Lutz: No more RWD
04-11-2007 | 08:39 PM
#121
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 616
From: West Palm Beach, FL
You mean the movie maker does a great job of showing how global warming is not a man made event. This was just one guy's movie. You know how many scientific research groups are out there that have up to date information that believe we are having an effect on the atmosphere? Quite a lot.
Most scientist agree that the planet goes through natural variations of warming and cooling, who knows, but we may just be in a natural cycle. We also may have caused a premature cycle, again....we'll never know in our lifetime the truth. I guess it doesn't hurt to be safe, but the new standards seem a little premature at this point.
Last edited by toegead93; 04-11-2007 at 08:43 PM.
04-11-2007 | 09:06 PM
#122
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 73
The problem with this whole argument about fuel mileage is that you must first think like corporate Earth to understand why we still drive vehicles getting 15 mpg. Corporate Earth looks out for corporate Earth. Corporate Earth doesn't have to worry about pleasing the consumer for one reason—the consumer is generally too busy being hypnotized by television and media input, addicted to the various chemicals of modern medicine, food, and a few other oddities of the day.
I am not saying that their is definitely a grand scheme of super elite people who meet each week to plot against the voters and widdle away at their pocket books, but I am saying that there are bigger, simpler questions to be asked before, "How come you guys don't give us cars with better gas mileage?" I am also saying that much of the complexity of modern life has succeeded in brain-washing people into hopeless trends, habits, and "forms" of thinking (any intelligent individual must question how such a formless process as thought can take a form).
If you really want to start asking questions, write your congressman or congresswoman and ask he or she why gasoline and diesel fuel are not operated as monopolies. Better yet, ask he or she why the government hasn't sought to pursue en devours of it's own in oil drilling. Just imagine if the record-setting, multi-billion dollar profit of each preceding year in the oil industry were recycled into our economy. That would be a beautiful thing for any society. Isn't it ironic that lawmakers create regulatory mechanisms in various sectors of capitalism (in direct contrast with true-capitalism ideal), except the most lucrative market that any society has ever seen—oil energy. If you consider the history of legislature in this country, particularly at the inception of the Fed, it is not ironic.
I don't want to sound political because this is not—this is social. This is not about democrats, libs, or neo-cons; that is another distraction from the more devious activities underway. What I am talking about is the pure greed exhibited by some, and the self-perpetuating stupidity bred by those who have the illusion of security and liberty.
Ask simpler, bigger picture questions and the specifics, the details, will be innate.
I am not saying that their is definitely a grand scheme of super elite people who meet each week to plot against the voters and widdle away at their pocket books, but I am saying that there are bigger, simpler questions to be asked before, "How come you guys don't give us cars with better gas mileage?" I am also saying that much of the complexity of modern life has succeeded in brain-washing people into hopeless trends, habits, and "forms" of thinking (any intelligent individual must question how such a formless process as thought can take a form).
If you really want to start asking questions, write your congressman or congresswoman and ask he or she why gasoline and diesel fuel are not operated as monopolies. Better yet, ask he or she why the government hasn't sought to pursue en devours of it's own in oil drilling. Just imagine if the record-setting, multi-billion dollar profit of each preceding year in the oil industry were recycled into our economy. That would be a beautiful thing for any society. Isn't it ironic that lawmakers create regulatory mechanisms in various sectors of capitalism (in direct contrast with true-capitalism ideal), except the most lucrative market that any society has ever seen—oil energy. If you consider the history of legislature in this country, particularly at the inception of the Fed, it is not ironic.
I don't want to sound political because this is not—this is social. This is not about democrats, libs, or neo-cons; that is another distraction from the more devious activities underway. What I am talking about is the pure greed exhibited by some, and the self-perpetuating stupidity bred by those who have the illusion of security and liberty.
Ask simpler, bigger picture questions and the specifics, the details, will be innate.
04-11-2007 | 10:36 PM
#124
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
yeah, but everyone used to think the earth was flat. Then when all of those mainstream scientists realized they were wrong about that they told us the sun revolved around the earth. And some people still don't believe in evolution. My point is gloabl warming is backed by 'mainstream' scientists. No one on this planet can say or prove either side of the story without a doubt. Maybe at some point in the future scientists will look back and laugh at us, but for now...
Most scientist agree that the planet goes through natural variations of warming and cooling, who knows, but we may just be in a natural cycle. We also may have caused a premature cycle, again....we'll never know in our lifetime the truth. I guess it doesn't hurt to be safe, but the new standards seem a little premature at this point.
Most scientist agree that the planet goes through natural variations of warming and cooling, who knows, but we may just be in a natural cycle. We also may have caused a premature cycle, again....we'll never know in our lifetime the truth. I guess it doesn't hurt to be safe, but the new standards seem a little premature at this point.
Global warming might not be happening. Wouldn't be the first time people were wrong. It could be happening too, and it is worth taking some precautions. I agree with what you said, maybe this is being taken too far. I am not some treehugger that wants to be driving around in a 120hp sh*tbox. However, I have no intention of lying to myself to make myself feel better.
In the end, we don't have any idea what kind of CO2 standards the EPA will set as of yet. I know everyone imagines they are a group of pleasure suckings hippies that want to ruin everyone's good time, but I would bet they have at least a decent idea of what is realistic and what isn't. With the result of a perfect combustion being CO2 and H20, how exactly do you limit C02 out of the tailpipes without dumping out all kinds of other pollutants? Purposely built a crappy flowing engine? Smaller engines? Guess we will see.
04-12-2007 | 01:03 AM
#126
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 29
I haven't read much of this thread, but I've seen enough to think this might be of some interest. It was pointed out to me a few days ago. If you have an hour to spare take a boo:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467
04-12-2007 | 01:34 AM
#128
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
When is the Chrysler/GM/BMW two stage hybrid system suppose to debut, and what is the first car it will find a home in?
04-12-2007 | 02:13 AM
#130
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
It's worth noting that the regulatory impact on niche performance vehicles like the Camaro should be pretty minimal -- the real problem at GM is on the small commuter car side (both in terms of marketing/sales and technology).
Also, Guy made a great post on how both sides are playing this politically. Bottom line is that America is going to have to deal with using less oil, and hey if we can all blame "global warming" rather than f-ed up geo-politics, that's something a lot of politicians R & D are going to support.
Also, Guy made a great post on how both sides are playing this politically. Bottom line is that America is going to have to deal with using less oil, and hey if we can all blame "global warming" rather than f-ed up geo-politics, that's something a lot of politicians R & D are going to support.
04-12-2007 | 04:13 AM
#131
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 233
Wait a minute -- no one said "cancel the future plans" as your first line says........
Mr. Lutz says that some product plans have been put on hold.
Now...let's stop for a minute and look at what he's saying --
The U.S. Government is talking about raising CAFE substantially...over the next several years. We can argue the merits of that forever - but what Mr. Lutz is saying is this: Look....we have these great plans. We are moving forward with some of our RWD cars.........HOWEVER -- we're putting the brakes on some future plans (beyond Camaro and RWD sedans) -- because we don't KNOW that we'll be able to build them - or that there will be a market for them. We're going to look at several options -- but until the decision is made, we're not going to run headlong into a product plan that could bankrupt us.........
The stockholders of General Motors Corporation DEMAND that he and all other top executives have a comprehensive plan -- with alternatives -- because if they don't, it's curtains for GM.
Now -- I didn't walk into his office and discuss this.....but from my limited knowledge of GM -- and what we do with product plans...I think I'm safe in posting the above.
(if not, a fleet of black suburbans will pull up in front of my house.......)
It's good to have dialogue -- but it's bad to jump to conclusions...........
Now ... my personal thought for the day? I believe Global Warming will become the instrument for some people to gain more and more power.......and I'm scared silly that too many people will allow that to happen.
Mr. Lutz says that some product plans have been put on hold.
Now...let's stop for a minute and look at what he's saying --
The U.S. Government is talking about raising CAFE substantially...over the next several years. We can argue the merits of that forever - but what Mr. Lutz is saying is this: Look....we have these great plans. We are moving forward with some of our RWD cars.........HOWEVER -- we're putting the brakes on some future plans (beyond Camaro and RWD sedans) -- because we don't KNOW that we'll be able to build them - or that there will be a market for them. We're going to look at several options -- but until the decision is made, we're not going to run headlong into a product plan that could bankrupt us.........
The stockholders of General Motors Corporation DEMAND that he and all other top executives have a comprehensive plan -- with alternatives -- because if they don't, it's curtains for GM.
Now -- I didn't walk into his office and discuss this.....but from my limited knowledge of GM -- and what we do with product plans...I think I'm safe in posting the above.
(if not, a fleet of black suburbans will pull up in front of my house.......)
It's good to have dialogue -- but it's bad to jump to conclusions...........
Now ... my personal thought for the day? I believe Global Warming will become the instrument for some people to gain more and more power.......and I'm scared silly that too many people will allow that to happen.
I've done my homework, been doing it for years, and have searched out unbiased, non-politically motivated information on this subject (and many others, I love knowledge for it's own sake)....and you are dead on. Global Warming is more of a political movement than anything having to do with caring about the environment, and the extreme opinions being thrown about in the political arena are merely to gain voter trust, in a giant game of chess invented by politicians themselves, where the american people lose regardless of the outcome.
Until people take it upon themselves to seek out information instead of relying on those with an agenda (and those with an agenda are ALWAYS the ones who get their opinion out in the open more) to feed it to them, we will continually see more and more issues arise until something drastic happens. This trend alone is responsible for the (up till now) 200 year average lifespan of governments. Extreme polarization and politicalization of issues is the leading fear for the American people (and everyone else too), not foreign dangers, not global warming, taxes, or anything else that one could think of.
Bravo to you, sir, for recognizing that fact and trying to warn people. I hope politicians take notice before things get too out of hand. (I'm not suggesting that anarchy is about to break out or the USA is about to suffer some kind of revolution, but those things have happened before and will happen again if people fail to wake up and step in and do something for themselves.)
Proverb to live by? The squeaky wheel may be the one that gets oiled, but if it happens enough, it gets ripped off and replaced. Making your opinion heard is a good idea. Basing your "opinion" on political rhetoric and self-promotion, then jamming it down people's throats will get you replaced.
The true answer to this issue lies somewhere in the middle of these artificially polarized versions of opinion that the political climate has produced. The environment IS important. It's so important that I find it disgusting that politicians would attempt to use the emotional reaction it gets from people to gain personal power and further their own financial goals. And there are politicians on both sides.
I appologize for digging this deep into things on a simple car messageboard, but I really felt the need to say something once the topic was even SLIGHTLY breached.
Last edited by boxerperson; 04-12-2007 at 04:24 AM.
04-12-2007 | 07:08 AM
#132
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 235
From: South Carolina
You're missing one minor issue.... it's the Bush Administration proposing this, not some hippy-nanny group. "Global Warming" just plays into things.
Since you went off on a tangent and layed the blame at a pretty ridiculous target, let me offer a theory that probally comes closer to home.
Oil companies are getting towards the limit of what they can
charge for oil. We essentially are at a point where we want to pull power out of the middle east by cutting the amount of money we send them by buying massive quanities of oil. Best way to counter the influence of the middle east and find a form of energy where companies can clear larger amounts of money (the planet MUST have energy), is to devise ways to send oil prices through the roof to the point where it makes sense to use alternate sources of energy where the profit margins are superior to what it is in oil. But you can't actually say that because you'll get people up in arms. "National Security" doesn't quite have the same ring as "Global Warming", since you simply can't say we're going to shift profiteering on the world's energy supply from middle east intrests to the US.
Nuclear energy arguably is the cheapest form of fuel. Ethanol and other alcohol based fuels can be made here in the US, and all the profit kept here instead of being sent to the middle east or countries that don't support US policy. Also, why should some sheik have billions in cash and lots of power when instead, we can keep the billions for our own executives and stockholders.
You have a conservative administration headed by an oil executive and a head of a large energy comglamerate playing 2nd bananna (or the man behind the curtain) pushing automotive hybird technology, development of alternative fuel sources, has been eager to jack up fuel economy standards, has openly praised foreign automakers while scorning (and not even meeting with) domestic automakers for 6 years! You have a government that one hand doesn't want to raise taxes on gasoline with money going into the treasury to finance the deficit, but almost encourages fuel prices to spiral upwards, while the money goes into the pockets of investors, executives, and "blind trusts".
"Global Warming" is a great cover, isn't it?
There's plenty of things at work here. It's easy to go into the old kneejerk, blame Hippie-Liberal-Communists that the uneducated, unaware, and backwards folks tend to drift to since most politics is designed to play on the fears of the 70-75% of the population that doesn't vote and likes everything in soundbite sized pieces.
But as world and US history has shown over and over again, it's a convergence of things that tend to change things. It may take a single spark to set things off, and a single banner that makes things gel. But there's always alot more to the story, and alot more under the surface.
Since you went off on a tangent and layed the blame at a pretty ridiculous target, let me offer a theory that probally comes closer to home.
Oil companies are getting towards the limit of what they can
charge for oil. We essentially are at a point where we want to pull power out of the middle east by cutting the amount of money we send them by buying massive quanities of oil. Best way to counter the influence of the middle east and find a form of energy where companies can clear larger amounts of money (the planet MUST have energy), is to devise ways to send oil prices through the roof to the point where it makes sense to use alternate sources of energy where the profit margins are superior to what it is in oil. But you can't actually say that because you'll get people up in arms. "National Security" doesn't quite have the same ring as "Global Warming", since you simply can't say we're going to shift profiteering on the world's energy supply from middle east intrests to the US.
Nuclear energy arguably is the cheapest form of fuel. Ethanol and other alcohol based fuels can be made here in the US, and all the profit kept here instead of being sent to the middle east or countries that don't support US policy. Also, why should some sheik have billions in cash and lots of power when instead, we can keep the billions for our own executives and stockholders.
You have a conservative administration headed by an oil executive and a head of a large energy comglamerate playing 2nd bananna (or the man behind the curtain) pushing automotive hybird technology, development of alternative fuel sources, has been eager to jack up fuel economy standards, has openly praised foreign automakers while scorning (and not even meeting with) domestic automakers for 6 years! You have a government that one hand doesn't want to raise taxes on gasoline with money going into the treasury to finance the deficit, but almost encourages fuel prices to spiral upwards, while the money goes into the pockets of investors, executives, and "blind trusts".
"Global Warming" is a great cover, isn't it?
There's plenty of things at work here. It's easy to go into the old kneejerk, blame Hippie-Liberal-Communists that the uneducated, unaware, and backwards folks tend to drift to since most politics is designed to play on the fears of the 70-75% of the population that doesn't vote and likes everything in soundbite sized pieces.
But as world and US history has shown over and over again, it's a convergence of things that tend to change things. It may take a single spark to set things off, and a single banner that makes things gel. But there's always alot more to the story, and alot more under the surface.
Damn. Never get tired of reading your posts. You are so on. Things are never as simple as they seem, and it is nice to read the post of someone else who recognizes this.
04-12-2007 | 07:30 AM
#133
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 235
From: South Carolina
actually, that's not really true.
Part of the problem is that there has been no consistency in terms of where the measurements have been taken. After the fall of the Berlin Wall -- somewhere between 150 and 200 Russian stations were taken offline-- now - I have to believe that impacts the average.
..and as I stated earlier in the thread - 20 years ago, many in the scientific community swore that we were going thru Global cooling.....and that dire consequences would occur as we went into another ice age.........well, that didn't happen.
Now...again -- I'm not an expert by any means.......but I don't trust everything I hear -- esp. when it comes to "Algore".........so I've been doing a lot of reading.........and all I'm saying is that we all need to be questioning the hysteria over Global Warming --esp. when you see what's happened to Scientists who have disagreed with Algore and company.
Part of the problem is that there has been no consistency in terms of where the measurements have been taken. After the fall of the Berlin Wall -- somewhere between 150 and 200 Russian stations were taken offline-- now - I have to believe that impacts the average.
..and as I stated earlier in the thread - 20 years ago, many in the scientific community swore that we were going thru Global cooling.....and that dire consequences would occur as we went into another ice age.........well, that didn't happen.
Now...again -- I'm not an expert by any means.......but I don't trust everything I hear -- esp. when it comes to "Algore".........so I've been doing a lot of reading.........and all I'm saying is that we all need to be questioning the hysteria over Global Warming --esp. when you see what's happened to Scientists who have disagreed with Algore and company.
Or are you completing and publishing research on these issues yourself? If so, I'd love to see it. There are a MYRIAD of indicators that the climate IS warming. The question is, do we have anything to do with that, or are we just passive observers?
I am not meaning to bash, but DAMN! Ever do something simple, like watch movies? I am reminded here of a throw away and overused line in the Spiderman movie. "With great power comes great responsibility."
You've got great power on here dude, people hang on your every word. Don't pretend to know more than you do. The jury is still out on global warming and the cause. It is also still out on the relationship of smoking and COPD, cancer, and other forms of lung disease. We cannot PROVE definitively that smoking causes these. But the vast preponderence of evidence tells us there is a connection, and therefore those who are concerned about it either don't start smoking or they attempt to quit. We are getting more and more information as we go that there MAY be a link between CO2 emissions and global warming, but the jury is out. Why however do we seek to demonize those asking the questions, Al Gore or anybody else? It is amazing!
I am no "tree hugging" liberal, but I am a humanity loving person, and I LOVE my cars, but I am open enough, and for the sake of our children I want to know, if something we are doing is having a significantly negative impact on our lives and perhaps on the lives of those that will come after us.
A dose of common sense seems in order here. When you look at both sides of an issue, no matter how extreme or complex, the truth is almost ALWAYS somewhere in the middle. But there is TRUTH. And that is what we need to find. And no matter how painful it is, we then need to be courageous, and act.
And, as always, thanks for all the info you provide about the Camaro. That, you know!
Last edited by willz; 04-12-2007 at 07:33 AM.
04-12-2007 | 07:35 AM
#134
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 235
From: South Carolina
I'm just a 23 year old kid from Iowa, so my opinion is nothing in the grand scheme of things, and the length of my world experience may lead many people to write me off, but this post instantly engenders in me an extremely large amount of respect for you.
I've done my homework, been doing it for years, and have searched out unbiased, non-politically motivated information on this subject (and many others, I love knowledge for it's own sake)....and you are dead on. Global Warming is more of a political movement than anything having to do with caring about the environment, and the extreme opinions being thrown about in the political arena are merely to gain voter trust, in a giant game of chess invented by politicians themselves, where the american people lose regardless of the outcome.
Until people take it upon themselves to seek out information instead of relying on those with an agenda (and those with an agenda are ALWAYS the ones who get their opinion out in the open more) to feed it to them, we will continually see more and more issues arise until something drastic happens. This trend alone is responsible for the (up till now) 200 year average lifespan of governments. Extreme polarization and politicalization of issues is the leading fear for the American people (and everyone else too), not foreign dangers, not global warming, taxes, or anything else that one could think of.
Bravo to you, sir, for recognizing that fact and trying to warn people. I hope politicians take notice before things get too out of hand. (I'm not suggesting that anarchy is about to break out or the USA is about to suffer some kind of revolution, but those things have happened before and will happen again if people fail to wake up and step in and do something for themselves.)
Proverb to live by? The squeaky wheel may be the one that gets oiled, but if it happens enough, it gets ripped off and replaced. Making your opinion heard is a good idea. Basing your "opinion" on political rhetoric and self-promotion, then jamming it down people's throats will get you replaced.
The true answer to this issue lies somewhere in the middle of these artificially polarized versions of opinion that the political climate has produced. The environment IS important. It's so important that I find it disgusting that politicians would attempt to use the emotional reaction it gets from people to gain personal power and further their own financial goals. And there are politicians on both sides.
I appologize for digging this deep into things on a simple car messageboard, but I really felt the need to say something once the topic was even SLIGHTLY breached.
I've done my homework, been doing it for years, and have searched out unbiased, non-politically motivated information on this subject (and many others, I love knowledge for it's own sake)....and you are dead on. Global Warming is more of a political movement than anything having to do with caring about the environment, and the extreme opinions being thrown about in the political arena are merely to gain voter trust, in a giant game of chess invented by politicians themselves, where the american people lose regardless of the outcome.
Until people take it upon themselves to seek out information instead of relying on those with an agenda (and those with an agenda are ALWAYS the ones who get their opinion out in the open more) to feed it to them, we will continually see more and more issues arise until something drastic happens. This trend alone is responsible for the (up till now) 200 year average lifespan of governments. Extreme polarization and politicalization of issues is the leading fear for the American people (and everyone else too), not foreign dangers, not global warming, taxes, or anything else that one could think of.
Bravo to you, sir, for recognizing that fact and trying to warn people. I hope politicians take notice before things get too out of hand. (I'm not suggesting that anarchy is about to break out or the USA is about to suffer some kind of revolution, but those things have happened before and will happen again if people fail to wake up and step in and do something for themselves.)
Proverb to live by? The squeaky wheel may be the one that gets oiled, but if it happens enough, it gets ripped off and replaced. Making your opinion heard is a good idea. Basing your "opinion" on political rhetoric and self-promotion, then jamming it down people's throats will get you replaced.
The true answer to this issue lies somewhere in the middle of these artificially polarized versions of opinion that the political climate has produced. The environment IS important. It's so important that I find it disgusting that politicians would attempt to use the emotional reaction it gets from people to gain personal power and further their own financial goals. And there are politicians on both sides.
I appologize for digging this deep into things on a simple car messageboard, but I really felt the need to say something once the topic was even SLIGHTLY breached.
04-12-2007 | 07:38 AM
#135
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,496
From: Roseville, MI, USA
Remember When I Asked About 6 Months Ago
Why the Camaro is essential to GM's future in the midst or rising gas prices and there were 5 pages of responses on why we need the Camaro?
I said, GM's dollars are better spent on fuel efficient vehicles, not a vehicle that sold sell then 100k models the last few years that it was produced. Well, Lutz's comments all but confirm what I said.
The Camaro is not needed and will end up costing GM more money in the short term, and longterm. If Zeta does not go through...where does that leave the CAW and Oshawa? GM will have to put something there, you'd think. If not, the plant closes, costing GM millions more. If the Camaro is the only vehicle on the NA version of Zeta....well, lets not even get into how ridiculously stupid that would be.
The Camaro is a car that GM does not need, that never did need and that doesn't in the near future or in the future period. Put the money where it counts and focus on fuel efficient vehicles not V8 muscle cars that appeal to a minority.
I said, GM's dollars are better spent on fuel efficient vehicles, not a vehicle that sold sell then 100k models the last few years that it was produced. Well, Lutz's comments all but confirm what I said.
The Camaro is not needed and will end up costing GM more money in the short term, and longterm. If Zeta does not go through...where does that leave the CAW and Oshawa? GM will have to put something there, you'd think. If not, the plant closes, costing GM millions more. If the Camaro is the only vehicle on the NA version of Zeta....well, lets not even get into how ridiculously stupid that would be.
The Camaro is a car that GM does not need, that never did need and that doesn't in the near future or in the future period. Put the money where it counts and focus on fuel efficient vehicles not V8 muscle cars that appeal to a minority.