PDA

View Full Version : IF you ran GM your first move



luvmylabs23139
07-23-2010, 05:25 PM
OK. if you were suddenly in charge of GM and reported to real stockholders not the gooberment) what is the first thing you would do?

I would do everything in my power to bust the Union out.
I would ask for givebacks and if they refused well, I would just start eliminating their jobs.

subroc
07-23-2010, 05:34 PM
ask obama to be a "pitch man"

kb27_99
07-23-2010, 09:14 PM
OK. if you were suddenly in charge of GM and reported to real stockholders not the gooberment) what is the first thing you would do?

I would do everything in my power to bust the Union out.
I would ask for givebacks and if they refused well, I would just start eliminating their jobs.

Sell it to Ford for pennys on the dollar so Ford could turn them into REAL trucks. :-)


Couldn't pass it up, Cheers

BonMallari
07-24-2010, 04:00 AM
See if I could lure Lee Iaccoca to run it...

Seriously:

1. get rid of the UAW....

2. get rid of all the high priced dead weight executives with million dollar salaries and golden parachutes

3. might actually consider breaking up the different brands and kill off the brands that dont make money

4. get out of automobile racing...NASCAR...cant believe I just said that, being a big fan , but this is about business not about giving me something to watch on TV



Suburban owner regards...culinary union member...NASCAR dad

Blackstone
07-24-2010, 07:29 AM
OK. if you were suddenly in charge of GM and reported to real stockholders not the gooberment) what is the first thing you would do?

I would do everything in my power to bust the Union out.
I would ask for givebacks and if they refused well, I would just start eliminating their jobs.

That's funny!

There is no way you would have enough clout to break the union, so the second thing that would happen is that the unions would shut GM down. GM would lose tons of money, and since GM just got on the road to profitability, the Board of Directors and investors would never let that happen.

So, the third thing that would happen is that the Board would fire you, and you would be drawing gooberment unemployment. Bye Bye CEO. :(

Steve Hester
07-24-2010, 08:37 AM
Sell it to Ford for pennys on the dollar so Ford could turn them into REAL trucks. :-)


Couldn't pass it up, Cheers

Why turn great trucks into 2nd rate trucks?????:p

Blackstone
07-24-2010, 01:13 PM
Sell it to Ford for pennys on the dollar so Ford could turn them into REAL trucks. :-)


Couldn't pass it up, Cheers

2009 Ford Super Duty line of trucks awarded worst truck of the year by Work Truck Magazine (March 2009).

GM trucks, light duty and heavy duty trucks beat Fordís fuel economy, both gas and diesel. GM one ton diesel beat Fordís one ton diesel by 7 mpg. in a real world done by Popular Mechanics Magazine (Dec. 2007).

2011 GM Heavy Duty trucks now beat Ford in towing and payload capacity in 23 out of 24 models.

The Allison transmission used in GM HD trucks is the toughest, most dependable transmission on the market bar none.

You might find someone that rates Ford higher on interior or exterior styling, but those are subjective things. When it comes to the important things, like performance and fuel economy, GM wins in most cases. So, if Ford had the cash to buy GM, which they donít, they should just put the blue oval on the front of the GM trucks. Why take a great truck and go backwards?

Franco
07-24-2010, 02:18 PM
First, I would like to thank the GM Board Of Directors for appointing me thier new President. Had I known of today's appointment I wouldn't have had the variety of Gin cocktails I indugle in last night at the festival known as, "Tales Of The Cocktail" in New Orleans. Let me assure the board that I will not make another trip to that Lessiz Fair town till this time next year.

My first order of business is make sure we place the emphasis on what we do right. That being building heavy, medium and light duty trucks and SUVs. Gentleman, for us to attempt to compete with the Japanesse and Korean Passenger Vehicle market is financial suicide.

Detroit's reputation for building Passenger Vehicles with poor quailty and styling is not something we have enough money to overcome. That is an image that will be with us and no amount of advertising will convince the domestic auto buyer that our product is as good as thiers.

So, we will run with what we do best and what the buying public will support; our trucks and SUVs.

We will be closing all Buick plants and we will only build one model of Cadillac which we will sell through our dealer network. Chevrolet will discontinue building passenger vehicles.

WE ARE GOING TO MAKE MONEY DOING WHAT WE ARE BEST AT!

I also realize that the cost of labor has run most mfging out of the USA. We can not survive without further government assistence and with out getting our cost of labor in line. I will aske for the imprisonment of all UAW leaders until we can get this situation under control.

Gentlemen, we will be generous with our workers and more so when we can turn a substanial profit. Until then, these parasites have to be controlled. Either that or we will truly go the way of the dynasaur. Because the success the Asian mfgs are having with thier Tundra, Titan, Tacoma and Frontier will embolden them to build more truck models for sale in the USA.

This is the only way we will be truely competitive with the Asians. We can't expect the American tax payer to continue to keep the UAW afloat. At some point intime they will realize that all big governemnt is doing is buying the vote of the UAW and they will demand that we receive no more tax payer dollars.

We either change our culture to one of productivity at a fair price or we go the way of the Tarradactile.

kb27_99
07-24-2010, 03:56 PM
2009 Ford Super Duty line of trucks awarded worst truck of the year by Work Truck Magazine (March 2009).

GM trucks, light duty and heavy duty trucks beat Fordís fuel economy, both gas and diesel. GM one ton diesel beat Fordís one ton diesel by 7 mpg. in a real world done by Popular Mechanics Magazine (Dec. 2007).

2011 GM Heavy Duty trucks now beat Ford in towing and payload capacity in 23 out of 24 models.

The Allison transmission used in GM HD trucks is the toughest, most dependable transmission on the market bar none.

You might find someone that rates Ford higher on interior or exterior styling, but those are subjective things. When it comes to the important things, like performance and fuel economy, GM wins in most cases. So, if Ford had the cash to buy GM, which they donít, they should just put the blue oval on the front of the GM trucks. Why take a great truck and go backwards?

First of all it was a joke..........why are you so defensive?

Secondly remind me which of the big 3 didnít forfeit to the government? You damn right I support them.......

Blackstone
07-24-2010, 04:09 PM
First of all it was a joke..........why are you so defensive?

Secondly remind me which of the big 3 didnít forfeit to the government? You damn right I support them.......

I wasn't getting defensive. I'm sorry you took it that way. Perhaps I should have added some smilies or something. :D I just pointed out the facts, but no harm was intended.

Well, if you want your tax dollars back, you might want to rethink that decision. :D:D:D (More smilies just in case)

kb27_99
07-24-2010, 08:50 PM
I wasn't getting defensive. I'm sorry you took it that way. Perhaps I should have added some smilies or something. :D I just pointed out the facts, but no harm was intended.

Well, if you want your tax dollars back, you might want to rethink that decision. :D:D:D (More smilies just in case)

So now youíre implying that I should buy a goat or GM to help make up for the governmentís poor decision to bail out thoughts poorly managed companies. Interesting, its all becoming clear now. ;-)

Franco
07-24-2010, 09:45 PM
Had GM been allowed to fail, I new and stronger company would have emerged from the ashes.

Another company like Fiat buying Chrysler would have stepped in. They would have kept the profitable portion of the company and gotten the UAW at a more reasonable agreement so that the new company could be profitable.

Because if GM really does come back, with a UAW member on the board, the demands will be unreasonable and we will be back to where the problems all started.

Blackstone
07-24-2010, 11:21 PM
Had GM been allowed to fail, I new and stronger company would have emerged from the ashes.

Another company like Fiat buying Chrysler would have stepped in. They would have kept the profitable portion of the company and gotten the UAW at a more reasonable agreement so that the new company could be profitable.

Because if GM really does come back, with a UAW member on the board, the demands will be unreasonable and we will be back to where the problems all started.

A company like Fiat? Have you ever looked at the quality of Fiat cars? Chrysler will be lucky to survive being owned by Fiat. In Europe Fiat was rated 29th out of 29 brands sold. And, this is your example of a stronger company emerging from the ashes?

You still seem to think all of GM's problems were caused by the UAW. GM was operating under basically the same UAW agreement as your precious Ford Motor Co., and as you have pointed out, Ford didn't go into bankruptcy. The fact is, GM management made a lot of mistakes. At one time, quality was a big problem for GM. Do you think the UAW was designing GM those vehicles? When GM wasn't building fuel efficient small cars, do you think that was the UAW's decision?

Blackstone
07-24-2010, 11:24 PM
So now youíre implying that I should buy a goat or GM to help make up for the governmentís poor decision to bail out thoughts poorly managed companies. Interesting, its all becoming clear now. ;-)

Hey, I'm a live and let live kind of guy. I think everyone should buy whatever they want. ;-)

Franco
07-25-2010, 07:06 AM
A company like Fiat? Have you ever looked at the quality of Fiat cars? Chrysler will be lucky to survive being owned by Fiat. In Europe Fiat was rated 29th out of 29 brands sold. And, this is your example of a stronger company emerging from the ashes?

You still seem to think all of GM's problems were caused by the UAW. GM was operating under basically the same UAW agreement as your precious Ford Motor Co., and as you have pointed out, Ford didn't go into bankruptcy. The fact is, GM management made a lot of mistakes. At one time, quality was a big problem for GM. Do you think the UAW was designing GM those vehicles? When GM wasn't building fuel efficient small cars, do you think that was the UAW's decision?

I won't disagree that GM was grossly mismanaged. From poor planning, bad decisons and thier inability to keep the cost of labor in line.

Fiat may rank 29th but they are one of the most profitable auto mfg's in the world and use to be ranked #1 in total vehicles built.

My point is that had we let GM take its natural course instead of government interference, some company would have stepped up and bought it and it wouldn't have become another burden to the tax payer. GM may or may not make it and the government had no buisness investing tax payer dollars into it to save the UAW, which was nothing more than political payback. Or, buying votes with tax payer dollars.

Blackstone
07-25-2010, 07:27 AM
I won't disagree that GM was grossly mismanaged. From poor planning, bad decisons and thier inability to keep the cost of labor in line.

Fiat may rank 29th but they are one of the most profitable auto mfg's in the world and use to be ranked #1 in total vehicles built.

My point is that had we let GM take its natural course instead of government interference, some company would have stepped up and bought it and it wouldn't have become another burden to the tax payer. GM may or may not make it and the government had no buisness investing tax payer dollars into it to save the UAW, which was nothing more than political payback. Or, buying votes with tax payer dollars.

Unless Fiat vastly improves its quality, they will fail in the U.S. just like they did the last time they tried to sell cars here. Chrysler, who has always had some quality issues, was even ranked higher than Fiat in reliability. By buying Chrysler, Fiat gets another chance at the American market, and they pick up lines, like trucks, that they didnít have before. However, I just donít see what they bring to the table for Chrysler, other than cash.

I understand your point about not liking government interference. However, the government stepped, not only to save GM, but to save the American auto industry, and perhaps the U.S. economy, as a whole. If GM had gone under, the consequences to both would have been dire. Sometimes you are forced to make unpleasant choices now in order to ensure long term viability.

Franco
07-25-2010, 07:51 AM
Unless Fiat vastly improves its quality, they will fail in the U.S. just like they did the last time they tried to sell cars here. Chrysler, who has always had some quality issues, was even ranked higher than Fiat in reliability. By buying Chrysler, Fiat gets another chance at the American market, and they pick up lines, like trucks, that they didn’t have before. However, I just don’t see what they bring to the table for Chrysler, other than cash.

I understand your point about not liking government interference. However, the government stepped, not only to save GM, but to save the American auto industry, and perhaps the U.S. economy, as a whole. If GM had gone under, the consequences to both would have been dire. Sometimes you are forced to make unpleasant choices now in order to ensure long term viability.

I thought that when Damlier Benz owned Chrysler that they took huge leaps in quality and styling. My feeling was that maybe they got out too early. However, American auto buyers still don't trust the reliablity/quality in domestic passenger vehicles.

Unlike trucks which we will buy and buy because of our love afair with pickups. It was the 1500 GM truck that saved GM from bankruptcy in 1993. It was the Dodge Ram redesign and powertrain in 1996 that saved Chrysler and Ford's F150 is the world's number one selling vehicle.

That is what Detroit does best and that is where thier focus should be except of a very limited amount of passenger vehilces. GM should only be building one model of Cadillac, Chevy only the Corvette and Camaro, Ford the Mustang and Taurus. The rest should be trucks because in tiny fuel economy passenger vehicles we can't compete with Kia, Hyundai, Honda, Toyota and Nissan.

I ahve a good friend that is the GM for the largest Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep dealership in La. He says that with Fiat, that Chrysler will be able to compete with the Asian mfgs. in tiny fuel economy passenger vehicles.

depittydawg
07-25-2010, 10:15 AM
OK. if you were suddenly in charge of GM and reported to real stockholders not the gooberment) what is the first thing you would do?

I would do everything in my power to bust the Union out.
I would ask for givebacks and if they refused well, I would just start eliminating their jobs.

Interesting question. I suppose the first order of business is to stabelize and normalize their relationship with their workforce. GM needs to transform its relationship to its workforce away from the traditional conflict based to a more modern cooperation based. As the stongest component to any company, success is dependent on a productive worker dedicated to his job and company. This is probably the biggest challenge facing GM. And it is not a new problem. It has been mis-managed for as long as I've been around.

Next would be to streamline their products. Scuttle the layers upon layers of Product lines which compete, not with their competitors, but with themselves. I believe they started this process, but more changes are necessary.

Embrace the future by designing and building the car / truck of the future, i.e. high mileage, low cost of ownership. Again they seem to have taken steps in the design phase of electric cars an other alternative energy vehicles. An interesting concept might be to begin a line of mass transportation development. This could be a huge in the future in America.

Adjusting the pay structure of the organization is probably in order. I would re-order my own pay as CEO immediatley to never equal more than 30X shop worker pay. This is inline with Japanese and European corporations. I would fire all the whining managers, engineers, executives and anybody else in the organization that wants to blame the shop worker for the problems of the company. This is absurd, as anyone who has ever studied entry level Business Management knows.

There is still a huge quality problem with GM. I've owned GM products for 25 years, and the same electric window motors that failed in 1985 are still failing on every GM product I own. Quality starts with design and ends with design, so that needs a major overhall.

I would start building more plants in the US. No reason that all their competitors can successfullly build cars in the US with exactly the same cost structure and GM can't.

gman0046
07-25-2010, 10:28 AM
If auto makers didn't have the burden of unions it would be a different story. The outrageous pay scales and benefit packages have made them unable to compete with companies like Toyota. GM even pays some employees to stay home and still get paid. The UAW has negotiated its members out of their jobs for years. Politicians like Obongo rely on unions for democratic voters and will do anything to keep the status quo.

Gerry Clinchy
07-25-2010, 11:52 AM
My point is that had we let GM take its natural course instead of government interference, some company would have stepped up and bought it and it wouldn't have become another burden to the tax payer.

Not always that easy. When Bethlehem Steel was for sale, one of the big issues was that no company really wanted to take on the burden of their workers' retirement plan (including retiree health benefits). In the end, the benefits of the retirees were "amended" to enable the sale of the company. I truly don't recall if the govt ended up chipping in as well or not. At one point, I do believe that was suggested to facilitate the sale of the company.

As I understand it, none of Toyota's U.S. employees are unionized.

I did note that Ford's profits would have been higher, but they made a large contribution to their employees' retirement program. They still owe more, but they are honoring their obligations there.

I believe that part of Ford's management plan, that allowed it to survive without govt money, involved negotiations with the UAW. Whoever in management and the union who made that work had some smarts. Someone finally realized that they were all in the same boat. In a way you do have to give credit to the management (probably many of whom could have retired comfortably) for taking the challenge to make Ford succeed ... and take their action even before GM & Chrysler's errors reached their flashpoints.

I might also expect that Ford would take note of the critique of its trucks (mentioned above) and start to pay better attention to its meat-and-potatoes reputation in the truck market. Would they be dumb enough not to? Hopefully, they would be as pragmatic about that as part of sound management, as they did with other aspects of the company.

Franco probably has a good point, too, about limiting models a LOT. The company that is willing to do that could make their most popular models more affordable by more plant standardization and tooling costs.

Perhaps both the unions and management could learn some lessons from observing how Toyota manages its employees ... from shop level up through executives. In spite of the recent acceleration debacle, the culture of quality evidently was throughout the company.

Blackstone
07-26-2010, 01:58 PM
I thought that when Damlier Benz owned Chrysler that they took huge leaps in quality and styling. My feeling was that maybe they got out too early. However, American auto buyers still don't trust the reliablity/quality in domestic passenger vehicles.

It was my understanding that Damlier Benz was unwilling to invest the money really needed to correct Chryslerís quality problems. Improving overall quality is an expensive, long term process. I have been told that Damlier Benz was more interested in sending money back to Germany because they were receiving pressure from stockholders there. I canít verify that, but I was told that by some Chrysler managers.


Unlike trucks which we will buy and buy because of our love afair with pickups. It was the 1500 GM truck that saved GM from bankruptcy in 1993. It was the Dodge Ram redesign and powertrain in 1996 that saved Chrysler and Ford's F150 is the world's number one selling vehicle.

That is what Detroit does best and that is where thier focus should be except of a very limited amount of passenger vehilces. GM should only be building one model of Cadillac, Chevy only the Corvette and Camaro, Ford the Mustang and Taurus. The rest should be trucks because in tiny fuel economy passenger vehicles we can't compete with Kia, Hyundai, Honda, Toyota and Nissan.

Some of the GM vehicles you are excluding are among its best selling and most profitable models (i.e. Malibu, Equinox, Lacrosse, and all of the mid-size crossovers). They are all fuel efficient and extremely reliable. In í08 Malibu was rated the highest quality mid-size sedan made, and was 4th behind one model by Lexus, Porsche & Mercedes for highest quality production vehicle made. Thatís not too shabby. Impala, even though itís badly in need of a redesign, is one of the most reliable vehicles on the road. I had a customer I used to sell 600 Ė 650 of them each year, and they rarely had a problem with any of them. Plus, as large as Impala is, it still gets 28 - 29 mpg. And, Ford has their own success stories.

Plus, American car companies are starting to produce some very competitive, fuel efficient small cars. I have listened to some Ford presentations this year, and they have some good product coming that should be very competitive with the imports. The same is true for GM. GM just introduced the Chevy Cruz. It replaced Cobalt. It will be the largest compact vehicle in its class, yet it will get 36 Ė 38 mpg depending on which engine you select. If you are willing to buy a manual trans, it will get 40 Ė 41 mpg.

The American car companies can compete in more than just the truck market, and I think you will start to see that over the next couple of year.

Franco
07-26-2010, 02:43 PM
I don't know Blackstone it seems like Detroit has been trying to compete with the Asians for a long time with nothing to show but failure.

The GM line of GEOs, remember them? Then there was the Saturn line. Also all the other little models that have failed through the years. There was Chrysler's K-cars and Ford Fiesta and other forgettable fuel econonmy models.

I hope I am wrong and they do finally compete with the Asian mfgs but, I won't hold my breath.

Looks like the Mini Cooper is the hot ride right now, a UK import with quailty plus.

I don't know if it is just poor workmanship, lack of pride or poor design but Detroit has yet to get it right and I just don't hear young people oohing and awing over domestics like they do with Kia, Nissan and Honda little cars.

P S
One of our workers here has a late model Malibu. If I had to drive a little car I would go with an import based on fit and finish as well as design. Domestic interiors still look cheap.

One of our on-air midday gals bought a Kia Soul last week. Better known as the "hamster car" because of the TV commercial. She actually attracted a samll crowd when she pulled up to work with it.

Franco
07-26-2010, 03:00 PM
Just an added note since we talked a while back about natural gas powered trucks.

I just turned 40k miles on my 07 F150. I've decided to keep it like it is rather than do a conversion. Whichever mfg. intoduces the first pickup powered by natural gas, I will buy the model during their second year of production. Since I drive a car Monday - Friday, I can wait.

Any plans at GM for a natural gas pickup?

Blackstone
07-26-2010, 04:42 PM
Just an added note since we talked a while back about natural gas powered trucks.

I just turned 40k miles on my 07 F150. I've decided to keep it like it is rather than do a conversion. Whichever mfg. intoduces the first pickup powered by natural gas, I will buy the model during their second year of production. Since I drive a car Monday - Friday, I can wait.

Any plans at GM for a natural gas pickup?

GM introduced dedicated CNG & LP cargo vans this year. I think they start reaching dealerships in Jan. or Feb. Nothing official yet on trucks, but the word is trucks are next. My guess is 2012 or 2013 model year. The problem is that market demand is all over the place. Some customers want bi-fuel, some want dedicated LP or dedicated CNG. GM is trying to get a handle on which direction the demand will go, so they know which is going to be the most feasible. They don't want to commit a lot of cash, and then find out demand went in a different direction.

About the time I came into this job in 2004, GM had a CNG pickup. They couldn't give the thing away. No one was interested, so we finally scrapped it. As soon as gas went up to $4 per gallon, I was getting calls all the time by customers that were trying to get one. I even went to a meeting where some "green" guru was berating GM for no longer making the truck. After the meeting, told him if he and all his green friends had been this adamant about buying one when we were producing them, they would still be on the market.

Blackstone
07-26-2010, 04:56 PM
I don't know Blackstone it seems like Detroit has been trying to compete with the Asians for a long time with nothing to show but failure.

The GM line of GEOs, remember them? Then there was the Saturn line. Also all the other little models that have failed through the years. There was Chrysler's K-cars and Ford Fiesta and other forgettable fuel econonmy models.

I hope I am wrong and they do finally compete with the Asian mfgs but, I won't hold my breath.

Looks like the Mini Cooper is the hot ride right now, a UK import with quailty plus.

I don't know if it is just poor workmanship, lack of pride or poor design but Detroit has yet to get it right and I just don't hear young people oohing and awing over domestics like they do with Kia, Nissan and Honda little cars.

P S
One of our workers here has a late model Malibu. If I had to drive a little car I would go with an import based on fit and finish as well as design. Domestic interiors still look cheap.

One of our on-air midday gals bought a Kia Soul last week. Better known as the "hamster car" because of the TV commercial. She actually attracted a samll crowd when she pulled up to work with it.

I hear you. None of the American car companies have much of a reputation for building a quality small car. I think one of the problems is that they were always trying to get off cheap by taking a vehicle that was being built by someone else, somewhere else, and altering it to fix the American market. The next batch of small cars will not be that way. Like I said, the Chevy Cruz is a nice looking small car, and they are coming with their own version of the mini-car next year (early 2011 calendar year) called the Chevy Spark that will get about 40 mpg. I am not sure we have been shown the final version yet, but here is a link to what it should look like.

http://spark.chevrolet.com/geneva-v1/en_US/index.htm

Franco
07-26-2010, 06:54 PM
GM introduced dedicated CFeb. Nothing official yet on trucks, but the word is trucks are next. My guess is NG & LP cargo vans this year. I think they start reaching dealerships in Jan. or 2012 or 2013 model year. The problem is that market demand is all over the place. Some customers want bi-fuel, some want dedicated LP or dedicated CNG. GM is trying to get a handle on which direction the demand will go, so they know which is going to be the most feasible. They don't want to commit a lot of cash, and then find out demand went in a different direction.

About the time I came into this job in 2004, GM had a CNG pickup. They couldn't give the thing away. No one was interested, so we finally scrapped it. As soon as gas went up to $4 per gallon, I was getting calls all the time by customers that were trying to get one. I even went to a meeting where some "green" guru was berating GM for no longer making the truck. After the meeting, told him if he and all his green friends had been this adamant about buying one when we were producing them, they would still be on the market.

I'm not a fan of big government. However, since we already have the Dept Of Energy, they need to do something productive. Like in encouraging Detroit to pick one. That decision of which indusrty, LP or NG, is based on which one is prepared to build a big network of what are called Filling Stations. The demand won't be big enough to make in profitable to any mfg if it is too difficult to get refueled when needed.

Those filling stations need to be built and paid for by the industry willing to support thier product.

No goverment handout. Also, let the bidding be competitive so that citizens actually benefit. I know, a unique idea for DC but we can all hope.

Blackstone
07-26-2010, 10:18 PM
I'm not a fan of big government. However, since we already have the Dept Of Energy, they need to do something productive. Like in encouraging Detroit to pick one. That decision of which indusrty, LP or NG, is based on which one is prepared to build a big network of what are called Filling Stations. The demand won't be big enough to make in profitable to any mfg if it is too difficult to get refueled when needed.

Those filling stations need to be built and paid for by the industry willing to support thier product.

No goverment handout. Also, let the bidding be competitive so that citizens actually benefit. I know, a unique idea for DC but we can all hope.

Iím not sure encouraging Det. to pick is the answer. Right now this thing is like Sony Betamax vs. VHS. The consumer is going to decide the winner. The car companies just donít want to be on the wrong side.

Actually, I donít expect the Dept. of Energy to get involved with CNG and LP. If they are going to get involved, it will be with electrification and/or hydrogen. Those are the fuels of the future. I know GM has been actively involved in discussions with electric utilities around the country with regard to how to set up an infrastructure to support electric vehicles. There is talk of charging stations on the street like parking meters where you could plug in, stick a few coins in, and charge while you go shopping or to the bank, etc. This would most likely be paid for by the industry itself like you suggested.

However, hydrogen is a different story, and will require a more intricate network of stations. I think this where the government will get involved because of the zero emissions from hydrogen vehicles.

Franco
07-26-2010, 10:38 PM
I’m not sure encouraging Det. to pick is the answer. Right now this thing is like Sony Betamax vs. VHS. The consumer is going to decide the winner. The car companies just don’t want to be on the wrong side.





Just as Sony kept propriatary rights to Betamax technology and VHS was offered to all mfgs, VHS won over the superior Betamax. And, jsut as Mac is supperior to Microsoft, the fact that Mircosoft had thier technology available to mfgs., the inferior product won again.

A serious move to fuel alternatives will never happen until there is widespread and easy availabilty to it. Until the companies producing LG or NG are ready to make thier refueling readily available, we will continue to burn gasoline.

In this case the consumer can't decide because neither are universally available across the USA. We have a major NG Filling Station but, if I am driving a NG powered truck, I can't venture very far for fear of not finding another Filling Station.