if given the bailout, would do nothing to assure me of their future profitability, or even of their future existence.

In the worst case scenario - if the big 3 go under - this will open up further expansion by both US and foreign automakers, who will take up the manufacturing slack in the US and employ a great number of US autoworkers at decent wages. I'd sooner see the $25 billion go to Tesla Motors for rapid development and US expansion of their smart line of electric vehicles. The aftermarket for big 3 built cars will still exist, and the many people currently employed as auto technicians, parts suppliers, body shop workers, and in other related fields, will only see their businesses expand as car owners hold onto their current vehicles for longer times. People are already doing that, and it is because times are tough and we all realize that we must cut our expenses to survive. That's why new car sales have dropped so drastically. It's really not a matter of car loans not being available to people, as the automakers claim. Local credit unions are only too happy to give anyone an auto loan provided that the applicant has a good credit history, and loan rates are now appealingly low. To justify a new auto purchase, though, you now either must be in a position where your current vehicle is no longer maintainable and there is no other viable means of transportation, or where you are able to purchase a new vehicle that will largely pay for itself in realized fuel savings when compared to your current and expected operating costs over the next 5 to 6 years. What GM, Ford, and Chrysler don't seem to understand is that we don't need more cars, we just need better ones. There are only two ways to achieve that - either build better ones, or modify existing ones.

Right now it is the modification aspect that has the greatest potential for near term cost savings, fuel efficiency, and environmental benefits. Mart hit the nail right on the head with his post stating the need and the opportunities for modification of existing autos. The $25 billion payout would be far wiser spent on rapid deployment of existing and proven modification technologies. Considering the fact that currently there are roughly 42 million registered automobiles and light trucks in the USA, a $1,200 conversion package applied to roughly 50% of these vehicles, and resulting in an immediate 30% average mpg increase, could be accomplished in a relatively short period of time if the same $25 billion is applied toward that goal. The payback would be definite, and the payback period would be short-term, allowing us to similarly outfit the remaining 50% of existing vehicles. Now there's something I wouldn't hesitate to approve of. How about you?

Rick

[ashtweth]

I say carbon credits, endorsement and subsidies for GEET/Hydroxy. That the most effective MPG/pollution cutting LOW COST solution - MEAN TIME.
That's great writing material Rick Et all. Thanks for this rant guys

[Guest]

What is funny is that Rick Wagoner the current CEO of GM has landed 10s and 10s of MUSD during his 8 years as CEO. What he did for GM? Well, he brought about 40 BUSD of losses and no R&D or MPG improvements whatsoever...

And the guy is not even an engineer... How can you hire an economics guy to solve a major crisis for a car manufacturer when he does not even know how the car is functioning technically let alone anything about future R&D priorities?

Mulally seems at least to have an interest in engineering and he has a tech degree. For Chrysler it seems like they have another economics guy as CEO. No wonder the german/japanese manufacturers are killing the american ones. Those guys would never have made it past controller status in these countries. Let GM/Chrysler file for bankruptcy and let Wagoner&Co stay until then. Every time a major technology shift is imminent the old dragons must pass go.

[SkyWatcher]

Why does one need money?

Hi folks, I posted something similar in another thread but thought it needs revisiting. Why does one need money? seems a rather odd question maybe to some, however I would like everyone who reads this to contemplate and maybe make a list as to why anyone needs money in the first place and I think if we honestly look at where our money goes and I mean honestly because most folks are in error, not wrong, just in error of the money they think they owe to particular groups or people. And dont forget if suppression is real that just threw out a lot of stuff you needed to buy and replace year after year due to predetermined failure and non sustainability. Ok I want to keep this simple, food, shelter, water and clothing is really all one needs. So with these basic needs outlined, shelter appears to be the most costly and requires most people to work at jobs and the question is why, I already know why myself and if were not just slaves to a cleverly devised system to create the illusion were not slaves then why cannot every human being on this planet use a piece of land to live in peace and joy without some other human being or group claiming authority over another to pay some fee using ink paper. You see even this conversation your all having about cars and fuel and bailouts is not looking at the cause, rather most are looking at the effect. you see why would one even need a car or gas if they had everything they needed at home, oh i forgot we need cars to get to jobs to pay for the land we rent from others who claim authority over us and the other ones who claim we owe them ink paper to keep our shelter. All i want is for you good intentioned, heart feeling folks to go back to basics and think about all the things weve been programmed to think about to distract us from the simple fact that life is simple, our needs are simple and our simple needs have been attacked to create this illusion, 'that life is difficult and we need to work to survive'. Its not real, the universe only knows abundance but most of us forgot here.

peace, love, light

[Shamus]

Well said, I couldn't have put it any better. It's a hard thing to face--that all money systems lead to slavery. It's too bad that most people believe in money, as belief is all that keeps it going.

[rmay635703]

Not sure what I can add to this discussion as most of the above I fully agree with, our economic system is quite systematic in keeping the classes & associated "power" separated.

Anyway a few clarifications,
On the battery issue, Ovonics (the guy that made a coal plant 0 emissions with algae and designed Solar panel roofing) designed the Fancy Nickel Metal Hydrite battery many years ago but did not have financing and fell for GM's call to put them into the last EV1's, sadly GM took ownership and then transfered the NIMI tech to an Oil company who quickly transfered ownership into a holding company
COBASYS, this company sits on many interesting patents and does not allow NIMI batteries to be made any larger than laptop size. (they also inflate the battery cost with licensing)

Toyota partnered with panasonic and used the large NIMI batteries in their original Prius which actually got the EPA estimated 60mpg and in their legendary RAV4 EV. Sadly Toyota and Panasonic got their pants sued off by Cobasys and the RAV4 didn't have a battery and the Prius mileage dropped to the roughly 40mpg it is now.

Cobasys and several other companies are now researching and buying up patents relating to making algae oil from coal exhaust and systems surrounding the collection of Methane hydrates on the bottom of the ocean (there is more natural gas AKA methane on the bottom of the ocean in the gulf than there is oil in all of the middle east)

GM, Ford and Chrysler
80-mpg car by 2004 is unlikely, panel says.(based on report, House cuts $127 million from Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles)(Brief Article) | Automotive News | Find Articles at BNET

California company already has 80-mpg engine for 1999 Supercar. | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

(sorry I can't find the exact article but this was under the clinton admin and they received in the billions for this project and then didn't put into production)

Each respectively Had already made prototypes of the so called sub $20k 80mpg cars, some where hybrid some were not. The big 3 have always known how to make good mileage cars even with very low tech, they just don't want to. Light + Aerodynamic = Good MPG. There are people on eco modder forums who have made simple older honda civics get 80mpg by simply adding a boattail and covering the underbody so it was more aerodynamic.

I also disagree with some of the pollution regulations because they simply don't make sense.
Currently we rate NOx ratings as a percentage of exhaust. Many european versions of our domestic cars (aka ford,gm,chrysler) get 20% better mileage overseas with THE SAME ENGINES not because of NO emission standards but because of different standards. By simply leaning the engine you can easily get 20% better mileage at cruising speed but you then produce 20% more NOx but guess what? You are making less emissions total (less fuel burned) so the increase in percentage NOx should be offset by the volume of exhaust produced, especially on smaller cars that make less emissions no matter what as compared to a big truck or SUV.

Add in the fact that the EPA is trying to put up legislation to ban japanese kei cars and other high MPG foreign cars by preventing them from being imported and you are really limiting choice for no good reason.

I say get rid of bogus laws, change them and allow more choice. If the big 3 want a bailout state in no uncertain terms that they must produce specific vehicles they have demo'd but will not produce, I would say funny shaped sub $20k 80mpg cars would go over nicely, they already designed them, now make them if they want taxpayer money and if they don't the gov should take away all executive assets to pay off the bill.

Another bonehead law set are the NEV laws, I drive a 1981 comutacar electric car 4-5 days a week and I can take it on the highway and on any road, yet new electric vehicles, even ones that are crashed tested in foreign countries are not allowed to drive over 25mph, even though they are much safer than any moped or any motorcycle. If the laws would be changed to allow vehicles that are not crash tested in the US into the country but simply follow the motorcycle principles and the vehicle inspection routine we would see much more choice as many companies simply cannot afford 5-15 million to crash test in the us.

Sorry to vent but I believe there are many small things that could be changed within the current laws that would not be impossible even in our current framework if people would simply be aware of them and demand the changes. Those small changes, like making a method to get high mpg or electric foreign cars into the country, changing the pollution laws to favor smaller engines that put out less pollution by virtue of size, using algae to make coal pollution free and therefore a non-issue.

Like many things discussed in these forums these changes would not be costly or difficult to impliment but people need to realize they are there and are already fully developed and implimented. There is always suppression but if it saves money for the big interest involved and it is being demanded you might see the defacto move.

[ashtweth]

Woo. thanks allot for the link Jess, ill add that to the document.
almost missed that DOH.

[rickoff]

On the battery issue, Ovonics (the guy that made a coal plant 0 emissions with algae and designed Solar panel roofing) designed the Fancy Nickel Metal Hydrite battery many years ago but did not have financing and fell for GM's call to put them into the last EV1's, sadly GM took ownership and then transfered the NIMI tech to an Oil company who quickly transfered ownership into a holding company COBASYS, this company sits on many interesting patents and does not allow NIMI batteries to be made any larger than laptop size. (they also inflate the battery cost with licensing)

That was Amoco that GM sold the NiMh battery patent rights to, and their subsidiary COBASYS is doing a really poor job at developing the battery technology. That figures, of course. Why would an oil company want to develop electric car technology? Ten years has been wasted, and Cobasys is now being sued by Daimler for failure to supply batteries that they contracted for. GM had to recall 9,000 COBASYS battery packs in 2007 due to internal leakage defects. GM would have been so much further ahead now if they had kept the patent and further developed it through their Delco subsidiary. They certainly wouldn't be begging for money today if they had furthered the battery technology and mass produced EV's.

Toyota partnered with panasonic and used the large NIMI batteries in their original Prius which actually got the EPA estimated 60mpg and in their legendary RAV4 EV. Sadly Toyota and Panasonic got their pants sued off by Cobasys and the RAV4 didn't have a battery and the Prius mileage dropped to the roughly 40mpg it is now.

Incidentally, what you said about the current Prius models getting 40 mpg isn't quite right. The 2001 Prius, for example, was rated at 41 mpg highway and 42 mpg city driving, while the 2008 Prius is rated at 45 mpg highway and 48 mpg city. My 2007 Prius is the same as the 2008 model, and I consistently get 54 average mpg while driving 95% of the time at 65 mph highway speeds. While driving the city streets of Boston, in stop and go traffic, I was able to achieve 62 mpg. While this would be considered great by most people, and I certainly do appreciate it myself, GM produced 3 different gasoline/electric hybrid models of the EV-1 ten years ago that each achieved at least 80 mpg. If they had put these models into mass production, Toyota would not have surpassed GM as the top automaker in terms of production units sold, and both Chrysler and Ford would have had to follow GM's lead to remain in business.

Rick

[rmay635703]

That was Amoco that GM sold the NiMh battery patent rights to, and their subsidiary COBASYS is doing a really poor job at developing the battery technology. That figures, of course. Why would an oil company want to develop electric car technology? Ten years has been wasted, and Cobasys is now being sued by Daimler for failure to supply batteries that they contracted for. GM had to recall 9,000 COBASYS battery packs in 2007 due to internal leakage defects. GM would have been so much further ahead now if they had kept the patent and further developed it through their Delco subsidiary. They certainly wouldn't be begging for money today if they had furthered the battery technology and mass produced EV's.

Cobasys should not have needed to develop it, it already worked. The many Rav4EV's with over 100k on their motive packs are proof of that. Cobasys interfering and restricting the max size of the battery to licensees was the main problem, many small NIMI packs are much more prone to failure than the larger simple units. Panasonic had solved most of the equalization and heat issues by virtue of a larger more durable but also less dense NIMI pack. Panasonics pack was also much more affordable in comparison to the 100+ small cell units floating around now.

And I do agree with you 10 years has been wasted, full car battery Size NIMI EV packs could have been on the market 10years now at lower prices to the general public had their been no patent issue preventing their use.

I might even have my little old C-Car off its lead habit had things been different. My hope now is that the lithium technology gets to the point that it is reliable and affordable (something that won't be known for some years) Or that the EEstor supercaps are more than hype.

Incidentally, what you said about the current Prius models getting 40 mpg isn't quite right. Rick

My only point was that the original year Japanese prius was capable of much higher MPG because it had roughly 5x the battery capacity in comparison to the cars made only 6 months later. The EPA stated in town mileage to be 60mpg until recently when it was changed as most people do not drive carefully enough to achieve it. However with the larger battery pack like the original year end model, most everyone could easily achieve 60mpg and some much higher. The possibilities are shown by those who have put a 2nd battery pack to make plug in Prius setups. The original configuration was not much smaller than the basic plug in modifications being offered today.

I have been looking at getting a HMV freeway or a Subaru 360 (both still legal here in the US) The freeway gets 100mpg and is a small 3 wheeled motorcycle (there are two 10 miles from here). The Subaru 360 was a small 4 seater rear engine kei car, capable of between 50-70mpg in real life and was just a small old car. I guess I can dream, we shall see if I ever find one I like. For now my in town driving is nearly free since my electric is included in my rent but on the weekends I still need a gas gussler to do lug around crafts to craft shows,

I am wondering how I might apply a bedini/tesla device to my little C-Car to possibly gain a little range on the go? So far I haven't seen any demostrated that are big enough and fit in a car to have much effect while driving, though maybe a setup that pulsed while it sits at work would at least improve the battery life at this point I'm not really sure. The controllers that automatically dump the back emf seem to be smoke and mirrors, now if I could buy one or find a schematic

Ah well.

[dutchdivco]

Emissions

Since the subject of emissions has come up, thought I'd share this story; A high school auto shop teacher had a 1936 bus donated, for the class to work on. Great as a learning tool, cause it was so basic. He had them completely re-build the engine, restore the body, etc.Even tho it was exempt from emissions, he took it to get it emmisions tested, so he could show his students WHY we have catayctic converters and all the other pollution control stuff. Only 1 problem;....It passed with flying colors! It wasn't even close to flunking. And, the mileage wasn't that bad either, considering it was a bus, with a much heavier guage metal for the bodies, than todays dent with your thumb crunchmobiles.
I'm kinda with Jessica, tho;critising doesn't get us anywhere, doesn't 'get her done!' Also, The Big 3 had no shortage of buyers, for Big SUV's, and even Hummers were selling like hotcakes, up until the gas run-up.So, were they stupid, or were they selling America what America wanted?
On the other hand, the Hubris displayed by the execs, flying in their private jets to D.C., accompanied by their retinues of gofers, to ask for $ and WITHOUT a plan, shows why, whatevers done, the guys at the top need to go! What a bunch of MORONS! "We took private jets rather than flying commercial because of security concerns".Either these guys have a lot of people who would like to kill them on site, in which case they need to go, Or, they have such an inflated sense of their own importance that they think people want to kill them, in which case,....they need to go!Jim