End of the line

[Towntalk]

Now that is a deal, and I'll bet you that its not loaded down with all sorts of frills that drive prices up.

When you watch Motor Week on 45/49 you will note that they make a big deal out of frills loaded cars to the exclusion of cars like the Cobalt.

To them you're nothing if you don't buy a car that has all the bells and whistles and can do 110 mph in 60 seconds. To be sure the manufacturers hype those budget busting cars.

[jay]

I'm all for bang for the buck as long as the purchase is something made in the valley, made in Ohio, or made in the U.S. by one our companies.

I watched a commercial on TV today that indicated a Cobalt (made in the Mahoning Valley by our friends and neighbors) was selling for under $12,000.

[Towntalk]

As a non-driver I can't speak with any authority as Allan has, but in his last paragraph he makes a very good point that we more often than not fail to factor in:

"When the time does come for a new car or truck, you better believe that I will
buy the one that gives me the best bang for the buck - whether it is American
or not.  I simply CANNOT AFFORD to do otherwise."

It's good to say "Buy American", but when you're looking at a major investment like a car your committing yourself to major monthly payments to the bank, and when you couple that with mortgage payments, a huge chunk of your income is being tied up, and if you lose your job, you're up a river without a boat.

A car is a necessity so you have to ask yourself ... can I commit myself to a $30,000.00 investment on my income just to "Buy American", or will I go for a less expensive foreign car?

True, American made cars have gotten a bad rap which is why many folks buy foreign cars, but since we don't really know the state of their income, it's unfair to pass judgement on all the people.

Ask yourself this question. Just how many of those extras that drive up the price of cars are really necessary ... state of the art stereo radios and CD players, seat warmers, GPS systems, to name three.

The whole point of a car anyway is to get from point A to point B. Our fathers got along fine with the no frills cars of the past, so why can't we?

A modern car's cockpit as Motor Week likes to refer to the drivers seat looks like the cockpit of a Piper Cub with all the gadgets that are there.

Is it really necessary to be able to see all the gages reflected on the windshield?

If there were less frills, the cost of cars would go down in price and the car companies would be better able to compete with foreign auto makers, and by the way, many of the foreign car makers are in the same boat as GM, Chrysler and Ford.

[AllanY2525]

I will apologize in advance for the lengthy response I've posted below, but
the whole crisis in the American car industry generates very strong feelings
on my part, and it gives me some very, VERY serious concerns just like millions
of other Americans.  Some portions of my posting here may seem to be
off-topic, but it is ALL inter-related.

Anyways, here goes:

The big three American car companies have had the technology (or rather,
access TO the technology) to make SUV's with better fuel economy for well
over a decade.  Beyond the rising cost of gas and diesel, it is ENTIRELY their
own fault that the era of the big SUVs is nearly over and that people simply
aren't buying them any more.

I own a 2003 Ford Expedition, with a 5.0 Litre V-8 engine, which weighs about
8,000 pounds [EMPTY] and gets - at best- about 16 or 17 MPG on the highway,
provided the truck is not loaded down and has the four-wheel-drive unit turned
off, a fresh oil change, and fully inflated tires.  On rare occasions, I have seen
the onboard computer report 19 MPG on long trips.

I don't think that SUVs are going to completely disappear from the face of the
earth, however.  I [and many other folks LIKE me] purchased this truck because
of the letter "U" in "SUV".  I needed (and still need) the "Utility" capabilities of
the truck.  I own a couple trailers that smaller, ordinary vehicles simply CANNOT
tow due to their lack of horesepower and braking abilities - as well as overall
stability (and, therefore, SAFETY) and maneuverability while towing a heavy
load behind them.

My Expedition also has three rows of seats - an absolute necessity when I
am taking a road trip with my family members.  Ordinarily I drive my small, four
cylinder subcompact for day to day basic transportation. It gets 27 MPG and
COULD do better for it's size and weight - BUT - getting even FOUR people into
this little car is not an easy task and it's damned uncomfortable.

SUV's, because of their higher ground clearance, four-wheel-drive capability,
and [ironically enough] their sheer WEIGHT can traverse rough terrains and
navigate their way through driving conditions such as deep snow and high water,
which would simply CRIPPLE an ordinary automobile.  I cannot even remember the
number of stranded motorists I rescued from the roadside the last time we had
a really bad snow storm here in my area - either by giving them a ride to a safe,
warm place or by literally PULLING their vehicle out of a snow bank or a ditch
with a tow strap.

In the state of Maryland, trucks and vans - both midsize and full size, must
use license plates with the letter "M" at the beginning or the end of the
license plate number.  This "M" designates that the vehicle is "Multipurpose".
This is what SUVs were DESIGNED for.  The fact that millions of Americans
bought them as luxury vehicles, or as status symbols, or that many SUV owners
will never need their incredible capabilities is totally beside the point here folks.

When my SUV finally grows very old and dies someday, I will have some serious
decisions to make.  Do I sell my trailers and get an ordinary mid-sized sedan
for carting people around?  I don't know.  All I can do at present is watch,
wait and see if the car companies will come up with something that can do
the incredible things that an SUV can do, without the price shock at the gas
pump - AND the sticker shock at the showroom.

Years and years ago, there was a man who came up with a retro-fitted
design of the Chevorolet 350 Cubic Inch V-8 engine which would allow the
engine to run entirely on HYDROGEN.  General Motors bought the patent from
him, DEEP-SIX'ed it, and it was never seen or heard from again.  Imagine
that - a car or truck that could run on Hydrogen and NOT cost a hundred
thousand dollars - and have the same service life, without requiring the total
re-design of its powerplant !

Carmakers only build a small handfull of models that are equipped as "Flex Fuel"
vehicles, which can run on up to 85% Ethanol, mixed with 15% ordinary
gasoline.  Given that Oil IS a limited resource, that it produces TONS of
pollution, and that there ARE alternative fuels available these days, there is
NO excuse for the "business as usual" approach that got the American carmakers
into their present situation.

Another thing that REALLY "chaps my a**" is that the carmakers seem to be
overlooking a "Multiple approach" towards greater fuel efficiency and cost of
operation.  Gas-electric hybrids are a great start, but who says the "gas" part
of this design has to run on gasoline?  Diesel engines produce MORE power with
LESS fuel, and alternative fuels could be used to power this portion of an
electric hybrid to FURTHER reduce the fuel costs associated with it.  How
about an ethanol-electric hybrid?  A propane-electric hybrid?  A bio-diesel
electric hybrid?  NONE of these options would require a major re-design of
the hybrid models that are already available.

Some of the blame DOES fall on other segments of the economy, however.
How many gas stations in your area actually SELL "E-85" ethanol mix?  I'm
betting that there aren't very many.  When was the last time you saw a
filling station that offered Bio-diesel or Propane for uses other than re-filling
the tank on your barbecue grill?

With recent advances in technology, it is now possible to produce Ethanol
more cheaply than ever before, in the large volumes necessary to help lower
the cost of fuel substantially.   If the carmakers would build more vehicles
capable of using E85 AND other fuels, it would create a sufficient demand for
for them to justify their widespread availability in the retail market.  Even older
cars and trucks that are NOT flex-fuel vehicles are capable of using mixtures
of up to 25% ethanol, mixed with traditional gasoline - with no adverse effects
on the vehicle's engine or fuel system - and if you live in the Northern states
where winters can be severe, you'd have much lower chances of fuel line
freeze-up.

With our agriculture sector hurting badly, and MILLIONS of acres of usable land
sitting idle and useless, it only makes GOOD SENSE to start growing "Fuel Crops"
as quickly as possible.  It would create  new economic opportunities in the worst
economy since the great depression - not only for those who already own and
operate farms and grow crops, but also for people whose jobs have been lost to
move into the agriculture sector as the demand for energy to power our homes
and vehicles continues to rise and our limited petroleum reserves continue to be
depleted. 

The construction of more manufacturing facilities to make the biofuels would
create new,  permanent, sustainable JOBS for working Americans.  The cost
efficiencies of "growing our own" would dictate that these jobs NEVER be
outsourced to other countries.

Unlike other "green energy" programs that will cost billions and billions and take
years to bring to fruition,  alternative fuels derived from plantstuffs could begin
to provide for our energy needs IN A SINGLE GROWING SEASON !  The amount of
capital needed to start up new farms to grow these plantstuffs would be a DROP
IN THE BUCKET compared to the costs involved with other alternative energy
development.  With a farm selling 100% percent of EVERY single crop it could
produce for the production of alternative fuels, owning a farm could become a
VERY profitable and SUSTAINABLE enterprise - especially in areas of the
country where the climate allows for MULTIPLE crops in a single growing season.

Excess farm capacity could also mean lower food prices at a time when the
average American is hard-pressed to pay all of their bills every month and still
feed themselves - AND their families - at the same time.  If we could grow even
more crops, we could sell the excess to other countries, thereby reducing our
trade defecit and bringing money back INTO our economy instead of sending it
abroad.

In addition, these farms would give something back to the environment - CLEAN
AIR.  The composting of waste plant materials leftover from the production of
biofuels could be recycled back into the soil, making it richer, more fertile and
therefore better suited to the growing of future crops. 

Industrial "brown fields" where the soil is no longer safe for the growing of food
crops could be used to grow fuel crops - which would render the toxicity of the
soil a moot point until such time as the soil could be properly remediated and
rendered safe for other purposes.

Propane and Natural Gas are a viable alternative fuel.  In my area, we have both
Taxis AND large buses that run on Natural Gas.  These vehicles are VERY clean
in comparison to gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, and Natural Gas produces
comparable amounts of raw horsepower in a comparably sized engine.  Make
these heavy, blunt and box-like buses lighter in weight and more aerodynamic
and the difference in power output would become a moot point.  The use of
state-of-the art and incredibly durable materials would extend their service life
considerably, thereby lowering the long-term costs of operating them.

In San Francisco, they have buses that are designed to use a combination
of overhead electric lines (just like the Trolley cars of years gone by) and
internal combustion engines.  Whenever the buses enter a street where the
overhead wires are available, they extend their "fishing pole" and make contact,
and their internal combustion engines SHUT DOWN - allowing the buses to
operate on a large electric motor instead. 

In any case, I don't think SUVs will become entirely extinct.  If the auto industry
in this country is willing, FINALLY, to tap into their greatest resource of all -
AMERICAN INGENUITY AND INNOVATION - then the SUV could make a comeback
as a leaner, greener, SAFER  machine.  There will ALWAYS be a justifiable
need for these vehicles, for people that actually use them for the awesome
UTILITY capabilities they were designed and built with.

If GM, Ford and Chrysler can come up with a full sized SUV that gets at LEAST
30 MPG, is lighter in weight and BETTER STILL with regard to crash safety, then
I WOULD BUY another one - and I'm sure that millions of other Americans would
do the same. 

The use of more lightweight alloys in the metal parts,  non-metals such as carbon
fiber - literally STRONGER than steel - CAN lighten them up considerably versus
current models.  Changing the MATERIALS used to build these cars does NOT
necessarily require re-tooling of the assembly plants.  The parts could still be
made in the same shapes and sizes, just of better, ligher, stronger, and more
durable materials.

As far as "buying American" is concerned, I look at it like this: 

We live in a free-market, Capitalist society.  People are going to buy the vehicle
that they feel is the best value for their dollar - ie: the best combination of
quality, reliability, durability, attractive design, fuel economy and AFFORDABILITY.

If the "Big Three" want to capture a bigger share of the American Car market,
they MUST start building cars that cost less than the competition, last longer
than those built by their foreign rivals, have better fuel efficiency,  better
quality of materials and workmanship, LONGER and BETTER warranty coverage,
and just plain LOOK nicer.

Instead of whining about losing market share to foreign car makers, the big
three should be trying MUCH HARDER to conduct serious research on what
makes Americans buy a foreign car - and then BEAT THEM at their own game
by offering a BETTER PRODUCT at a BETTER PRICE - and convince Americans
to BUY AMERICAN. 

Ford Motor Company has stated publicly that they have enough cash on-hand
to last through the end of 2009, while GM and Chrysler would have gone
bankrupt in a matter of WEEKS had they not received a government bailout
using OUR TAX DOLLARS - the question that BEGS to be is asked is: WHY?
Why does Ford have the cash to stay in business when GM and Chrysler do
not?  What can GM and Chrysler learn from Ford that could, down the road,
allow them to be in a similar situation?

It will be a VERY long time before I buy another new car or truck....let's see
what Ford, GM and Chrysler can come up with, and how serious they REALLY are
about becoming profitable and sustainable businesses like they used to be.

When the time does come for a new car or truck, you better believe that I will
buy the one that gives me the best bang for the buck - whether it is American
or not.  I simply CANNOT AFFORD to do otherwise.

::::::::::::  End of  "Editorial"  ::::::::::::

[jay]

It's too bad the U.S. auto industry didn't embrace a higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard years ago.  The SUVs are not selling well anymore because they are gas hogs.

Did you ever notice how many foreign name plate cars are on the roads of Youngstown?   People are not loyal to our domestic businesses which provide jobs to our fellow citizens.

Side Note
Are you wearing American made clothing?

"Statistics indicate if every American cared enough to buy just one garment made in the USA per year, the impact would be nearly $9 billion.  That creates an amazing amount of jobs for just one article of clothing per American!"

[Towntalk]

What the global warming crowd wasn't able to do, the economy succeeded in doing.

It's the End of the Line For S.U.V.'s
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/24auto.html?_r=1&hp

As these plants close down, how many workers are going to be without jobs?

Will the Al Gore crowd throw a party to celebrate?