Ford's new automated plant

[Pete Wass]

Not long ago - -

I saw a clip of the CEO of GM presenting the Volt. I found him to be surly and arrogant. Here they have staked their future on a car that will cost $50,000 or MORE and are now out of money. How many cars are they going to sell @ twice the price of a Prius? Talk about being out of touch! It is my theory that the Bigs got drunk on the profits they made on big SUV & Pickups and don't know how to do anything else.

Another issue is the lack of effort to make cars more fuel-efficient. Do you suppose there is , somehow, a family connection with Big Oil? Why would they not want to do everything they could to either match the competition or surpass them in this area? The technology of the Prius is brilliant and seems to be very reliable, from all I have read and heard. How about simply up-scaling it a bit for slightly larger vehicles and get say 40 MPG instead of 50?

And lastly, why isn't there a BIG effort to build a National Railway System, One like the interstates we have, one that all could use? When one hears the figures of how efficent trains are compared to trucks, how can we, the government ignore rail? (There is a good series about trains on the Learning Channel currently.)

It's fun being retired.

 

[Joe S]

And lastly, why isn't there a BIG effort to build a National Railway System, One like the interstates we have, one that all could use? When one hears the figures of how efficent trains are compared to trucks, how can we, the government ignore rail? (There is a good series about trains on the Learning Channel currently.)

Think Amtrak, no body here in the states wants to ride one, they prefer driving and having more control of their trip.

 

[AVanGorder]

Congressional Hearings

Have you all been listening to the hearings today?

 

[RStiefel]

Not today Adrian

It's pretty disgusting watching these guys wearing $2500.00 suits, $500.00 shoes and flying in privately owned jets costing $20,000 round trip to beg for the taxpayers to bail them out. You think they would thank us for the money?

 

[Pete Wass]

I am not saying

Think Amtrak, no body here in the states wants to ride one, they prefer driving and having more control of their trip.

the Federal Government should run the trains. I saying that the rail roads are not nearly good enough for meaningful usage. Just as there are Interstate Highways, there should be an Interstate Rail Road System. It makes no sense for semis to travel from coast to coast with that small box of goods that don't have to be there quickly.

 

[AVanGorder]

It's pretty disgusting watching these guys wearing $2500.00 suits, $500.00 shoes and flying in privately owned jets costing $20,000 round trip to beg for the taxpayers to bail them out. You think they would thank us for the money?

The hearing just ended. I got most of it except when I paused to make a quick phone call to Mickey. The CEOs were prepared this time, they didn't fly corporate Jets. The Senate asked each of them how they got to D.C.. Chrylser said he drove a Chrylser Hybrid and he went on to say that it performed flawlessly. One of them, I can't remember which flew on Southwest.

GM and Chrylser said they would agree to some very very heavy cuts for the money.

Today's hearing was much better than the we saw last month. Tomorrow they meet with the U.S. House.

 

[RStiefel]

the Federal Government should run the trains. I saying that the rail roads are not nearly good enough for meaningful usage. Just as there are Interstate Highways, there should be an Interstate Rail Road System. It makes no sense for semis to travel from coast to coast with that small box of goods that don't have to be there quickly.

It could certainly be done. Thousands of people commute back and forth on Metro Link in Ca. everyday. The proposed bullet train system here has just recently passed and gotten approval from the voters. 800 miles long linking Northern Ca. to Southern Ca.

 

[tim]

They do make the Phaetons. They are extremely popular in Europe and in Asia for those who can afford them. If the plant was closed, it was done so in the past week. It would be hard for anyone to believe one would sink Billions of dollars into a structure for show. Take a look at Porsche. Pretty high tech, and built by hand. The most amazing thing I find is that MB in Germany employes union labor and builds the SUVs in the US using non union labor. More and more companies are moving here because they find it to be "easy pickins".

Porsches have not been hand made for 12 years, the bodies have not been hand adjusted for 15. and 40% of those Porsches are built by VW.

 

[tim]

I stand corrected.



A little over a year ago, I saw where they were going to kill the project and were closing the plant due to "lack of sales". More googles will show that was the plan at the time (late 06).

I agree that Porshe's SUV offering is hard to see the profitabiltiy in also. I remember commercials of 450hp in a SUV about the size of a Jimmy. Go figure.


Phaeton died here because VW screwed up the marketing and the dealer service never appreciated the brand nor honored some important warranty issues.
Those Porsche SUV's were responsible for over 50% of the companies entire US profitability.

 

[RStiefel]

Wrong Tim

Porsche is to this day built by hand. Yes... the bodies are adjusted by hand. No body filler. Part of the VW line is supplied by Porsche. My family is from Germany. I have 2 relatives and a college classmate who work for Porsche and VW. The only item made by VW for Porsche is the body shell of the Cayenne. Porsche also owns more than 30% of VW. As for the SUV (Cayenne) the reason for its being is due to the demand for the SUVs in the US. Very few are sold any where else. The Cayenne S Turbo is in fact 500 hp. and 515+ torque. Actually, the European version is 600+ hp. The VW Touareg body is the same as the Cayenne. Probably a good business decision to have VW produce the shell and base the chassis on the same platform. It's easy to see the profit made on the sales of the Porsche. They have historically made more $ on sales per vehicle than any other manufacture in the world. They even make a bit of cash per unit on each of the V-Rods sold by HD. They designed the engine.

 

[brian roberts]

Some interesting posts here.......

#25 Employees paint the floor when times are lean. Is this "Japanese Management"? No, actually, its "The Deming Management Method"*, Deming was an American who espoused his method here, but everyone told him he was nuts. So, after WWII was over, he went to Japan, he convinced the Japanese on his method, & the Japanese thought he was a God, and they RAN with it, & haven't looked back!! (*book w/the same title)

# 41 GM in bed w/Big Oil???? NAH!! Not a chance!! Do a search on 'National City Lines', & how they bought up all the streetcar & trackless trolley lines in the US(w/the exception of P'burgh & N'Or'lins & maybe a few others). Yep, GM busses all over the place like roaches, & as healthy for you, too!!
Trains, well, there WAS a time when the trains ran well, they probably would again, if we could get TOO MUCH Gubmint out of it. Reading back over this post, it appears that sometimes, maybe we should take a serious look at going Back to The Future.
I gotta take a Steamer!!!

 

[tim]

Porsche is to this day built by hand. Yes... the bodies are adjusted by hand. No body filler. Part of the VW line is supplied by Porsche. My family is from Germany. I have 2 relatives and a college classmate who work for Porsche and VW. The only item made by VW for Porsche is the body shell of the Cayenne. Porsche also owns more than 30% of VW. As for the SUV (Cayenne) the reason for its being is due to the demand for the SUVs in the US. Very few are sold any where else. The Cayenne S Turbo is in fact 500 hp. and 515+ torque. Actually, the European version is 600+ hp. The VW Touareg body is the same as the Cayenne. Probably a good business decision to have VW produce the shell and base the chassis on the same platform. It's easy to see the profit made on the sales of the Porsche. They have historically made more $ on sales per vehicle than any other manufacture in the world. They even make a bit of cash per unit on each of the V-Rods sold by HD. They designed the engine.

Really, I've been a PCA member for 25 years, Would you like to borrow any one of 15 copies of Panorama[club magazine] that explains why your wrong.Also put on your list that VW ownership is now 75%. Also one of the biggest reasons that MB, BMW build here is that they got sick of the never ending currency swings that could wipe out the profit on something that the majority ends up here anyway. Lastly about 40% of those German cars are built in Finland.

 

[RStiefel]

You're lost Tim

I know what the facts are and was a bit short on the percentage owned by Porsche. Only the entry level Boxter and Cayman are made in Finland. Finland makes nothing for BMW or MB that I'm aware of. And my original posting about the reason for the SUV plants here, I stand behind. A quick search will find this to be true. We are the SUV buying capitol of the world. If your reasoning for outside automakers setting up shop in the US were true, they would be producing all of their vehicles here. Why not the C, E, S, and G class vehicles? How about the AMG? Porsches GT or Carrera? The BMW 300, 500, 600 and 700 series cars?

 

[4Mesh]

C'mon 4mesh,

Take the SAME CAR, the aforementioned Jaguar, and put 210 horses under the hood. It won't make 60/40mpg.

It will if GM/Ford don't build it.

In any mechanical system there are constants. Gravity, for instance, is for all intents and purposes a constant.

A useful cockpit size can be considered to be a constant.

ok but

The specific gravity of the components used for mfgr are "constants", in other words even if you halve the size of a steel or fiberglass car you don't actually halve the weight.

well, pretty close you do.

Air drag and road friction drag are not constants but their effect isn't "halved" just by reducing size/weight.

This probably the biggest factor, though there are way too many examples that show this to be a oft ignored reality.

Now if you were to actually custom build the Jag from unobtanium such that it's "halved" in every way you STILL haven't achieved your goal. You can't Halve the combustion ratios.

don't have to, just halve the amount of energy you use by doing half as much.

Burn rate. Combustion is a "constant"......... consequently even motorcycles of only 75-100HP with only two wheels and small engines don't gain mileage in a linear fashion as weight/drag/HP drops. A motorcycle with only 1/4 the wt, power and drag of your Jag doesn't get 4 times the mileage.

By the same token some truly HUGE loads like large trucks that're getting only 4-6mpg are actually MORE EFFICIENT than both the Jag AND the motorcycle because they're tuned to operate in a specific range and roads/laws allow that to happen.

The motorcycle is a bad example really because it's about as aerodynamic as a brick. Put a rider on it and it slows considerably, bout like riding a bike. You go downhills all tucked in so you go as fast as possible and when you sit up, you brake as if you threw a parachute. It is very obvious how much air you are pushing.

Still, somehow, european brands seem to make equivalant and better mileage as US brands even when making cars that are as square as a shoebox (and equally as ugly). Some of these square things now are even worse than a Bronco and well, that's pretty bad.

I just love using the Saturn Sky as an example. Here goes again.

Saturn Sky. Now with INCREASED fuel economy for this year, now EPA Rated at 19/25. WOW, with a 2.0L 4 Cyl and 160/170 hp, don't remember exactly which.
Compare to an Old Buick Park Avenue W/3.8L V6, EPA rated at 25/32. Now, the Buick is a 4 door, WITH a trunk, weighs a thousand pounds more than the Sky, pushes more air, carries more cargo, carries MORE THAN TWICE as many passengers, (damn site more comfy to ride in), Makes MORE horsepower, More torque, and get's better gas mileage.

Now, where in physics does it explain that every single thing bigger, yet uses less fuel 20 years earlier?

Did I mention they are made by the same company? That Saturn Sky is about the size of a Miata and just absolutely pour gas on the ground to get rid of it that fast. Wth? Worse yet, Saturn makes an SUV that gets BETTER MILEAGE? How in gawds name is that possible?

 

[Joe S]

I believe if you look the Sky gets 28 mpg from a 260 HP turbo .......

 

[AVanGorder]

Saturn Sky & Sky Red Line

There are two Saturn Skys. See them here;

http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicl...n_|_IMG_Saturn_SKY_|_SKY_General_|_saturn_sky

 

[4Mesh]

I believe if you look the Sky gets 28 mpg from a 260 HP turbo .......

That also is a major improvement over last years models that were both rated at the same 18/24mpg. Last year they also had a normailly asperated version, and a turbo. They had less HP in both cases as well. (Less than this years versions)

I guess they squeezed some extra efficiency out of these engineering marvels. Wow, 28mpg from a 2.xL 4cyl in a car the size of the trunk of most others.

Once again, the one that get's better mileage, also makes more HP? Doesn't this sound strange to anyone else?

Sorry, still not impressed here.

 

[alinwa]

I guess all I'm saying here is that the TECH hasn't gone anywhere, nor the capability. Emissions, safety standards and "fully loaded" all take their toll. Just running the AC on a little car will knock off 3-4mpg.

Make any motor do extra work and the mileage goes down. More so on the smaller motors. I remember the first gas stingy car I bought, an '84 Escort brand new. It was quite peppy, easy to drive and it got an honest 26-32mpg. I hooked a 12' UHaul behind it when I moved and the mileage dropped to 10.

My Suburban on the other hand just gets 10.6 mpg winter/summer/loaded/hwy and town.

My wife's Toyota Avalon is just such a fun drive that even though it's rated fairly high and WILL get 26+, it normally hangs around 16-18mpg unless we really pay attention. Turn off the gadgets (including the satrad and the 200watt/channel stereo with powered sub ) and keep your foot out of it and it'll really stretch the fuel. It'll even do 26 hwy with everything on, on flat ground. Now as far as the sedans which supposedly get over thirty mpg while rocketing around town..... I've never seen it. I really though that this 'yota was getting great mileage until I checked it.

I just can't blame the automakers, they just try to make what sells AND keep up with all the gu'mint "improvements." They don't have any ulterior motive IMO. Market share is still the Grail.

al

 

[4Mesh]

Well, here's another one for someone to explain away for me then.

It's difficult to get a VW Diesel here in the states because "Diesel emissions are too high" and "The cars are not clean enough".

Ok, well they sell like hotcakes in EU. Evidently they must use a different equasion for figuring which cars are dirtier.

Soooo. Let's see which one emits more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Taken from the EPA Website page comparing Diesel vs Gas Emissions.

Calculating CO2 emissions

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines for calculating emissions inventories require that an oxidation factor be applied to the carbon content to account for a small portion of the fuel that is not oxidized into CO2. For all oil and oil products, the oxidation factor used is 0.99 (99 percent of the carbon in the fuel is eventually oxidized, while 1 percent remains un-oxidized.)[1.]

Finally, to calculate the CO2 emissions from a gallon of fuel, the carbon emissions are multiplied by the ratio of the molecular weight of CO2 (m.w. 44) to the molecular weight of carbon (m.w.12): 44/12.

CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon

CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon

Note: These calculations and the supporting data have associated variation and uncertainty. EPA may use other values in certain circumstances, and in some cases it may be appropriate to use a range of values.

So ok.

Let's take a Gas car that get's 25mpg, and a diesel that get's 50.. Tis is about the case when considering that equivalant VW Models with both gas and diesel engines get about this spread of mileage. In fact, I have personally seen worse than this. More like 20 vs 55. But whatever. Call it 30/50 if you like.

Using the information from the EPA, which one of these vehicles puts more emissions into the air. The one that uses the 10% dirtier fuel, Of the one that uses half as much fuel? As it's the same one doing both those things, it sounds to me as if the Diesel that pumps less air through it's engine and less fuel through it's engine, emits less. Anyone else wanna comment on that?

I'll be making a phone call shortly to see what more info I can come up with to refute what I've said. In other words, I want to know why half as much diesel is so much more dangerous than half as much gas, that the US Govt would disallow the import of more than just a limited number of these cars. Other than the fact that they're protecting US automakers from fair competition.

Al, too much of this stuff just doesn't add up. To apply logic to what automakers do is a pipe dream. I mean, you handle your guns with responsibility. IFfff you thought you could affect the safety of the world to the degree that these companies can, don't you think you'd at least consider what affect you were having upon it's inhabitants and attempt to do better?

 

[4Mesh]

I would like to add one other thing.

Some folks here contend that the automakers are limited to some finite amount of economy from the available fuel for the vehicles. That they have been giving us more economical vehicles, we just don't know it or something like that. We got what we asked for.

Once when asked, "Do you want quality or quantity?" I replied, "Both". Sorry but that's the way I am.

Now, if there is no more economy to be found in a gallon of gas, why is it that the Big Three's "Letters to Santa" as I call them, ALL say "We are going to make more fuel efficient cars". EVERY ONE OF EM? Hey, we're gonna get our head outa our ____s and work on fuel efficiency? Well, if you could make more efficient cars, why the hell didn't they already? Several here claim that it didn't fit the US buisiness model or something. Well, how does it fit now when they want govt loans / gifts? IF they know this to be bad, then why would they make them? People don't want eficient cars I'm told.

By the way, more efficiency means MORE USEABLE POWER from the same fuel, or the same useable power from less fuel. When so little of the energy from a gallon of gas actually propells the car, you would think they could make the car a LOT more efficient. Wouldn't you?

A month ago, my neice who waited for....ev....or to get a Jetta TDI, took delivery. She brought the car for me to take for a drive, and I gotta tell you. For a car that get's 60mpg, I was impressed. It went up and down East coast mountains just as well as anything.

Let's see, at 60 mpg, this car emits 22.2/60 = .37 Lbs CO2 per mile.
A Gas car that get's 40mpg, emits 19.4/40 = .485 Lbs CO2 per mile.

Interestingly enough, the 3Cyl Turbo Diesels that get 80mpg are not even imported to the US. Lest I'm mistaken there and they've begun to.