|
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> > > Michael Pardee wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:46539F26.C3CCCA14@hotmail.com... >> >>> >>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop >>>> cars.. >>> >>> I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over >>> here is virtually >>> unheard of. >>> >>> Graham >>> >>> >> >> >> I haven't been following closely, but I gather the Ford Crown Victoria >> that is so popular with law enforcement in the US has a problem with >> the fuel tank placement or protection. There have been a few cases of >> the car being hit from behind and engulfing the occupant in flaming >> gasoline - reminiscent of the Pinto problem nearly 40 years ago. >> http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ has what looks like an >> explanation. >> >> Mike > > > Yep... Sorta like the Pinto problem of the 1970's. > > Ya gotta luv 'em! > > JT > > i've always wondered that about the mustang - isn't that the gas tank that hangs down right at the rear where you can get a full-on rupture shot on collision? |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> > > Michael Pardee wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:46539F26.C3CCCA14@hotmail.com... >> >>> >>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Not to mention the fire bomb characteristics of the current crop of cop >>>> cars.. >>> >>> I hadn't heard of that being British and all. Cars catching fire over >>> here is virtually >>> unheard of. >>> >>> Graham >>> >>> >> >> >> I haven't been following closely, but I gather the Ford Crown Victoria >> that is so popular with law enforcement in the US has a problem with >> the fuel tank placement or protection. There have been a few cases of >> the car being hit from behind and engulfing the occupant in flaming >> gasoline - reminiscent of the Pinto problem nearly 40 years ago. >> http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ has what looks like an >> explanation. >> >> Mike > > > Yep... Sorta like the Pinto problem of the 1970's. > > Ya gotta luv 'em! > > JT > > i've always wondered that about the mustang - isn't that the gas tank that hangs down right at the rear where you can get a full-on rupture shot on collision? |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Eeyore wrote:
> > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > >> Earle Horton wrote: >>> "Eeyore" wrote >>>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >>>> >>>>> If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than >>>>> the lighter should the two tango. >>>> The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold >>>> true for the people inside. >>>> >>>>> Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President >>>>> with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic. >>>> Whereas in fact you're far worse off. >>> Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush >>> zone". >> >> Egg-Zact-Lee! > > But then again they may not. > > A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its > occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones. > > Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very > unsensible. > > Graham > indeed - you want the extremities to deform and absorb shock, and the passenger shell to be uncrushable. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Eeyore wrote:
> > Grumpy AuContraire wrote: > >> Earle Horton wrote: >>> "Eeyore" wrote >>>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >>>> >>>>> If push comes to shove, the heavier vehicle will suffer less damage than >>>>> the lighter should the two tango. >>>> The *vehicle* may indeed suffer less damage. Doesn't necessarily hold >>>> true for the people inside. >>>> >>>>> Quite frankly, I feel a whole lot safer in my 1955 Studebaker President >>>>> with seat belts than I do in my 1983 Civic. >>>> Whereas in fact you're far worse off. >>> Not necessarily. The other car and its occupants may serve as his "crush >>> zone". >> >> Egg-Zact-Lee! > > But then again they may not. > > A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its > occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones. > > Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very > unsensible. > > Graham > indeed - you want the extremities to deform and absorb shock, and the passenger shell to be uncrushable. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Tegger wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:ubedndfvpf4pqsnbnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> Tegger wrote: >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in >>> news:sKmdneQEcNj3Lc7bnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: >>> >>>> Tegger wrote: >>>>> "jp2express" <jp2mail-tempforum@noSpamyahoo.com> wrote in >>>>> news:IhC4i.21608$YL5.5384@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et: >>>>> >>>>>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. >>>>>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? >>>>> >>>>> Most autos do not use bands any more; they use clutch packs. >>>> the all clutch pack solution is unique to honda afaik. planetary >>>> geared automatics, which are the majority, still use clutch bands in >>>> addition to clutch packs. >>> >>> >>> Toyota went bandless in the '70s. >>> >>> >>> >> i thought they were still planetary. > > > > > Planetary yes, banded no. The two are not mutually inclusive. All bands > or clutch packs do is affect which part(s) of the planetary gearset > is/are allowed to turn. > > I also discovered the Chrysler A604 transaxle is also bandless. I have > posted to rec.autos.tech asking for more examples of bandless auto > gearboxes. > > > >> i tried looking briefly for >> toyota gearbox drawings last night but couldn't find anything. do you >> have any links? >> > > > Not online. I read that in a factory shop manual. Toyota had some banded > trannies and some bandless ones. I think the Toyota A40 was the first > bandless. > > > i'd still love to see how they go bandless - with planet gears mounted in an annulus, a band clutch is the natural solution. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Tegger wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:ubedndfvpf4pqsnbnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> Tegger wrote: >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in >>> news:sKmdneQEcNj3Lc7bnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: >>> >>>> Tegger wrote: >>>>> "jp2express" <jp2mail-tempforum@noSpamyahoo.com> wrote in >>>>> news:IhC4i.21608$YL5.5384@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et: >>>>> >>>>>> Are automatic transmissions still more expensive to maintain (i.e. >>>>>> fluid changes, belt/band adjustments, filter replacements, etc.)? >>>>> >>>>> Most autos do not use bands any more; they use clutch packs. >>>> the all clutch pack solution is unique to honda afaik. planetary >>>> geared automatics, which are the majority, still use clutch bands in >>>> addition to clutch packs. >>> >>> >>> Toyota went bandless in the '70s. >>> >>> >>> >> i thought they were still planetary. > > > > > Planetary yes, banded no. The two are not mutually inclusive. All bands > or clutch packs do is affect which part(s) of the planetary gearset > is/are allowed to turn. > > I also discovered the Chrysler A604 transaxle is also bandless. I have > posted to rec.autos.tech asking for more examples of bandless auto > gearboxes. > > > >> i tried looking briefly for >> toyota gearbox drawings last night but couldn't find anything. do you >> have any links? >> > > > Not online. I read that in a factory shop manual. Toyota had some banded > trannies and some bandless ones. I think the Toyota A40 was the first > bandless. > > > i'd still love to see how they go bandless - with planet gears mounted in an annulus, a band clutch is the natural solution. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
jim beam wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > > A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its > > occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones. > > > > Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very > > unsensible. > > indeed - you want the extremities to deform and absorb shock, and the > passenger shell to be uncrushable. For clarification for the benefit of the unconvinced, the slow deformation of the crush/crumple zones provides relatively gentle deceleration compared to a vehicle that doesn't bend much. The crumpled metal may be what saved your life ! It's like they act as a cushion in an accident whereas in stiff vehicle it's like hitting a brick wall because there's no 'give'. Graham |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
jim beam wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > > A 'stiff' vehicle will in fact exert much higher damaging g-forces on its > > occupants than one that does indeed have crush zones. > > > > Yet another classic example where so-called 'common sense' proves to be very > > unsensible. > > indeed - you want the extremities to deform and absorb shock, and the > passenger shell to be uncrushable. For clarification for the benefit of the unconvinced, the slow deformation of the crush/crumple zones provides relatively gentle deceleration compared to a vehicle that doesn't bend much. The crumpled metal may be what saved your life ! It's like they act as a cushion in an accident whereas in stiff vehicle it's like hitting a brick wall because there's no 'give'. Graham |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Useful Info wrote:
> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > And the stupidity of this thread gets deeper..... |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Useful Info wrote:
> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org > And the stupidity of this thread gets deeper..... |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
On 5/23/2007 8:48 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:
> bill wrote: >> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> Tegger wrote: >>>> Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote in >>>> news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >>>>> safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a >>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out >>>>> the competition. >>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well. >>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete, >>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it. >>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve, >>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone >>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their >>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv >>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those >>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching >>> themselves wondering what the people were buying those dumb-ass >>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that >>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and >>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb bastards. >>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart. >>> >>>> The domestics are >>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace >>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years? >> >> >> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts >> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for >> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a >> hammer. >> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing >> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with >> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they >> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n >> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our >> union cocksuckers would rather make crap cars than get paid what >> they're worth. >> > it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on > componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal > favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ attention > in those departments, american cars will forever remain utter crap. Jim, one (not the only one, of course) of the reasons that poor decisions are made in these areas is the cost. The average cost added by health care and retirement packages for for laborers in the 'Big 3' is $1350; for Toyota, that figure is right at $100. *PER VEHICLE*. The American manufacturers can't get to Toyota's level under the strictures they operate within, but things could improve. Meanwhile, think about the process and engineering improvements that could be made with, say half of that $1250 per vehicle available. Yes, they made their own bed; there was a time when they could have made smarter decisions and avoided this hole. But at that time, most people in the decision making process believed that the status quo would prevail forever. They aren't in a position to make better engineering decisions now. They are hoisted on their own petard. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen -- "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." –- Thomas Jefferson |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
On 5/23/2007 8:48 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:
> bill wrote: >> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> Tegger wrote: >>>> Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote in >>>> news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >>>>> safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a >>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out >>>>> the competition. >>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well. >>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete, >>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it. >>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve, >>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone >>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling their >>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv >>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those >>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching >>> themselves wondering what the people were buying those dumb-ass >>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that >>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and >>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb bastards. >>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart. >>> >>>> The domestics are >>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to displace >>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years? >> >> >> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts >> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for >> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a >> hammer. >> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing >> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with >> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they >> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n >> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our >> union cocksuckers would rather make crap cars than get paid what >> they're worth. >> > it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on > componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal > favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ attention > in those departments, american cars will forever remain utter crap. Jim, one (not the only one, of course) of the reasons that poor decisions are made in these areas is the cost. The average cost added by health care and retirement packages for for laborers in the 'Big 3' is $1350; for Toyota, that figure is right at $100. *PER VEHICLE*. The American manufacturers can't get to Toyota's level under the strictures they operate within, but things could improve. Meanwhile, think about the process and engineering improvements that could be made with, say half of that $1250 per vehicle available. Yes, they made their own bed; there was a time when they could have made smarter decisions and avoided this hole. But at that time, most people in the decision making process believed that the status quo would prevail forever. They aren't in a position to make better engineering decisions now. They are hoisted on their own petard. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen -- "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." –- Thomas Jefferson |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Dave Kelsen wrote:
> On 5/23/2007 8:48 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: > >> bill wrote: >>> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> Tegger wrote: >>>>> Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote in >>>>> news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >>>>>> safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a >>>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out >>>>>> the competition. >>>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well. >>>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete, >>>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it. >>>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve, >>>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone >>>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling >>>> their >>>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv >>>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those >>>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching >>>> themselves wondering what the people were buying those dumb-ass >>>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that >>>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and >>>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb >>>> bastards. >>>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart. >>>> >>>>> The domestics are >>>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to >>>>> displace >>>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years? >>> >>> >>> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts >>> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for >>> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a >>> hammer. >>> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing >>> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with >>> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they >>> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n >>> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our >>> union cocksuckers would rather make crap cars than get paid what >>> they're worth. >>> >> it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on >> componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal >> favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ >> attention in those departments, american cars will forever remain >> utter crap. > > Jim, one (not the only one, of course) of the reasons that poor > decisions are made in these areas is the cost. The average cost added > by health care and retirement packages for for laborers in the 'Big 3' > is $1350; for Toyota, that figure is right at $100. *PER VEHICLE*. i don't think i buy those numbers. land, construction, utilities, materials, labor, etc., are all phenomenally expensive in japan. they have no natural resources and have to import everything. with our cheap abundant land, natural resources, and one would have thought, superior technology [we put a man on the moon remember] i simply cannot believe that it costs more to produce a vehicle here. unless there's something /seriously/ wrong with management and they can't control costs. blaming unions is just smoke designed to cover for total lack of balls in sorting problems out - if they exist. need more argument? look at europe. germany has unions /way/ more restrictive than us or even japan. labor over there is ridiculously expensive and they only have a 35 hour week!!! so how do they get anything done? automation!!! every time i see financial news footage on tv showing detroit auto workers assembling vehicles by hand, /i/ see stunted and stupid management that doesn't have the brains or the balls to sort out their production technology. bleating about costs? i don't buy it. > > The American manufacturers can't get to Toyota's level under the > strictures they operate within, but things could improve. Meanwhile, > think about the process and engineering improvements that could be made > with, say half of that $1250 per vehicle available. how many man-hours per vehicle? > > Yes, they made their own bed; there was a time when they could have made > smarter decisions and avoided this hole. But at that time, most people > in the decision making process believed that the status quo would > prevail forever. so fix it now!!! bleating about pensions liability relief and tax concessions don't fix the problem - lack of addressing their fundamental management paralysis is the problem. > > They aren't in a position to make better engineering decisions now. They > are hoisted on their own petard. they could fix it today. make the decision and execute. voluntary redundancy. hiring freeze. overtime freeze. small salary increase for the remainder. then AUTOMATE. the financial markets will underwrite /substantial/ one-time charges if it means these morons get their act back together. and getting back to costs, the german unions were faced with the reality of suicide or cooperation. they chose the latter. and now management and unions work closely so remaining workers are highly paid but also highly productive. there has to be a way, but i don't see detroit even trying. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
Dave Kelsen wrote:
> On 5/23/2007 8:48 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: > >> bill wrote: >>> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> Tegger wrote: >>>>> Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote in >>>>> news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.com: >>>>>> safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a >>>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out >>>>>> the competition. >>>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well. >>>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete, >>>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it. >>>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve, >>>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone >>>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling >>>> their >>>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv >>>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those >>>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching >>>> themselves wondering what the people were buying those dumb-ass >>>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that >>>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and >>>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb >>>> bastards. >>>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart. >>>> >>>>> The domestics are >>>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to >>>>> displace >>>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years? >>> >>> >>> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts >>> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for >>> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a >>> hammer. >>> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing >>> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with >>> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they >>> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n >>> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our >>> union cocksuckers would rather make crap cars than get paid what >>> they're worth. >>> >> it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on >> componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal >> favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ >> attention in those departments, american cars will forever remain >> utter crap. > > Jim, one (not the only one, of course) of the reasons that poor > decisions are made in these areas is the cost. The average cost added > by health care and retirement packages for for laborers in the 'Big 3' > is $1350; for Toyota, that figure is right at $100. *PER VEHICLE*. i don't think i buy those numbers. land, construction, utilities, materials, labor, etc., are all phenomenally expensive in japan. they have no natural resources and have to import everything. with our cheap abundant land, natural resources, and one would have thought, superior technology [we put a man on the moon remember] i simply cannot believe that it costs more to produce a vehicle here. unless there's something /seriously/ wrong with management and they can't control costs. blaming unions is just smoke designed to cover for total lack of balls in sorting problems out - if they exist. need more argument? look at europe. germany has unions /way/ more restrictive than us or even japan. labor over there is ridiculously expensive and they only have a 35 hour week!!! so how do they get anything done? automation!!! every time i see financial news footage on tv showing detroit auto workers assembling vehicles by hand, /i/ see stunted and stupid management that doesn't have the brains or the balls to sort out their production technology. bleating about costs? i don't buy it. > > The American manufacturers can't get to Toyota's level under the > strictures they operate within, but things could improve. Meanwhile, > think about the process and engineering improvements that could be made > with, say half of that $1250 per vehicle available. how many man-hours per vehicle? > > Yes, they made their own bed; there was a time when they could have made > smarter decisions and avoided this hole. But at that time, most people > in the decision making process believed that the status quo would > prevail forever. so fix it now!!! bleating about pensions liability relief and tax concessions don't fix the problem - lack of addressing their fundamental management paralysis is the problem. > > They aren't in a position to make better engineering decisions now. They > are hoisted on their own petard. they could fix it today. make the decision and execute. voluntary redundancy. hiring freeze. overtime freeze. small salary increase for the remainder. then AUTOMATE. the financial markets will underwrite /substantial/ one-time charges if it means these morons get their act back together. and getting back to costs, the german unions were faced with the reality of suicide or cooperation. they chose the latter. and now management and unions work closely so remaining workers are highly paid but also highly productive. there has to be a way, but i don't see detroit even trying. |
Re: Volkswagon unveils car that gets 282 miles to the gallon.
On May 24, 8:57 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Dave Kelsen wrote: > > On 5/23/2007 8:48 PM jim beam spake these words of knowledge: > > >> bill wrote: > >>> On May 22, 11:32 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>> Tegger wrote: > >>>>> Broderick Crawford <bcrawford2...@roadrunner.com> wrote in > >>>>>news:4652c91f$0$4724$4c368faf@roadrunner.co m: > >>>>>> safety, Drive right and you won't need it. Safety is just a > >>>>>> protection scheme invented by the American car companies to keep out > >>>>>> the competition. > >>>>> If that's the case, the plan isn't working very well. > >>>> that's the ironic stupidity of it! rather than re-invest and compete, > >>>> detroit simply put lipstick on their pig and hoped to keep selling it. > >>>> now, domestic product is /so/ bad and /so/ behind the technology curve, > >>>> it's hard to see how they could ever catch up. it's not like anyone > >>>> couldn't see this coming, not least detroit, and they were filling > >>>> their > >>>> pants with their fears. but then they had the reprieve of the suv > >>>> phenomenon when they were suddenly making 50% /NET/ profits on those > >>>> pieces of the garbage, and the japanese were standing about scratching > >>>> themselves wondering what the people were buying those dumb-ass > >>>> vehicles for. but ever the pragmatists, the japanese soon figured that > >>>> if that's what the round-eyes wanted, that's what they would get, and > >>>> suddenly the only thing detroit had left was taken away. dumb > >>>> bastards. > >>>> they deserve to go down in flames if they can't get smart. > > >>>>> The domestics are > >>>>> losing market share left right and center. Isn't Toyota poised to > >>>>> displace > >>>>> GM in the #1 position in a few years? > > >>> Not helping that the cost of medical insurance in the us amounts > >>> to $1500/vehicle, and that the union labor cost is $25/hour for > >>> uneducated high school dropouts who can barely be trusted to swing a > >>> hammer. > >>> These costs cut into the profit margins on the manufacturing > >>> end, and must be made up somewhere, and you can't really do it with > >>> efficiency improvements because those are capital intensive. so they > >>> make up for it on skimpy design cycle and poor tolerance machining, n > >>> other words, our cushioned american asses make crap cars because our > >>> union cocksuckers would rather make crap cars than get paid what > >>> they're worth. > > >> it's not a union thing dude. it's management that makes decisions on > >> componentry specs, re-investment in new design and my own personal > >> favorite, production technology aka automation. absent /any/ > >> attention in those departments, american cars will forever remain > >> utter crap. > > > Jim, one (not the only one, of course) of the reasons that poor > > decisions are made in these areas is the cost. The average cost added > > by health care and retirement packages for for laborers in the 'Big 3' > > is $1350; for Toyota, that figure is right at $100. *PER VEHICLE*. > > i don't think i buy those numbers. land, construction, utilities, > materials, labor, etc., are all phenomenally expensive in japan. they > have no natural resources and have to import everything. with our cheap > abundant land, natural resources, and one would have thought, superior > technology [we put a man on the moon remember] i simply cannot believe > that it costs more to produce a vehicle here. unless there's something > /seriously/ wrong with management and they can't control costs. blaming > unions is just smoke designed to cover for total lack of balls in > sorting problems out - if they exist. need more argument? look at > europe. germany has unions /way/ more restrictive than us or even > japan. labor over there is ridiculously expensive and they only have a > 35 hour week!!! so how do they get anything done? automation!!! every > time i see financial news footage on tv showing detroit auto workers > assembling vehicles by hand, /i/ see stunted and stupid management that > doesn't have the brains or the balls to sort out their production > technology. > > bleating about costs? i don't buy it. > > > > > The American manufacturers can't get to Toyota's level under the > > strictures they operate within, but things could improve. Meanwhile, > > think about the process and engineering improvements that could be made > > with, say half of that $1250 per vehicle available. > > how many man-hours per vehicle? > > > > > Yes, they made their own bed; there was a time when they could have made > > smarter decisions and avoided this hole. But at that time, most people > > in the decision making process believed that the status quo would > > prevail forever. > > so fix it now!!! bleating about pensions liability relief and tax > concessions don't fix the problem - lack of addressing their fundamental > management paralysis is the problem. > > > > > They aren't in a position to make better engineering decisions now. They > > are hoisted on their own petard. > > they could fix it today. make the decision and execute. voluntary > redundancy. hiring freeze. overtime freeze. small salary increase for > the remainder. then AUTOMATE. the financial markets will underwrite > /substantial/ one-time charges if it means these morons get their act > back together. and getting back to costs, the german unions were faced > with the reality of suicide or cooperation. they chose the latter. and > now management and unions work closely so remaining workers are highly > paid but also highly productive. there has to be a way, but i don't see > detroit even trying. everything you are suggesting has been looked at and failed. The unions block attempts at automation, the unions block hiring freezes and overtime freezes, the government typically steps in and caves to labor in the disputes. An example of the insanity of us unions was the dockworkers strike a few years back, they were striking due to BAR CODES!! because they thought it would make some jobs redundent. As another, trains to this day have a conductor, the conductor was the guy in the caboose who operated the brake. when is the last time you saw a caboose? however, when the automated brakes came into play, the union threw a hissy and made them keep the conductor. the unions in europe are nothing next to our own. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:03 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands