April 7, 2009
Quote of the Day III
What kind of lazy-ass blogger posts three "QOTDs???"
Well, what could one possibly add to this?
No one at GM ever said that the first-gen Volts would make money, but Troy Clarke, president of GM's North American operations, recently told Automotive News that the second-generation vehicles might also be a red entry on the books. Of course, "as we get a chance to change the generations of technology, we'll lose less and less," he said, adding that, "It's not our intention to lose money forever." Well, that's something. -- autobloggreen.comOil and Energy Posted by John Kranz at April 7, 2009 1:50 PM
Glad they got rid of that Waggoner guy, aren't you?
Posted by: jk at April 7, 2009 1:55 PMThey're going to make their money on volume.
Posted by: AlexC at April 7, 2009 2:15 PMCrikey! It's like they brought Madman Muntz back from the dead to run GM. The Muntz Jet may actually resume production at last - complete with an in-dash four-track tape deck, for your listening pleasure...
Posted by: Keith at April 7, 2009 3:25 PMWhat'm I gonna do with all my old 8-tracks? Granted, the "Jesus Christ Superstar" tape is broken, but I've still got "Tommy"...
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 8, 2009 11:24 AMI haven't heard this discussed anywhere yet but this seems like a good time and place: After Obama Motors cancels the "gas guzzling" but profitable SUV car models I'd like to see some enterprising billionaire spin them off into a new auto company - he could call it "Specific Motors" - and put the profitable models back into production. It would be interesting to see if consumer demand could defeat layer upon layer of government coercion as Obama Motors uses its power of force to "compete" with the desirable cars.
Posted by: johngalt at April 8, 2009 11:28 AMjg: I like your idea, but it won't happen. Were GM/Obama Motors to do away with the popular models you describe, it would be done in the the name of the environment and in the name of fuel consumption. Being at the behest of government policy, your spin-off company won't be ALLOWED to manufacture the now-contraband autos, and if necessary, legislation will be enacted forbidding the popular gas-guzzlers.
It will probably be an amendment to Directive 10-289.
That being said, the gubmint can have my gas-guzzling V-8 Mustang GT when they pry the five-speed shifter out of my cold, dead right hand - if they can catch me first.
Second, "Specific Motors" is a name that needs improvement. It needs to be named after the founder, like "Taggart Transcontinental," "d'Anconia Copper," or "Wyatt Oil." A generic, faceless name like "Amalgamated Switch and Signal" or "Associated Steel" just won't do.
Wouldn't it just be sweetly ironic to see this happen under the banner of "Galt Motor Works"?
Posted by: Keith at April 8, 2009 1:39 PMLunching with ThreeSources friend Silence Dogood, I just suggested that the government could "fix" Chrysler and GM by saying the CAFE standards are forgotten, have a nice day. A little simplistic, but I'd love to see it tried.
Okay, Keith we need more data -- what year is the horse?
Posted by: jk at April 8, 2009 8:06 PMjk: 2004 (Fortieth Anniversary), dark gray - so I have no fear on highways where you see the sign "Patrolled By Aircraft." I'm the same color as the pavement. Low-tech stealth, and producing a CAFE-curdling 17-18 MPG - just a hair greener than the mileage I used to get on my 1986 Jeep CJ-7.
I like your idea of deep-sixing CAFE. I'll add one to counterbalance it, since we're also going to have to do something, throw a bone to the global warming crowd. I once proposed that here in California, they print the IQ of every licensed driver on their license, and allow them to drive at speeds up to their IQ rating. Here in California, that would keep the average down to Jimmeh Carter's gas-saving 55...
Posted by: Keith at April 8, 2009 9:20 PM | What do you think? [8]