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

[rickoff]

Continued from my previous post (#90).......

For every CEO getting paid 250x the median salary in a large organisation, there are many, many more staff that depend on that business for their livelihoods. And guess what... when downsizing and cost-cutting it's not the upper-echelons that go... it's the little guys.

In any well run business, when it comes to cost cutting you will find that it is non-essential personnel who are the first to be laid off from work, and that involves both manual laborers which the current workload can not justify keeping, as well as support level staff and supervisors that are not absolutely essential to maintaining operations at reduced output levels.

There were many contributing factors as to why GM went belly up, but US autoworkers, in their demands for ever higher wages and benefits, and their threats to strike if their demands were not met, were the primary cause of GM's downfall and bankruptcy. Before GM went bankrupt, its autoworkers were paid an average of more than $70 per hour in normal compensation, plus more than $100 per hour for overtime, and they received additional benefit and retirement packages that most other American laborers with similar skills and abilities only dreamed about. When the workers were confronted with the inevitable reality that GM would end up going bankrupt if they kept making unrealistic demands and refusing to make concessions to pay levels which had already been granted in previous working contracts, they sealed GM's fate. Everyone at GM should have taken a sizable pay cut, and I mean everyone from the top down, and this could have put GM back on firm financial footing. After that essential step, if GM needed further help it should have come from private equity firms and employee investments in GM stock. Instead, the government bailout and takeover, utilizing taxpayer funds, only guaranteed that US taxpayers would end up paying for the mistakes of the past that were made by GM management and laborers, and further mistakes made in the government takeover.

Should the little guys be thrown onto the slagheap because a bubble bursts, or should perhaps a tiny fraction of... say... the defense budget be used to prop things up until they (hopefully) get better?

In a free enterprise system, where companies and stockholders are rewarded by consumers according to demand for products made by that company, and where laborers are rewarded for the quality vs the price of the product being sold, companies that go bankrupt (and their workers) should be left to suffer the natural consequences of their failure to remain competitive. Note that GM was in competition with Ford and several foreign owned companies which had set up production plants in the US, and neither Ford nor those other companies received a dime of taxpayer bailout money but all have done well. The government should not be in the business of "propping up" failed or failing business models, and no one should have reason to expect that a failed business model has a ghost of a chance of doing better if you simply provide them with other people's money to keep things going. Throwing good money after bad is like throwing gasoline on a fire - it doesn't make sense. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing stated in our Constitution which grants government the right to utilize taxpayer funds to interfere with, or become a player in, the free enterprise system.

[Regster]

No, my intended meaning has not changed. It is just that you did not understand what I intended to convey...

I did not understand what you were trying to say because you did not put the correct words in the correct order. That's not my fault, and you certainly felt it enough of your fault to go back and correct it before responding to me.

[freepenguin]

Look at how small group of people achieved 470mpg in 1980s.

470 MPG-Craig Vetter Fuel Economy contests, better mileage

In 1980, nobody knew. I thought it was time to find out. Between 1980 and 1985, I sponsored the Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Contests. We learned how to get over 470 miles per gallon! On real highways - in real conditions. You want to know how to get better mileage? Read on.

I'm one hundred percent certain the automakers have the power to build or convert conventional cars on the road go upto 100mpg. Anyone knows that all the cutting edge hybrid cars is below or little better than 1980s' Japanese cars.
Honda Civic Gas Mileage: 1978-2011 | MPGomatic
1986 Honda Civic Coupe HF 4 cylinder 1.5 liter R (M5) Manual 52 57
1984 Honda Civic Coupe 4 cylinder (M5) Manual 51 67

2010 Honda Civic Hybrid 4 cylinder 1.3 liter R (AV) Auto 40 45

[rickoff]

Look at how small group of people achieved 470mpg in 1980s.

470 MPG-Craig Vetter Fuel Economy contests, better mileage

I'm one hundred percent certain the automakers have the power to build or convert conventional cars on the road go up to 100mpg. Anyone knows that [mpg achievements of] all the cutting edge hybrid cars is below or little better than 1980s' Japanese cars.

I fully agree without hesitation, fp. When I was just out of high school in 1963 I enrolled in an automotive technology course, and one of the first things we learned was rebuilding carburetors. The course instructor told us that he knew a man who had developed a carburetor design that enabled him to achieve over 100 mpg on a 1960 Chevrolet impala equipped with a 348 cubic inch V8 engine. That car, with a driver and one adult passenger, would weigh in at about 2 tons, so that was quite an achievement. The instructor said that he went out to have a first hand look at the carburetor and to speak with the inventor, and determined that the fuel efficiency had a lot to do with fuel pre-heating and atomization. He was able to persuade the inventor to allow the carburetor to be disassembled and analyzed at the technical school, but on the day the man was to appear he phoned and said that this would not be possible because he had received a "very generous" corporate offer to purchase the design, which he had accepted, and because of terms of the offer was not allowed to disclose anything about the design, the purchase price, or the purchaser.

That was 1963, well before lightweight German and Japanese autos such as the VW Rabbit and Honda Civic began touting gas mileage in the 40 and 50 mpg range, but other inventors had achieved even better results in full size cars that were documented in the 1930's. Charles Pogue was one of these inventors, and in early 1936 the Breen Motor Company, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, tested the Pogue carburetor on a Ford V-8 Coupe and got 26.2 miles on one pint of gasoline, which equates to over 200 mpg. Pogue's carburetor used "white gas," which contained no additives, and it should be noted that oil companies began adding lead to their gasoline right after the Pogue carburetor was introduced. The lead additive acted as an anti-catalyst that reduced the Pogue carburetor efficiency to that of a normal low efficiency carburetor. This, and the fact that both the Canadian and American governments applied intense pressure upon Pogue to abandon the continued manufacture of his carburetor in exchange for a highly paid managerial position at a plant manufacturing oil filters, due to investors dumping oil company stocks upon reading about Pogue's new carburetor, put an end to what could have been a technology of immense benefit to mankind. Some of the carburetors which Pogue did briefly manufacture and sell are still in existence. One of these, a model said to get 125 mpg, can be found at the Don Garlits museum of Drag Racing in Ocala, Florida. Here's a photo, taken in 2002, of Don posing with the carburetor in his hands.


This is just one example of suppression of the kind of fuel saving technology that we could all have been utilizing throughout our lifetimes, and which would have saved us many thousands of dollars in fuel costs while also reducing fuel emissions and preserving fuel resources for future generations. If Pogue's invention had been implemented on all automobiles and trucks, gasoline would likely be selling at this time for 50 cents per gallon or less, and there would be no need to import foreign oil. Instead, we have gas prices close to $4.00 per gallon while US car manufacturers tout any of their new cars that achieve more than 30 mpg as being fuel efficient. And those of us who demand better mileage, in the 45 to 55 mpg range, must fork out a small fortune to purchase a Hybrid vehicle. There is no doubt whatsoever that we have been extremely ripped off by big government, big oil, and big auto manufacturers, all working in collusion to defraud us, and this is just one more reason why the GM taxpayer bailout was preposterous. Let's also not forget that it was GM that developed a highly efficient EV technology and then pulled the product off of production and scrapped the existing pre-production models, while also selling the worldwide patent rights to their highly efficient battery pack to Texaco Oil Company, which was purchased by Chevron. GM obviously knew that big oil would keep the NiMH battery pack technology suppressed rather than producing it for distribution. See the video, Who Killed The Electric Car, for the full story. GM could have revolutionized the auto industry and made enormous and lasting profits by building the clean and efficient EV cars, but chose to instead continue manufacturing gas and oil guzzling autos. We all are faced with making choices that affect our future outcomes, and when a bad choice is made it should not go rewarded.

Rick

[freepenguin]

Dear Rick,

Thanks for the info. I watched the documentary. "Who Killed the EV?" is just another case of showing how general public is dump down and decision makers in every level are money mongers. It's very sad, disturbing reality.

[rickoff]

Some great news....

Hi folks,

I have some great news for you. The US Treasury has announced that the last of it's shares in GM stock have finally been sold off. As you will remember, the GM bailout began 4 years ago, in 2009, with an original bailout "investment" of $25 billion. More taxpayer money was thrown in later, and the total "investment" surged to more than $50 billion, with the "government" then owning more than 60% of GM shares. For that reason, GM came to be known as "Government Motors." Little by little, though, the shares were sold off and now the last of them is gone. That's great news for the People of the United States, right? Well, sort of. I mean it is great that we taxpayers are no longer tied to supporting an "investment" that we never authorized in the first place, but what about the end result of the "investment?" Did we, the People of the United States, come out ahead in this, and if not then did we at least break even? Click here to find out.

[Allcanadian]

@freepenguin

Thanks for the info. I watched the documentary. "Who Killed the EV?" is just another case of showing how general public is dump down and decision makers in every level are money mongers. It's very sad, disturbing reality

.

I would agree it is very sad and disturbing however for completely different reasons. I wonder how many people have even tried to improve their mileage?, I wonder how many did any research to try and improve their mileage or reduce emissions?. You see it's difficult to start laying blame and pointing fingers when 99% of the population make the choice to remain ignorant and do nothing.

On another note I easily doubled the mileage of my car over 30 years ago, I was 16 years old, by simply adding water injection to moderate combustion and prevent pre-detonation, leaning out the carb main jet and advancing the timing. Now how is it that a dumb 16 year old farmboy still wet behind the ears could easily succeed at this while most everyone here finds it impossible?. At which point logic would suggest that nobody has actually even tried to prove this simple technology for themselves.

The fact of the matter is that maybe 1/10th of one percent of the people on this planet actually care enough to try and make a difference and prove matters for themselves and the rest are sheep running in circles. So yes I do find it very sad and disturbing.

On the issue of electric vehicles the most important part is that no being debated. The batteries are normally recharged from power plants running at below 50% efficiency with up to 8% distribution losses and the batteries worth half the price of the vehicle only last 5-6 years. So once that initial warm and fuzzy feeling is gone it is generally understood that ... yes you have been screwed yet again, lol.

AC

[Stealth]

40 year old hybrid

With all the hoopla about hybrids and electric getting exceptional fuel mileage, whatever fuel they use, it is just a gimmick. Back when I was in high school, three of us, me and two friends used a VW beetle to run around in. Gas was cheap, about 30 cents per gallon. One day the engine locked up, and we needed to find another way to get around town. Neither of us had enough money to replace the engine, but one boys uncle owned a junkyard. We went down there and scavenged all day long one Saturday. Not having any luck, his uncle finally offered an alternative. He had several electric golf carts and one had a good motor. We dropped the engine and hooked the motor directly to the transaxle, with some help form him. We also found 4 good batteries and we were off again. We had to hook a charger on the batteries one at a time to charge them, but everyday we would have enough to go several miles. Eventually we went back and got the generator off the old motor, hooked it to a Briggs and Stratton motor(5 HP), then hooked it to all four of the batteries. We could now recharge whenever we got low. We were around 16-17 at the time. Good Luck. stealth