NoviRailfan wrote:"Here is my beef with the volt: it's development was federally funded. If the market wanted the car, GM would've put toward the money. It was a case of spending more money for political gain"
It was? What federal program funded the Volt and what political gain was it trying to achieve for GM?
As far as I know there was no federal money involved as the Volt was under development pre 2009 bankruptcy. MQT, you don't pay any taxes yet do you? I wouldn't think so at the age of 13.
Sales tax......but either way, I'm still stuck with the debt
SD80MAC wrote:Umm, yeah about the batteries. Toyota has been making hybrids for 10+ years, and there's only been one case so far of a battery needing to be replaced.
Batteries lasting 10+ years? Sorry, but I call BS on that! Ain't no frickin' way batteries will last that long, unless they're perhaps just kept on a trickle charge and never used to actually power the vehicle.
I used to work for Chrysler at their proving grounds in Chelsea, and am aware of various engineering topics that go into making cars. What I learned at the proving grounds was mostly that the place was not used to make cars better, but to make them cheaper. If they could replace a fastener that cost 3 cents with one that cost 2 cents, and it would last at least through the warranty period, then they could save some money.
Now, I do applaud the effort by car-makers to try to develop some alternative-energy cars, but I do object to when such things become political footballs. Just looking at the political vehemence of those who rush to defend the Volt is bizarre. Is it because they desperately want the current failed administration in Washington to succeed? Sorry, that can't happen, due exactly to their policies. Y'all need to read Atlas Shrugged to see why!
Back in the 1970s, American car-makers rushed to produce "small" vehicles that were supposed to be energy efficient, however, they then charged a premium price for the "privilege" of saving on your gasoline bill, so in the end there wasn't any savings to be had by driving a small car. Then most drivers stayed with their larger (and safer) vehicles. History is merely repeating itself now.
And it's also funny how the electric-vehicle proponents seem to think that the electricity used to charge said vehicles is "free" when it will actually need to be produced by coal-fired or nuclear (etc) power plants, something that it could be argued that most supporters of electric vehicles would be dead set against!
MQT3001 wrote:Here is my beef with the volt: it's development was federally funded. If the market wanted the car, GM would've put toward the money. It was a case of spending more money for political gain....and it's the money I put into govt as taxes hoping that we'd all benefit from...but we all don't.
For you and all the others that keep harping on the fact that it was built with federal money..... FORD took money also. It wasn't as publicized as GM but there was a time a year or two ago that the feds had a truckload of money they were giving to the automakers for building "green" cars. At that time GM took NONE of it and FORD took MILLIONS.
If it isn't GM taking it, it's Ford or someone else. You won't get around it.
Garry K wrote:
I used to work for Chrysler at their proving grounds in Chelsea, and am aware of various engineering topics that go into making cars. What I learned at the proving grounds was mostly that the place was not used to make cars better, but to make them cheaper. If they could replace a fastener that cost 3 cents with one that cost 2 cents, and it would last at least through the warranty period, then they could save some money.
Well, that sure sounds like a recipe for disaster.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimthias/
GRHC - you know every night I can imagine he is in front of his computer screen sitting in his underwear swearing profusely and drinking Blatz beer combing the RailRoadFan website for grammatical errors.
Garry K wrote:
I used to work for Chrysler at their proving grounds in Chelsea, and am aware of various engineering topics that go into making cars. What I learned at the proving grounds was mostly that the place was not used to make cars better, but to make them cheaper. If they could replace a fastener that cost 3 cents with one that cost 2 cents, and it would last at least through the warranty period, then they could save some money.
Well, that sure sounds like a recipe for disaster.
It was a disaster at times, especially when the "higher ups" didn't listen to us. As an example, when the "gasoline shortage" crisis of the mid-1970s reared up, Chrysler was in the dilemma of not having any really small, high-mileage vehicles in their lineup. Even things like the Dodge Dart were larger than most anything on the road today (SUVs excepted). So, Chrysler scrambled to try to produce some vehicles that folks would buy. They started developing the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon, and while testing we found they had an automatic transmission problem. When the trans shifted into high gear, it would momentarily disengage from the engine, allowing the engine to over-rev to about 6500 rpm. Problem is the engine red-line was 5000 rpm. So, eventually, the engine would have problems, most of which occurred under the warranty, so Chrysler ate the expenses.
Another problem with trying to rush products to market were in the Aspen/Volare "K-cars." They tried to lighten the vehicles as much as they could by taking out metal and replacing it with plastic. The big problem was that they took too much metal out of the drive train, especially out of the axles. We had test dynomometers to drive the cars on, and we had an early "computer" program (using a punched paper tape) to adjust the throttle settings in place of a driver stepping on the accelerator. We had the program set to provide "perturbation" to simulate the way many folks drive. In other words, instead of having a perfectly smooth touch on the accelerator, many drivers are always going a little too fast, then they take their foot of the pedal, then they once again apply a bit too much gas, etc. Our program duplicated that effect. One of the problems with that was that it torqued those overly thin axles too much, and they would snap around 11,000 miles. Chrysler at the time had a 12 month, 12,000 mile warranty, so that would be a bad thing for them. So, we told the big-wigs what we had found, and instead of fixing the problem by installing heavier axles, instead they told us to remove the perturbation effect from our program. We removed it, the cars ran smooth on the dyno, didn't break axles, and then Chrysler started selling the cars to the public. And many folks brought their cars in for warranty repairs around 11,000 miles because their axles had snapped! Chrysler then (at great expense) retrofitted those K-cars with heavier axles.
Which is another reason why companies shouldn't rush their products to market. I, for one, refuse to be a "beta tester" by paying thousands of dollars for what should be a finished product. I have beta-tested for several computer software products, but the companies didn't force me to buy the beta product. Instead, they provided it for free (and then I got a free copy of the finished product afterwards). Unfortunately, things like the Chevy Volt are (at best) beta and not finished products at this time. Buyer beware!
Everyone has different driving needs , that is why all the different vehicles out there, not because of a govt. mandate.
People will drive whatever suits their needs.
I am probably a good candidate for the Volt. 80% of my travel is either an 18 mile round trip into Beaverton or a 35 mile round trip to the Midland Mall. Without the on board ability to recharge the batteries I would not attempt a trip to the Mall, but with it there if I need, it then it is the vehicle of my choice. Looks like a long time between refills.
Now add to the mix are my plans to add my own wind generating system at my house.
I read this past week and now I cannot find the article, that some company has developed a Lithium ion battery to replace the current battery pak that has twice the power for half the cost. This type of thing happens a lot in emerging technologies, with a couple more leaps like this the price of the batteries will drop dramatically, like computers, digital cameras, microwaves, TVs and many other electronic products.
Now to all the GM haters: GM is the only auto company with 75 years experience of building vehicles that produce onboard electricity to power the vehicle. Although the end delivery may be a step or two different, I am sure they can solve the issues presented to them.
hobojim wrote:
People will drive whatever suits their needs.
Some people in govt want to put in regs (gas milage wise) that in turn mean some types of vehiacles (mainly trucks and SUVs) will cease to exsist at all, and when people in this nation can't choose, they tend to get angry. The reason why your neighor may have a heavy-duty pickup truck is likely because he needs to tow something like a boat or trailer, and Volts and Priuses will just spin the wheels trying to get them moving.
At the end of the day, if people want more fuel efficient cars, they will buy them, and companies will be more than happy to pour money into those projects. SUVs are popular with car companies becuase they SELL WELL
hobojim wrote:
People will drive whatever suits their needs.
Some people in govt want to put in regs (gas milage wise) that in turn mean some types of vehiacles (mainly trucks and SUVs) will cease to exsist at all, and when people in this nation can't choose, they tend to get angry. The reason why your neighor may have a heavy-duty pickup truck is likely because he needs to tow something like a boat or trailer, and Volts and Priuses will just spin the wheels trying to get them moving.
At the end of the day, if people want more fuel efficient cars, they will buy them, and companies will be more than happy to pour money into those projects. SUVs are popular with car companies becuase they SELL WELL
I seriously doubt that the guys in the parking lot at work, and 99% of people in my neighborhood, all have big ole boats that need towing with their F250 pickup trucks. I have a Silverado 1500 with the long bed. I *rarely* use my pickup for what its for, moving large commodities. But, its there if/when I need it. Maybe need them to haul the occasional sheet of plywood or something, but its RARE that someone needs that kind of a vehicle 100% of the time.
How many Excursions do you see roaming around anymore? You remember that thing that made a Suburban look small? Not too many. That was a vehicle designed to appeal to peoples "Bigger is better" mentality, with cheap gas.
People bought SUV's becasue they were 'cool' and gas was cheap. The car makers kept churning them out because that's what people wanted.
That's also why Toyota, Honda, etc are successful right now. They did have the larger truck platforms (which were no where near as popular as Ford or GM), but their core was their small car market. Peoples' tastes changed overnight with the quick rise in the cost of gas. It takes several years to take a car from concept to market, so the companies that relied on the larger vehicles were left in the dust, or with inventory they couldn't give away.
hobojim wrote:
People will drive whatever suits their needs.
Some people in govt want to put in regs (gas milage wise) that in turn mean some types of vehiacles (mainly trucks and SUVs) will cease to exsist at all, and when people in this nation can't choose, they tend to get angry. The reason why your neighor may have a heavy-duty pickup truck is likely because he needs to tow something like a boat or trailer, and Volts and Priuses will just spin the wheels trying to get them moving.
At the end of the day, if people want more fuel efficient cars, they will buy them, and companies will be more than happy to pour money into those projects. SUVs are popular with car companies becuase they SELL WELL
SUV's aren't selling that well these days... fuel prices force these changes just as much as regulations...
Celebrating Over 3800 Posts in HD
This updated Signature Brought To YOU By The One The Only MQT3001!
NS8401, Online, At Trackside And On Your Side
hobojim wrote:
People will drive whatever suits their needs.
Some people in govt want to put in regs (gas milage wise) that in turn mean some types of vehiacles (mainly trucks and SUVs) will cease to exsist at all, and when people in this nation can't choose, they tend to get angry. The reason why your neighor may have a heavy-duty pickup truck is likely because he needs to tow something like a boat or trailer, and Volts and Priuses will just spin the wheels trying to get them moving.
At the end of the day, if people want more fuel efficient cars, they will buy them, and companies will be more than happy to pour money into those projects. SUVs are popular with car companies becuase they SELL WELL
SUV's aren't selling that well these days... fuel prices force these changes just as much as regulations...
Well, not really. Sales of SUVs for the month of February were up 11.8 percent over the year before. The sales numbers for March will be really telling.
Good point Typhoon, I should have phrased that differently. In 2008 when gas got to $4.25 a gallon the economy really tanked and so did sales of SUV's while small car sales jumped. At the time $4.25 to $4.50 was the breaking point at that time as far as prices went. Oil was $147 a barrel. Then prices tanked to $1.75 a gallon or less and oil was $30 a barrel. Gallup did a poll a couple of weeks ago that put the new tolerable range at $5.30-$5.60, anything above that and people reported a strong likelyhood of changing their habits to suit a higher gas price like that. If we see prices get that high (and reports are that we will) then things are going to get interesting as people begin to rethink their discretionary spending. All this is happening on $107 oil too which is the scary part. Still a third of the way to go to the all time high and yet the prices continue to rise at the pump. Those March numbers will be incredibly telling.
Celebrating Over 3800 Posts in HD
This updated Signature Brought To YOU By The One The Only MQT3001!
NS8401, Online, At Trackside And On Your Side
UncleRaul wrote:How about an electro-motive car, minus the battery? I've always wondered if this would be more fuel-efficient, esp. with a diesel engine. It could be a cheaper way to squeeze more miles out of a gallon of gas (or diesel).
I've wanted that since I was sixteen years old.
But if you're after "cheaper", electricity is far far cheaper than gas as a fuel. That'll only get better. There's lots more coal and gas than there is petroleum. The bigger the vehicle, the bigger the savings. They're starting with small cars but the bigger win is in bigger vehicles. Nobody ever talks about that. Consider a contractor vehicle with a battery pack big enough to make all the 120/240VAC you need at the jobsite, starting the engine to top up batteries as needed. Utility drops at work sites could be a thing of the past.
Mark F wrote:I've been told that 1st responders have been told not to use the Jaws of Life on a Volt if the driver is trapped after an accident. Apparently there is a high likelihood of electrocution due to some type of battery located under the seat.
No offense but... bunk.
SD80MAC wrote:Umm, yeah about the batteries. Toyota has been making hybrids for 10+ years, and there's only been one case so far of a battery needing to be replaced.
Not quite, but close. Of over a million cars going back to 1998, Toyota has shipped only a few hundred replacement batteries. Facts of life are that large battery packs are actually extremely durable. Old passenger coach packs lasted for decades. It's only lead-acid batteries that aren't very good. They were an inferior design in 1900 when Edison invented the nickel-iron battery. For electric cars. I have 50 year old Edison packs that work great.
MQT3001 wrote:Here is my beef with the volt: it's development was federally funded. If the market wanted the car, GM would've put toward the money.
I quote Commander Adama: "The Cylons didn't ask what we wanted". I mean, I didn't want to subsidize the H-bomb and NORAD and the Strategic Air Command, but the Soviets would have overrun the free world if we hadn't. The money we used to subsidize nuclear weapons was a total lose, but that's better than it being a win for the other guy. Now, same thing but it's an economic war, and the other countries want to take industries away from us. Their plan is subsidize theirs until ours go bankrupt. They're betting we won't counter-subsidize because of our Ayn Rand ideals. If we did, it would be a total lose, yes, but for them as well, so they'd stop. We can do it longer, we have deeper pockets. So what should we do? We either subsidize back and call their bluff, or let them win and then have no industry at all. I don't want it, but the Chinese didn't ask me what I wanted.
ns8401 wrote:Gallup did a poll a couple of weeks ago that put the new tolerable range at $5.30-$5.60, anything above that and people reported a strong likelyhood of changing their habits to suit a higher gas price like that. If we see prices get that high (and reports are that we will) then things are going to get interesting as people begin to rethink their discretionary spending.
They're rethinking deeper than just that. People don't want long commutes as much. That's having a big impact on housing prices, or rather, which towns are getting hit hard and which are getting hit less hard. Around San Francisco, the city and BART territory is doing much less badly than the far-flung car suburbs. Bet on homes that are closer in, or walking distance to a likely future commuter rail stop. The market doesn't appreciate the value of those homes yet.
So I picked up my Volt about two weeks ago: There are lease deals to be had on this vehicle for less than $250 a month. My reasons for the Volt were multifold:
1: Engineering, this vehicle won the "European Car of Year 2012", something we can really be proud of, no American vehicle has ever won this. This is a feat in itself. In addition to Motor Trend 2011 COTY award. Quite simply it is the most advanced, engineered vehicle on the road today, and to quote Motor Trend the reasons for this vote were that it is the greatest advancement of auto-engineering in the past 100 years. We need to be proud of, and celebrate this.
2: Support your local and US Economy: The Volt is very much a Michigan, and US car, built in Detroit. Engine, in Flint; Bay City, engine block cast in Defiance Ohio, Battery in Brownstown TWP, Holland MI. The steel: Minnesota iron ore, all the way to the blast furnaces which are also here. Fuel: Power companies, miners, railroaders across the US. There are hundreds of thousands of American jobs, paying taxes here all connected to the manufacture and operation of this vehicle.
3: Energy Security: Last time I checked, no employee of any utility company flew an airplane into the WTC on 9/11. Sorry but if you really care about energy security, and terrorism, stop making people, religions and philosophies you do not like, rich. (Again see point #2)
4: Economics-1 At this price point, with my former vehicle I was spending over $200 a month on fuel alone. (The lease is $50 more than what were paying in fuel) It cost $8.09 in fuel for a daily commute @$3.75 per gallon, now it is less than $1.38 for the same drive in electricity consumption. Annually this will save about $2800 in my case counting weekend drives. This is money that will flow back into the economy many ways: people have more spending money that they are not spending at the pump, will be spent other ways, reducing our trade deficit, which in turn strengthens currency, which in turn can reduce inflation, and lower oil demand, lower the price overall. Obviously this would have to be massively scaled up to see these effects become significantly positive.
5: Economics-2 Price stability, electricity rates won't go up and down a yo-yo like gasoline prices do or in as short of a time span, so I have better budgetary control, even though the Volt does use some fuel based on driving habits. Hedging: Due to the known fact that global production of gasoline powered vehicles is increasing at a staggering rate (23 million new cars in China and India alone means all of them now need a fresh tank of petro), means oil will go into a period of increasing prices as global demand is now increasing faster than production output increases.
6: Incentives: right now DTE will install a 240v fast charger in your home for essentially free, a smart meter to sell the electricity at very low off-peak rates (a $2500 value). Why not take advantage of an opportunity? While it certainly won't last, not buying a lot of fuel, also lets one, for a limited time, pay less in taxes. An unintended tax cut for those that choose it?
7: Environmental impact: this is negligible, as the source of energy determines how "green" this vehicle is, but it overall reduces less resources than other choices. From Where I live, this car is largely "Coal fired". I am OK with that, over oil refineries, and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. Besides I like seeing coal trains. It keeps the miners and railroaders busy. Obviously cheaper natural gas power plants will change this. Currently NG is 3 times cheaper for utilities to burn than coal; but I think natural gas is a bubble, and won't stay cheap for long. That is a whole different topic.
8: Most importantly, sheer driving pleasure. Driving it is a blast, I love the acceleration, only hearing wind noise, the new found quietness, creature comforts, cool user interface, "filling up" at my house". I've found it to also be an interesting conversation starter.
What is not to like about any of this: unless your in the oil business of course? But people somewhere else around the globe will buy up the difference anyway.
The Volt is probably the most misunderstood vehicle of our time, and as usual those that don't really understand it, in usual ignorance, criticize it. And they do it loudly, to the detriment of our state's economy, mostly by people who have never even driven one, let alone understand how they actually work. The misinformation out there, far out-numbers actual facts.
Is it perfect? Far from it. There are still unknowns. I do know that this one of the most researched and tested vehicles ever, before it was released. It will have problems and unforeseen risk, this is after all new; the internal combustion engine has been around over 100 years now, and its had a few problems in cars along the way. It is not for everybody, for every situation, but it is a start in the right direction, and is better than doing nothing, then complaining about the status quo. I feel lucky that it now works out for my situation, and the price has gone down enough to be affordable.
Cinderpath wrote:So I picked up my Volt about two weeks ago: There are lease deals to be had on this vehicle for less than $250 a month. My reasons for the Volt were multifold:
1: Engineering, this vehicle won the "European Car of Year 2012", something we can really be proud of, no American vehicle has ever won this. This is a feat in itself. In addition to Motor Trend 2011 COTY award. Quite simply it is the most advanced, engineered vehicle on the road today, and to quote Motor Trend the reasons for this vote were that it is the greatest advancement of auto-engineering in the past 100 years. We need to be proud of, and celebrate this.
2: Support your local and US Economy: The Volt is very much a Michigan, and US car, built in Detroit. Engine, in Flint; Bay City, engine block cast in Defiance Ohio, Battery in Brownstown TWP, Holland MI. The steel: Minnesota iron ore, all the way to the blast furnaces which are also here. Fuel: Power companies, miners, railroaders across the US. There are hundreds of thousands of American jobs, paying taxes here all connected to the manufacture and operation of this vehicle.
3: Energy Security: Last time I checked, no employee of any utility company flew an airplane into the WTC on 9/11. Sorry but if you really care about energy security, and terrorism, stop making people, religions and philosophies you do not like, rich. (Again see point #2)
4: Economics-1 At this price point, with my former vehicle I was spending over $200 a month on fuel alone. (The lease is $50 more than what were paying in fuel) It cost $8.09 in fuel for a daily commute @$3.75 per gallon, now it is less than $1.38 for the same drive in electricity consumption. Annually this will save about $2800 in my case counting weekend drives. This is money that will flow back into the economy many ways: people have more spending money that they are not spending at the pump, will be spent other ways, reducing our trade deficit, which in turn strengthens currency, which in turn can reduce inflation, and lower oil demand, lower the price overall. Obviously this would have to be massively scaled up to see these effects become significantly positive.
5: Economics-2 Price stability, electricity rates won't go up and down a yo-yo like gasoline prices do or in as short of a time span, so I have better budgetary control, even though the Volt does use some fuel based on driving habits. Hedging: Due to the known fact that global production of gasoline powered vehicles is increasing at a staggering rate (23 million new cars in China and India alone means all of them now need a fresh tank of petro), means oil will go into a period of increasing prices as global demand is now increasing faster than production output increases.
6: Incentives: right now DTE will install a 240v fast charger in your home for essentially free, a smart meter to sell the electricity at very low off-peak rates (a $2500 value). Why not take advantage of an opportunity? While it certainly won't last, not buying a lot of fuel, also lets one, for a limited time, pay less in taxes. An unintended tax cut for those that choose it?
7: Environmental impact: this is negligible, as the source of energy determines how "green" this vehicle is, but it overall reduces less resources than other choices. From Where I live, this car is largely "Coal fired". I am OK with that, over oil refineries, and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. Besides I like seeing coal trains. It keeps the miners and railroaders busy. Obviously cheaper natural gas power plants will change this. Currently NG is 3 times cheaper for utilities to burn than coal; but I think natural gas is a bubble, and won't stay cheap for long. That is a whole different topic.
8: Most importantly, sheer driving pleasure. Driving it is a blast, I love the acceleration, only hearing wind noise, the new found quietness, creature comforts, cool user interface, "filling up" at my house". I've found it to also be an interesting conversation starter.
What is not to like about any of this: unless your in the oil business of course? But people somewhere else around the globe will buy up the difference anyway.
The Volt is probably the most misunderstood vehicle of our time, and as usual those that don't really understand it, in usual ignorance, criticize it. And they do it loudly, to the detriment of our state's economy, mostly by people who have never even driven one, let alone understand how they actually work. The misinformation out there, far out-numbers actual facts.
Is it perfect? Far from it. There are still unknowns. I do know that this one of the most researched and tested vehicles ever, before it was released. It will have problems and unforeseen risk, this is after all new; the internal combustion engine has been around over 100 years now, and its had a few problems in cars along the way. It is not for everybody, for every situation, but it is a start in the right direction, and is better than doing nothing, then complaining about the status quo. I feel lucky that it now works out for my situation, and the price has gone down enough to be affordable.
Thank you Cinderpath,
Even though I don't personally work at Hamtramck Assembly (one plant I haven't worked at yet), it's always nice to hear from another satisfied GM customer enjoying our vehicles.
Mark F wrote:I've been told that 1st responders have been told not to use the Jaws of Life on a Volt if the driver is trapped after an accident. Apparently there is a high likelihood of electrocution due to some type of battery located under the seat.
No offense but... bunk.
I'll pass along your opinion to the OSHA lady that my wife talked to.
Mark F wrote:I've been told that 1st responders have been told not to use the Jaws of Life on a Volt if the driver is trapped after an accident. Apparently there is a high likelihood of electrocution due to some type of battery located under the seat.
No offense but... bunk.
I'll pass along your opinion to the OSHA lady that my wife talked to.
As a firefighter/paramedic we've had some training on the Volt. In the trunk on the left side is a panel. Remove the panel and there is a power wire that has a label on it that marks the area to cut. Once that's been cut the car, for the most part, becomes disabled. Haven't had to cut one yet...
The volt is no more dangerous than any other car to a first responder.A tank of gas or a battery are both sources of potential energy. We are trained how to respond to each type. If we based our responses on what is presented on the TV news we would never save anyone. There is so much BS about electric vehicles out there it is unbelievable, and a lot of it seems to be just partisan bull****. Volt development didn't start when the current administration was elected, it's been looked at for many years.
Kinda reminds me of the early 1900s news clippings I have seen in museums from when gasoline cars were first introduced. I also saw some early stuff from when the railroad came through our county; some predicted it would end civilization as we know it
Variety is good. As soon as this technology is priced right I will buy one. People line up around here like they are waiting to talk to God when gas goes below $4 but I hate giving my money to those ah's.
And to make this railroad related, I think abandonment of lines that could have commuter use is irresponsible. I grimace every time I pass one of these rail trails which people in my state will rarely use. But apparently gas is still not quite high enough to spur any interest in this idea.
That's how purchasing/sourcing works in the auto industry - moreso with the Detroit 3 than the transplants. Suppliers won't get the business unless they have "productivities" (cost downs) as part of the contract. The automaker figures that over the life of the contract, the supplier/manufacturer will themselves figure out better (cheaper) ways to make the part. so therefore the part should cost less for the auto company to purchase. One of the things that has always stuck with me from my days in the auto industry was a lament from a sales rep from Federal Mogul who said "the big 3 beat us up for cost downs all the time - we're struggling to get by and they're raking in the profits" (this was in the 1990's when the Detroit 3 could still beat up the suppliers faster than their costs were rising).
J T wrote:
Garry K wrote:
I used to work for Chrysler at their proving grounds in Chelsea, and am aware of various engineering topics that go into making cars. What I learned at the proving grounds was mostly that the place was not used to make cars better, but to make them cheaper. If they could replace a fastener that cost 3 cents with one that cost 2 cents, and it would last at least through the warranty period, then they could save some money.
Well, that sure sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Those March numbers will be incredibly telling.