User 169775

Comment Stream » DCX

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • Brand Names: Important, But Not Key to Investment Decisions
    ...Except even though people thought the Japanese cars in the 70s and 80s weren't well-built, they still bought them in droves because they got BETTER FUEL ECONOMY.

    This year it's history repeating itself-- People buying Toyota Corollas that can get 30mpg COMBINED (not just highway as GM and Ford have been advertising) because of $4/gallon gas.

    Ford and GM needs to realize that not only do they need to build cars that are put together well, they also need to make cars that are MORE FUEL EFFICIENT than the Japanese if they want to regain market share in North America.

    The situation in Europe for Ford is not applicable here in North America. Ford is doing well in Europe because they have less-stringent emissions laws, which means Ford's fuel-efficient diesel cars are a big hit there. They can NEVER sell those diesels as-is here, because they don't meet the EPA's Tier2 emissions standards.

    The situation for GM in China is also NOT applicable for the North American market-- GM is doing well in China because gas is still cheap there at $2 a gallon, and the noveau-riche Chinese middle class don't mind buying gas-guzzlers because of that.

    Until one of the Big Three can produce a 50mpg car that is street-legal in the U.S. with comparable reliability and cost about the same as the Toyota Prius, they are not going to gain back market share in the era of $4/gallon gas.

    (Don't bother mentioning the Chevy Volt. Sucker is going to cost $40,000 and by the time it comes out Toyota will have its 3rd-gen PHEV Prius with similar 40-mile-electric capability in the showrooms for $30,000.)
    Aug 17 03:14 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Is One Automaker Default Almost a Sure Thing?
    Catching up to Toyota in quality is nothing groundbreaking.

    Considering that in the past 10 years Detroit spent the same amount on R&D as the 10-year Apollo Program, you would expect them to put out revolutionary things!

    I remain unimpressed.
    Aug 08 14:51 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Is One Automaker Default Almost a Sure Thing?
    Just how does the Big Three spending their $19 Billion / year of R&D money? What do they have to show for it?

    To put it in perspective, the Apollo program cost the U.S. government $20 billion over a period of 10 years, and it put men on the moon and spurred revolutionary technologies such as integrated circuit miniaturization and fly-by-wire controls.

    Even after adjusting for inflation, $19 billion per year for 10 years from the Big Three would have been equal to the the expenditure of the Apollo program. What does the Big Three have to show for it for the past 10 years (1998-2008)?
    Aug 07 05:20 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

User 169775's Comments Stream Stats

  • 60 Comments, 0 , 0
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 0