[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Maflynn
The problem is that the Big Three's substance is so rotten that I don't see what good a rescue plan will do: GM is losing about $100 million a month and it doesn't look like the car market will pick up within the next 1 or 2 years.

IMO it's likely that a (foreign) investor will buy the remnants, cut out the good pieces and discard the rest.

I believe if the government can help them out, it will ultimately be good for the country and the economy. I'm not in favor of a full bail out because the problems are not related to the financial meltdown. Still having a major contributor to the GDP fail can only have a devastating effect on the economy. if the government can help them out and prevent a full collapse of the domestic auto industry, that will be better for the country and the economy.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I disagree.

Fair doesn't enter into it at all. Government has no business ensuring an even playing field, just that no barriers are placed to protect one to the detriment of another.

Those two statements sound like the same thing to me.

[vmarks]

I don't think so. Ensuring an even playing field means actively putting up barriers to those who are ahead, and giving special favors to those who may be perceived to be behind. Government should be inactive here, not granting barriers to some and favors to others, inactive, rather than active.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I don't think so. Ensuring an even playing field means actively putting up barriers to those who are ahead, and giving special favors to those who may be perceived to be behind. Government should be inactive here, not granting barriers to some and favors to others, inactive, rather than active.

I disagree. Evening the playing field means removing barriers, whether they have been placed by other meddling or by natural market conditions as a result of the rules of commerce that are in place. Government is active in commerce no matter what.

[turtle777]

The main problem with a bailout is that you (once again) punish those companies that have been prudent and did a good job.

Look at the Toyota, Honda and other foreign OEM's plants in the US. They run efficient, provide work for thousands of people and help the local economy.

If the US government bails out the Detroit 3 by throwing cheap money after them, they will for sure hurt those foreign companies. We should not forget how those are a crucial factor in the US economy as well.

-t

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The main problem with a bailout is that you (once again) punish those companies that have been prudent and did a good job.

Look at the Toyota, Honda and other foreign OEM's plants in the US. They run efficient, provide work for thousands of people and help the local economy.

If the US government bails out the Detroit 3 by throwing cheap money after them, they will for sure hurt those foreign companies. We should not forget how those are a crucial factor in the US economy as well.

-t

I agree, because I think this would be throwing good money after bad. I'm just saying that my answer would be different if there were a demonstrable path to stability.

I don't think this would really hurt the Hondas and Toyotas. Don't forget that the Big 3 employ a lot of people too, and help communities. All those people and communities will be impacted - unfortunately, I just think that a bailout now would delay and probably compound the problem, not solve it.

And to the extent the demand supports it, Honda and Toyota and others (maybe even upstart US companies) would take over and fill in that infrastructure if the Big 3 were to fold.

[PB2K]

at this moment 3 GM workers pay for 1 pensioned GM worker. GM said to have this abnormality solved in 2010 but they won't make it till 2009, let alone 2010.

[CreepDogg]

That is a major concern of the Big 3 failing - all that pension liability will put a major burden on the PBGC, and, thus, taxpayers.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I don't think this would really hurt the Hondas and Toyotas.

That depends.

E.g. our new administration plans to enact card check legislation, which will put more pressure on those transplants, and make them "more equal" to the Big 3.

I'm worried that the way that the Big 3 are supposed to be helped is going to be to make the others comparatively less successful.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by PB2K 

at this moment 3 GM workers pay for 1 pensioned GM worker. GM said to have this abnormality solved in 2010 but they won't make it till 2009, let alone 2010.

How is this going to be solved, w/o big cuts in eligibility and payments ?

I think that's just sweet talk to make it yet another year.

-t

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That depends.

E.g. our new administration plans to enact card check legislation, which will put more pressure on those transplants, and make them "more equal" to the Big 3.

I'm worried that the way that the Big 3 are supposed to be helped is going to be to make the others comparatively less successful.

-t

I agree on opposing card check legislation (had to look it up) - as that would exacerbate the problems (on both sides) with coercion in organizing labor, rather than help it. I think secret ballots are a much better option. Toyota, Honda, and other non-union plants, as you can imagine, are already getting lots of pressure from the UAW. That in itself is a good thing - it's an incentive for them to give employees a good deal (equal to or better than what employees perceive they'd get from organizing). But the UAW doesn't need more rules tipped in their favor.

All that said, I think this is unrelated to a 'bailout' of the Big 3. Aside from propping up some (albeit not very competitive) competition, a bailout has no real impact on the companies that don't need bailouts.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The UAW may have shrunk in size, but the UAW agreement (in Canada at least) requires the automakers to pay lifetime health insurance. Even as the UAW shrinks, the number of lifetime health insurance payments only continues to grow.

Which is yet another reason for moving to Universal Health Care in the US. US automakers have to pay for these ever increasing costs for current as well as retired workers. While their competitors do not.

OAW

[Doofy]

Should the Detroit Big Three be bailed out?

Hell yes. I need to buy some more engines off Chrysler before they disappear.
No, I don't care about your economy. Just my engines.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Which is yet another reason for moving to Universal Health Care in the US. US automakers have to pay for these ever increasing costs for current as well as retired workers. While their competitors do not.

OAW

Right, so the rest of us can just pay it directly? How about they pay for THEIR OWN healthcare, as I do?

[PB2K]

it's totally unwise to invest in an unhealthy company that should have died tens of years ago. In the Netherlands we had some of our pride companies bankrupt a few years ago, DAF, Fokker..These companies didn't disappear however, only the healthy divisions remained and are still succesful. As it is for the Big 3, the billions shouldn't be invested in keeping an unhealthy company afloat, but in helping the workers who face difficult times ahead.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Right, so the rest of us can just pay it directly? How about they pay for THEIR OWN healthcare, as I do?

Because the fact of the matter is that most people simply can't afford to buy health INSURANCE on "their own" ... let alone health CARE that involves any type of hospitalization. Most people who have health insurance have it because their employer provides it and carries most of the cost. Perhaps you are different and purchase health insurance totally on your own. If so, then do recognize that you are the exception and not the rule. The entire purpose of insurance is to provide protection to the purchaser by spreading the risk over a larger group. Rather than have this group and that group and some with no group ... why not have the largest group possible? Lower the costs of premiums for just about everybody that way.

But back to the topic at hand. The European and Japanese automakers aren't burdened with the cost of providing health care coverage for their employees because their countries have a national health care system. US automakers are. And that puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Plain and simple.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Right, so the rest of us can just pay it directly? How about they pay for THEIR OWN healthcare, as I do?

How much do you pay for your healthcare?

[imitchellg5]

I think that the big three should be bailed out but only because it would affect 3 MILLION America jobs if they went under. It would quite simply wipe many Midwest towns off the map.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The European and Japanese automakers aren't burdened with the cost of providing health care coverage for their employees because their countries have a national health care system. US automakers are. And that puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Plain and simple.

That's not entirely true, at least for Germany (which represents a good chunk of the European manufacturers).

In Germany, the companies have to pay 50% of the Health Care and Social Security, the other 50% is paid by the employee.
Also, in addition, German companies often pay a Pension plan, which causes a great future burden, similar to those of the US companies.

Just look at the fringes. I work in the Automotive Industry, in Germany and in the US.

The fringe rates I have encountered here in the US were between 25% and 40%.
In Germany it's between 80% and 100%.

The Government pays a good portion, but there's more than enough burden on the companies as well.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I think that the big three should be bailed out but only because it would affect 3 MILLION America jobs if they went under. It would quite simply wipe many Midwest towns off the map.

All plans discussed so far would only delay the inevitable.

-t

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

All plans discussed so far would only delay the inevitable.

Actually they're hopping to survive by 2010 so that the pension is on the union's shoulders which will help them incredibly.

For what I've read it takes three workers building cars to pay for one retired workers pension. No sure if that's entirely true but if it isn't its probably close to the truth.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Look at the Toyota, Honda and other foreign OEM's plants in the US. They run efficient, provide work for thousands of people and help the local economy.

Toyota and Honda also have unions. So instead of blaming the Big 3's problems on the unions, maybe you should blame the Big 3's problems on corporate greed and failure to adjust to high-priced oil economy. Those same Big 3 companies sell 60 mpg diesels in Europe, but refuse to sell them in North America while simultaneously pushing gass guzzlers.

It's not the unions, it's complete incompetence by the U.S. auto makers.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

All plans discussed so far would only delay the inevitable.

-t

This is what the government should do:

1. Give them a loan to get through the crunch
2. Suspend all executive bonuses, gifts, severances, dividends, options, etc. as a condition for the loan
3. Restrict all executive salaries to no more than $1 million a year as a condition for the loan
4. Keep rigorous book keeping by an independent, government regulated, 3rd party for back-salaries to executives.
5. Back-salary pay will be awarded after the loan is payed off (which is from the interest garnered from the loan)

Hell, they should do that for all the institutions getting bailouts.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

This is what the government should do:

1. Give them a loan to get through the crunch
2. Suspend all executive bonuses, gifts, severances, dividends, options, etc. as a condition for the loan
3. Restrict all executive salaries to no more than $1 million a year as a condition for the loan
4. Keep rigorous book keeping by an independent, 3rd party for back-salaries to executives.
5. Back-salary pay will be awarded after the loan is payed off

Hell, they should do that for all the institutions getting bailouts.

Or, you could simply put an import tax on all vehicles costing less than $100,000 to bring them up to that price - so no foreign car could be bought for less than 100k.
That'd sort the problem out overnight.

Restrict all executive salaries to no more than $1 million a year as a condition for the loan

You seem to have a real problem with people earning what they're worth. Nobody with the capability of running a car company properly is going to do it for a paltry $1m a year. It's just not going to happen. $1m a year is bugger all and certainly not worth the headache trying to sort stuff out.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Or, you could simply put an import tax on all vehicles costing less than $100,000 to bring them up to that price - so no foreign car could be bought for less than 100k.
That'd sort the problem out overnight.

What about all the Hondas and Toyotas and Subarus and BMWs built in the US? They'd just ramp up capacity...

You seem to have a real problem with people earning what they're worth. Nobody with the capability of running a car company properly is going to do it for a paltry $1m a year. It's just not going to happen. $1m a year is bugger all and certainly not worth the headache trying to sort stuff out.

OK, I don't think his overall solution would work - it does nothing to trick the Big 3 into building cars people want to buy. But - I think there are plenty of capable people who would take $1M a year for the opportunity to be the one that turned GM around, and then reap all the rewards that would entail. It would be refreshing to see someone get rewarded AFTER success rather than before (or after failure...).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

What about all the Hondas and Toyotas and Subarus and BMWs built in the US? They'd just ramp up capacity...

Just treat foreign owned factory product as imports.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

OK, I don't think his overall solution would work - it does nothing to trick the Big 3 into building cars people want to buy.

Thing is, the big 3 were building cars that people want to buy until the greens conned them into thinking that everyone wants econoshitboxes. People want V8 SUVs, Corvettes and Crown Vics. OK, maybe not a bunch of Mac geeks (who're taken by all things new in the technology world), but definitely the average man on the street still wants his SUV that wasn't designed by Chris Bangle or his Crown Vic.
Zillions of Corvettes sitting in fields, unsold? I doubt it. Zillions of lame-crossover-hybrid-ugly-design sheds sitting in fields? Probably.

[auto_immune]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Incorrect.
Unions stem from the racist Davis-Bacon act, not the Constitution.

Racist you say? Maybe not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Bacon_Act

Representative Bacon, say modern conservative opponents of the law, initially introduced the bill after a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veteran’s Bureau hospital in his New York district. More accurately, the legislative history of Davis-Bacon reflects a desire by Congress to reserve jobs on federal projects for local workers, who nationwide faced epidemic unemployment. Opponents to the Davis-Bacon Act have claimed that there was racist intent to the law, but critics have countered that this is a red herring, stating that it was a sincere attempt to make amends for local workers and flatly dismiss the conservative claim that it has Jim Crow origins."

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Those same Big 3 companies sell 60 mpg diesels in Europe, but refuse to sell them in North America while simultaneously pushing gass guzzlers.

Americans do not like diesels, at least not enough volume to import from Europe or develop in America. Especially now with the higher emissions restrictions, and the owner has to keep a bottle of urea in the trunk.

Americans do not like tiny cars that have diesels that push 50+mpg--in not enough volume to import or develop.

Americans do not like to drive stick that these tiny cars with diesels have.

Americans do not like to pay an extra 80 cents per gallon in diesel fuel to make these cars go.

The japanese auto makers don't offer diesels in the U.S., and they can do no wrong.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just treat foreign owned factory product as imports.

Something tells me that wouldn't go over well in the parts of the country that have those plants.

Thing is, the big 3 were building cars that people want to buy until the greens conned them into thinking that everyone wants econoshitboxes. People want V8 SUVs, Corvettes and Crown Vics. OK, maybe not a bunch of Mac geeks (who're taken by all things new in the technology world), but definitely the average man on the street still wants his SUV that wasn't designed by Chris Bangle or his Crown Vic.
Zillions of Corvettes sitting in fields, unsold? I doubt it. Zillions of lame-crossover-hybrid-ugly-design sheds sitting in fields? Probably.

That was true until this summer when $4+ gas scared the crap out of everyone. There was really a shift in the market - all you have to do is drive by a car dealership to see it. The market for V-8 SUVs, Challengers, and such really shrank, and that's all you see sitting on lots. Of course, there are people who need trucks, and the market for Challengers and Corvettes and Grand Vics has always been a niche market.

There has been, and still is a market here for smaller cars and crossovers and such. I should know - I'm in it - and I have an import from your country! Thing is - the Big 3 basically conceded that market segment to Toyota, Honda, etc., so they are unable to adapt to shifts in preferences. The guy who wants a truck will still look at the F-150, but the guy who wants a car and has become concerned about how much gas he has to buy will go look at a Civic, Accord, or Camry. If there's more of the latter segment, and it keeps growing, the Big 3 are in trouble...

Also, there is often a difference between what people want and what people will buy.

[imitchellg5]

To let the current condition sink in, the Dodge dealer here has a nice new promo running right now. Buy any Ram with a Hemi (and almost $13k in incentives along with 0.9% financing) and get a base 5 speed Caliber for $1. Pretty desperate.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by scottiB 

Americans do not like diesels, at least not enough volume to import from Europe or develop in America. Especially now with the higher emissions restrictions, and the owner has to keep a bottle of urea in the trunk.

Americans do not like tiny cars that have diesels that push 50+mpg--in not enough volume to import or develop.

Americans do not like to drive stick that these tiny cars with diesels have.

Americans do not like to pay an extra 80 cents per gallon in diesel fuel to make these cars go.

The japanese auto makers don't offer diesels in the U.S., and they can do no wrong.

The US also has really strict safety regulations. Cars like the Smart had to be completely redesigned for the American market using different materials.

The environmental regulations might be different too. It could be that Diesel is a much less efficient and dirtier fuel in America, I don't know...

[CreepDogg]

Just because it's interesting...

Top-Selling Cars 2000

1. Ford F-Series
2. Chevrolet Silverado
3. Ford Explorer
4. Toyota Camry
5. Honda Accord
6. Ford Taurus
7. Honda Civic
8. Ford Focus
9. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan
10. Jeep Grand Cherokee

Top Selling Cars 2007

1. Ford F-Series (F-150)
2. Chevrolet Silverado
3. Toyota Camry
4. Honda Accord
5. Toyota Corolla
6. Dodge Ram
7. Honda Civic
8. Chevrolet Impala
9. Nissan Altima
10. Honda CR-V

I also read that in May 2008, the Honda Civic was the top seller, displacing the Ford and Chevy pickups for the first time in forever. In June, it went Corolla, Camry, Civic before the trucks were even mentioned. I'm guessing Taurus and Impala are in the lists above because of fleet sales for rental companies. I think it was in the late 1990s when Camry overtook Taurus for top-selling car (non-truck).

[tie]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Hell, they should do that for all the institutions getting bailouts.

That's just crazy talk.

The other day I ran into an AIG executive relocating to San Francisco and looking at a $3.5 million home. They're doing just fine.

[besson3c]

There are rumors that the Chinese will buy out some or all of the Big Three, which they can do easily, and which some say makes strategic sense for them to do.

What do you think of this possibility?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are rumors that the Chinese will buy out some or all of the Big Three, which they can do easily, and which some say makes strategic sense for them to do.

What do you think of this possibility?

Much better than throwing tax payers money after them.

-t

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are rumors that the Chinese will buy out some or all of the Big Three, which they can do easily, and which some say makes strategic sense for them to do.

What do you think of this possibility?

I've been predicting that the Chinese were coming to America with cars for quite some time, so this would make even more sense for them than starting their own programs. They're going to own most of this country soon anyway.

[Eug]

I have been saying for about 15 years that the Big Three were out to lunch. They needed to revamp their offerings, improve fuel efficiency, improve reliability, and do something about the unions. I am a bit of a lefty (or at least centrist), but the UAW has always bothered me. I agree that leadership at the big three has clearly been lacking, but their hands were tied too to a certain extent by the UAW.

So... I see this tumultuous period as an excellent opportunity to clean up the Big Three's books. OTOH, if they all went bankrupt, it would be devastating for the North American economy. So, I would consider supporting a bailout, IF it wasn't just the government throwing money at these companies.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You seem to have a real problem with people earning what they're worth. Nobody with the capability of running a car company properly is going to do it for a paltry $1m a year. It's just not going to happen. $1m a year is bugger all and certainly not worth the headache trying to sort stuff out.

Heh. Steve Jobs' salary...

I say give them a decent salary, but make bonuses dependent upon performance. I agree $1 million is too small, but I do recall some of my corporate friends using the exact same argument for HP's Carly Fiorina and her insanely high salary, despite her lack of a proven track record.



We all know how that turned out...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by scottiB 

Americans do not like tiny cars that have diesels that push 50+mpg--in not enough volume to import or develop.

Americans do not like to drive stick that these tiny cars with diesels have.

The Volkswagon Jetta TDI that gets 50+ MPG, it beat out the Toyota Prius, AND it comes as an automatic. VW isn't the only company either, several other companies make full size sedans or even sports cars that get 50 MPG or more. The smaller cars aren't all ugly, either. I like the VW Polo, and it gets 70 MPG.

Originally Posted by scottiB 

Americans do not like to pay an extra 80 cents per gallon in diesel fuel to make these cars go.

So we've established that not only are Americans lazy that they can't use a stick shift, but they're stupid, too. Even if it was 80 cents per gallon more for diesel fuel, it'd still be cheaper.

Petrol: 15 gallon tank, 40 MPG, 2.00/gallon
Diesel: 15 gallon tank, 60 mpg, 2.80/gallon

At 600 miles a tank, that's 5 cents a mile.
At 900 miles a tank, that's 4.6 cents a mile.

VW Jetta TDI


VW Polo

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by scottiB 

Americans do not like diesels, at least not enough volume to import from Europe or develop in America. Especially now with the higher emissions restrictions, and the owner has to keep a bottle of urea in the trunk.

Americans do not like tiny cars that have diesels that push 50+mpg--in not enough volume to import or develop.

Americans do not like to drive stick that these tiny cars with diesels have.

Americans do not like to pay an extra 80 cents per gallon in diesel fuel to make these cars go.

The japanese auto makers don't offer diesels in the U.S., and they can do no wrong.

If gas prices climb back up, Americans may start to change what they like. Auto sales figures while gas prices were high suggest that Americans weren't too concerned about moving to fuel efficient cars.

[olePigeon]

Traditionally, Democrats were usually the environmentally conscience party, but they're annoying me to no end right now on two fronts: 1, clean diesel; and 2, nuclear energy. Clean Diesel is a great transitionary option to solar/fuel-cell/hydrogen. Stupid Democrats have kept nuclear power out of America even though it is the cleanest & safest form of energy that we have to date outside of solar. The spent rods can be recycled every 40 years or so, we don't have to deal with the huge amounts of nuclear waste that was/is a problem with old nuclear plants.

Frustrating. Obama's energy plan didn't include anything about building new nuclear plants.

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The Volkswagon Jetta TDI that gets 50+ MPG, it beat out the Toyota Prius, AND it comes as an automatic. VW isn't the only company either, several other companies make full size sedans or even sports cars that get 50 MPG or more. The smaller cars aren't all ugly, either. I like the VW Polo, and it gets 70 MPG.



So we've established that not only are Americans lazy that they can't use a stick shift, but they're stupid, too. Even if it was 80 cents per gallon more for diesel fuel, it'd still be cheaper.

Petrol: 15 gallon tank, 40 MPG, 2.00/gallon
Diesel: 15 gallon tank, 60 mpg, 2.80/gallon

At 600 miles a tank, that's 5 cents a mile.
At 900 miles a tank, that's 4.6 cents a mile.

VW Jetta TDI


VW Polo

VW's press says 30/41 (using EPA standards). Now list 5 more that are at least the size of the Jetta--and are in automatic. Regardless, VW will sell maybe 2000 per month.

Diesels will never take off here because they haven't already. If they've been viable in Europe for decades, they are viable here, and I'd love to see more of them here--other than the Benz Blue-Tecs. Diesels, though, have a stigma in the U.S. that's tough to overcome.

My only issue with your post is the generalizing that there are many, many options in Europe that domestic makers aren't bringing here for egregious reasons. Honda sells diesels in Europe and none here. So does Toyota, and none here (Toyota sells a diesel Land Cruiser in Europe).

If these well-run companies, antithetical of the U.S. 3, are not offering diesels in the U.S. because they aren't mass-market viable, why are you slamming GM, Ford, and Chrysler for not offering diesels either?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

*Off topic. Both of the above will have at least one non-working headlight within 6 months. Strangest thing those VWs. At least they're not still trying to be "poor-man's Audis)

No, do not bail out the Detroit Big three. We've already bailed out Chrysler before, the rest will return to the table at some point just like them. They'll have their hats in their hands until we ask which ones flew commercial to the hearings. Uh... uh... uh... This mismanagement from the top down on this makes me sick to my stomach.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They'll have their hats in their hands until we ask which ones flew commercial to the hearings. Uh... uh... uh...

Seriously. They're flying in their private jets to go beg for money. These people are completely out of touch with reality. If they're given government bailouts, there needs to be some evidence that they'll be more thrifty in their spending habits ... from the top down.

[turtle777]

The "problem" with diesel cars in the US is also, that diesel fuel is NOT subsidized, as it is in Europe.

Currently, diesel costs about 50% more than regular gas. This will eat up any better fuel economy that you'd get.

I'd rather wait a couple of years. Diesel engines are very mature, there is no more new development coming that will increase fuel efficiency. Regular gas engines, however, have still a lot of potential to be optimized.

Expect regular gas engines (turbo charges etc...) to catch up with diesel engine fuel economy in the next 5 years.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Currently, diesel costs about 50% more than regular gas.

This is what I don't get. It wasn't too long ago that Diesel was *cheaper* than regular gas.

[Ryan700]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Actually it's more due to the fact that Americans believe they need and deserve a V6 or V8 sedan to go grocery shopping, if not a gas guzzler SUV. Ford has already imported european cars (mondeo anyone) and it was "too small" and "underpowered" for Americans. Honda's european accord is the Acura TSX. ......

The Detroit Big Three are like a big oil tanker when it comes to responding to the market. It takes them so long to turn around. Chrysler still doesn't have a sub-compact on the market after at least a year of higher gas prices - they're lower (gas prices) now but it won't last. When I was looking for a car last year with exceptional economy I had only three choices. Buy a used Geo Metro which were 15 years old or more, a Toyota Prius which was out of my price range or a diesel Smart Fortwo. I would have bought a Pontiac Wave if GM would have turned around "on a dime" and started importing the cars with 3 cylinder engines in them. It wouldn't have taken them long to fit these cars with this motor - I bet they still have the tooling after all these years. I bought the Smart car and am very happy with the fuel economy.

[Ryan700]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This is what I don't get. It wasn't too long ago that Diesel was *cheaper* than regular gas.

In Canada they added more tax to diesel fuel. Diesel used to be lower in price than gasoline. Now it's a bit more expensive.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Actually it's more due to the fact that Americans believe they need and deserve a V6 or V8 sedan to go grocery shopping, if not a gas guzzler SUV. Ford has already imported european cars (mondeo anyone) and it was "too small" and "underpowered" for Americans. Honda's european accord is the Acura TSX. Again, too small and underpowered. This is why they don't leverage these cars. Honda does not sell its european civics here : when it tried (the last generation SI) it did not sell. Europeans builders which actually sell their european cars are marginal vendors at best (meaning they cater to a niche, not to mainstream).

Listening to some people, it's anti-American to drive fuel-efficient vehicles.

[Ryan700]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Listening to some people, it's anti-American to drive fuel-efficient vehicles.

Funny, there's always someone looking at my car when I come out of the shops or restaurants when I go to the U.S. Americans are interested but do they want to commit? The biggest complaint I get is that they don't have much choice when it comes to fuel efficient cars. They can't buy my car in the diesel version because every state has their own laws. They got the gas model this year. The fuel economy is not as good as mine. I bet if they would import the diesel version (to h*@# with California Emissions) it would be even more popular.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The "problem" with diesel cars in the US is also, that diesel fuel is NOT subsidized, as it is in Europe.

Currently, diesel costs about 50% more than regular gas. This will eat up any better fuel economy that you'd get.

I'd rather wait a couple of years. Diesel engines are very mature, there is no more new development coming that will increase fuel efficiency. Regular gas engines, however, have still a lot of potential to be optimized.

Expect regular gas engines (turbo charges etc...) to catch up with diesel engine fuel economy in the next 5 years.

-t

I'm not sure where you live, but here in metro Detroit diesel is 20% more than gas, not 50%. I've owned two VW diesels and they were the most solid engines I've ever owned, out of over 20 vehicles. Someone here already showed that diesel is still cheaper to run in a car, even at a price premium, and the engines hold up much better than gas ones. My next car is going to be another VW diesel. I also wouldn't hold my breath waiting for gas cars to catch up to diesels in fuel economy in the next five years.