Horsepower is king, but torque is your friend.

JohnDeere,

No, I did not buy a Toyota. I am entitle to an opinion based on my own experience? I hope to have better luck with my current car but I do not expect perfection. What I hope is that Honda will do a better job in taking care of their customers. I told a friend I got a foreign car and he made this statement "Buying an American car is like gambling, if you get a good one, it will run for many years but if you get a bad one, it will crap out on you before 50K. Your chance of getting either one is 50/50. Good thing you took your money and gambled somewhere else".

I heard there was another recall today - what happened to quality control or does GM even know what it is??

"Your chance of getting either one is 50/50"

99.5% of all statistics, including this one, are made up.

All of the cars that I or my family have owned in the last 15 years have been American cars. All but one have made it well past 100K.

The one that didn't was recently sold at 88K because it was a stickshift, and my mom wanted an automatic.

The guy who bought it has driven it from DC to LA several times (3500 miles or so) already (so one would assume it's close to 100K if not over) and when he last stopped in at my mechanic's shop where I parked the car with a for-sale sign on it, he mentioned that it's been a great car.

Tell your friend that retro is cool, but he might want to step out of the 80s for a little while.

Nine7xbam, the advantage of multi-valves isn't to spread out the stress on valves. It's to make the engine "breathe" better so it can take in and let out fuel/air and exhaust gases more easily. And it works, too: If you take a 4-cylinder engine with an 8-valve head and design a 16-valve head for it, you'll get more horsepower out of it from that change alone.

But the reason why Honda developed those high-output motorcycle engines was for a different reason entirely. In Japan, motorcycles are taxed on the basis of their engine displacement. So, clever as they are, they came out with tiny little engines that put out huge amounts of power. Honda as well as the other manufacturers have 250 cc motorcycles available in Japan that will out accelerate practically any car on the road.

But the downside is that when you make a very high performance small engine, you also reduce its economy. I have a Suzuki Bandit 1200 motorcycle that only gets about 35-40 mpg. That seems good, maybe, but remember that this bike with me on it only weighs about 750 lbs. But, of course, it has 16 valves and produces 100 hp., and redlines at 10,000 rpm. If you were to take the engine out of a Toyota Corolla or something and put it in that bike (if could make it fit, which obviously you couldn't) you'd find that the bike would get far better mileage. This is so because even though the car engine might be 1.6 liter (bigger by 400 cc) than the bike engine, the car engine would be set up to be far more efficient because it would rev lower and would have far less "hot" valve timing, meaning that the valves would open and close at times that maximize efficiency rather than extract maximum power from the engine.

There are 1,000 different things you can do to an engine to change its performance curve, and all the manufacturers know all of them. Building engines is a very mature science. It's not like Honda or Toyota has deep, dark secrets that they're using to make them. Most things you do to change an engine's performance amount to a trade-off, and the "best" engine is the one that's most suited to the vehicle it's in and the use it's put to.

The 2 valve/cyl 3.8 in the Impala puts out 200 hp at 5200 rpm and gets 20 city/30 highway.

The 4 valve/cyl 3.5 in the Avalon puts out 280 hp at 6200 rpm and gets 22 city/32 highway. Wha?? More valves, way more power, and better mileage?!?

They're both good engines and good cars.

Sounds like they're all mediocre at best.

My point is just that multi-valve technology doesn't save gas.

My point is just that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Deere 180-That's very good mileage for a 6 in your Maxima,but I'm guessing it doesn't average 32 mpg in everyday driving.I paid just under 17k for my car,probably about 10k less than a Maxima.Econobox?Status symbol be damned,it's pactical and fun to drive,I'll invest that other 10k for early retirement!

cowboyind-I'm just repeating what I read in an article about Sochiru Honda and what he was aiming for when he built his multi-valve motorcycle engines.High power output at higher RPMs and durability were his goals, not necessarily high fuel economy.But like I said,variable valve lift technology is changing that.

The most recent Toyota Avalon listed on the http://www.fueleconomy.gov website is the 2004 with a 3.0L V6 which gets 21/29. Not very impressive.

The only place I could find fuel economy figures for the 2005 Avalon is on Toyota's website, making me wonder if they're official EPA estimates.

i dont think the general public cares what horsepower,tourqe,or number of valves an engine has. they care about price num one looks num two, then the other tings gas mpg, warranty etc. whe i was in my 20s h.p. was a big deal, bragging rights and all. now i dont know the h.p. amount of valves, or size of the engine in my cars, their 4cyl, they run, they do the job. beyond that dont know,dont care. as long as they run.

I think the new Toyota Avalon has a 5 or 6 speed automatic vs. the 4 speed automatic in the Impala.

No conclusion about whether multivalve engines are more fuel efficient can be drawn by comparing two vehicles that don't have the same number of gears.

I agree with bill_h as long as a car has enough get up and go,is reasonably priced,is pleasing to your eye,has fuel economy that you find suitable,is enjoyable to drive and you fit comfortably in it nothing else should matter.In short different strokes for different folks.

I agree with Bill H also

Advertising would lead one to think differently..

"The new 245HP Honda Accord" and other examples. Apparently enough people care that they need to mention it.

At least the ones who make their car buying decisions based on car commercials, anyway.

I guarantee you, however, that my mom has no idea how much HP or how many cylinders are in her car; only that it will last a long time and get good gas mileage. It will and it does, even despite it being a GM (and an ex rental car, at that).

I live in high attitude and having switched from the Cavalier to an Accord, the difference is HUGH between a 130 HP and 160 HP and 4 speed vs 5 speed automatic. I could barely go up the hills near my house in the Cavalier. The Accord has a LOT of speed for a 4 cylinder. I would NOT go back to anything with less than 160 HP.

20 years ago a typical 5-liter V8 made 160HP. A typical 3.8-liter V6 made 130HP. These were typically connected to 3-speed automatics.

Makes me wonder how drivers managed to get up the hills near your house 20 years ago.

***Makes me wonder how drivers managed to get up the hills near your house 20 years ago. *****

My neighborhood was not developed 20 years ago. It was a natural preserve - 8000' above sea level.

There are certainly other hills in other areas of this country close to the same grade as found in your neighborhood. Pittsburgh, PA comes to mind as one very hilly area that has been developed for decades.

I think it is safe to say there were less cars on the road and drivers were a bit more patient.

***I think it is safe to say there were less cars on the road and drivers were a bit more patient.***

Exactly. You could take your sweet time to make it up those hills but now day, a zillion people will cut in front of you. I am not saying that cars with 130 HP cannot make it up the hills but you certainly see that they have a harder time and take a bit longer to go up than someone with a V6 or V8, at least with the Cavalier I noticed it. The air is thinner at 8000' and I felt like I was floating air in the Cavalier with my foot pushing as hard as I could before acceleration picked up. With the current car, it is a breeze. Heck, people drive whatever they want. If one could afford a little bit refinement, by all means.

In stop and go traffic, due to having been in front of a line stopped for a light and then the light turning green again, I sometimes have a gap in front of my car, with stopped traffic 100-200 feet in front of me. Instead of punching the go pedal to get to the stopped traffic faster, I just accelerate gently to about 15MPH, and sometimes, the traffic in front of me will be moving again by the time I get there. (Does wonders for fuel economy over punching the go pedal to stop faster, amazingly enough)

Rarely do cars from the other lane cut in front of me even with such a big gap. Maybe other drivers actually realize that there's stopped traffic ahead, or they just don't care about being first. I don't know.

If someone does cut in front of me..big deal. I don't mind being passed. Better them passing me than tailgating me.

The most recent Toyota Avalon listed on the http://www.fueleconomy.gov website is the 2004 with a 3.0L V6 which gets 21/29. Not very impressive.

The 2004 Avalon gets better city mileage than the Impala, 1 MPG less on the highway, and has more power output. I don't see what the shortfall is, other than the 1 MPG.

The only place I could find fuel economy figures for the 2005 Avalon is on Toyota's website, making me wonder if they're official EPA estimates.

The figures I quoted came from edmunds.com which says that they are indeed the EPA estimates.

I think the new Toyota Avalon has a 5 or 6 speed automatic vs. the 4 speed automatic in the Impala.
No conclusion about whether multivalve engines are more fuel efficient can be drawn by comparing two vehicles that don't have the same number of gears.

It has a 5 speed automatic. An extra gear only slightly favors city driving....so consider only highway driving....the Avalon still gets better mileage, and it weighs more too.

So....I take it you'd like to see yourself proved wrong (again) in a more apples to apples fashion. Let's go back to 1991. Mitsubishi and Chrysler had teamed up to make the Stealth/3000GT twins. They were offered with 3 power plants....SOHC 12 valve 3.0L V-6, DOHC 24 valve 3.0L V-6 and a DOHC 24 valve 3.0L Twin Turbo V-6. We're going to ignore the Twin Turbo since forced induction is out of the realm of this discussion. The two non turbo engines got identical gas mileage...18/24. Right about now you're probably saying I told you so, multi-valve engines aren't more efficient. You're wrong (as usual). The SOHC engine put out 164 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque, whereas the DOHC engine put out 222 hp and 201 lb-ft of torque. They were put in the same chassis, same transmission, driveline, everything (except the DOHC cars weighed just a smidge more). More output, same amount of fuel consumed, therefore the DOHC engine is more fuel efficient.

"It has a 5 speed automatic. An extra gear only slightly favors city driving.....so consider only highway driving...."

So which, city or highway, does the 5-speed automatic help most?

I never said that DOHC engines were not more efficient than OHV engines. What I said is:

"No conclusion about whether multivalve engines are more fuel efficient can be drawn by comparing two vehicles that don't have the same number of gears."

That remains true..and there are other factors besides the engine and transmission which can effect fuel economy, notably aerodynamic drag.

My definition of fuel efficiency is the amount of work that an engine can do per unit of fuel consumed.

By my definition:

The example you gave does NOT show that the DOHC engine is more fuel efficient than the SOHC engine. It puts out more horsepower, but it'll still take a gallon to go 24 highway and 18 city miles in either engine.

"More output, same amount of fuel consumed, therefore the DOHC engine is more fuel efficient."

You need one gallon of fuel to travel 24 highway miles and 18 city miles with either engine. If one of those engines were more fuel efficient, it would go further with less fuel. (The amount of work done to travel 24 highway or 18 city miles is assumed to be the same for both engines).

If you have a different definition of fuel efficiency, please share it.

In reality you are both right..

Fuel efficiency is how many gallons of gas does it take to go x miles. If two cars require one gallon to get from point A to B than at the fuel pump they are identical.

However, I think the discussion by RulesSuck was about engine efficiency and the ability for one engine to produce more HP or carry more weight vs. another engine. In Physics - it is Weight * Acceleration = Force (Power). A simple analogy - if I weigh 95 pds and you weigh 342 pds. and we both get on bicycles and pedal 100 miles on a very warm day. And we both only require one liter of water for our entire journey. It is easy to say you at 342 pds are more efficient vs. myself - as you produced more power and moved more weight with the same requirements. OR you could say I am very inefficient as I produced less power and moved less weight but still required a liter of water.

This is similar to the conversation regarding a Wankel/rotary engine which is very small but produces beaucoup HP in comparison to heavier conventional engine. The rotary may have worse gas mileage for the same distance but produce 1.5-2x more HP. You can only realize this efficiency if you utilize the full band of HP - which we rarely can in this country.

The example RulesSuck provided shows that it is possible to make an engine breathe better (increased volumetric efficiency which is not the same as fuel efficiency) at higher RPM for more torque (and therefore horsepower) without decreasing it's fuel efficiency.

This makes perfect sense--why would increasing the ability of an engine to fill it's cylinders with air at high-RPM, wide-throttle operation change the amount of fuel it uses during normal city/highway driving..either for better or for worse? It shouldn't.

Posted by: brianl703 (My Page) on Tue, Apr 26, 05 at 10:24

The most recent Toyota Avalon listed on the http://www.fueleconomy.gov website is the 2004 with a 3.0L V6 which gets 21/29. Not very impressive.
The only place I could find fuel economy figures for the 2005 Avalon is on Toyota's website, making me wonder if they're official EPA estimates.
IMO, those Avalon figures of 21/29 are excellent considering its size and weight and the power of its engine - no way would I compare these to a Chevrolet Cavalier, or a Honda Civic, either .

But, if compared to a Volkswagen Passat TDI(or any Diesel), then the numbers are poor.

More gears are good to have, but the effect on economy is not direct; at one time a 4 speed VW Diesel had better EPA economy than the 5 speed.
Of course, the EPA numbers are but estimates - I think it would be better if the EPA just stuck to emissions.

Granted, that the DOHC design is a bit more efficient(even at low RPMs), but its $100 to $200 added cost will take time to pay off, but then there is the prestige of owning a two camshaft engine, as I do..

"More gears are good to have, but the effect on economy is not direct"

In many cases it is. Compare the 2001 Toyota Corolla with the 3-speed automatic to the one with the 4-speed automatic. In that case the highway fuel economy suffers (probably because the 3-speed automatic lacks an overdrive gear, I didn't look at the gear ratios to compare them).

By the way..I have a 4-camshaft engine..with 6 cylinders..and 6 quarts (of oil)..and 5 speeds...and 4 doors..and 4 wheels..and 2.5 liters..it can get pretty good city fuel economy if you shift it at 1500RPM too..

"IMO, those Avalon figures of 21/29 are excellent considering its size and weight and the power of its engine"

Compare it with another car of the same size: The 2003 Buick LeSabre gets 20/29 with a 3.8L V6 that puts out about the same HP (205 vs. 210) and the Buick has more curb weight (3567lbs) vs (3417lbs).

So which, city or highway, does the 5-speed automatic help most?

City. The engine can better stay at its most efficient speed because it has more gears to choose from. On the highway, they both go up to the top gear, probably at or near optimality for highway speeds, and stay there, so all those extra gears don't do any good.

You need one gallon of fuel to travel 24 highway miles and 18 city miles with either engine. If one of those engines were more fuel efficient, it would go further with less fuel. (The amount of work done to travel 24 highway or 18 city miles is assumed to be the same for both engines).

Yes, but if the gearing was different to take advantage of the engine with more output, then it would turn fewer revs and have better gas mileage.

"On the highway, they both go up to the top gear, probably at or near optimality for highway speeds, and stay there, so all those extra gears don't do any good."

As I recall, the EPA highway test involves several stops and accelerations so the extra gears would have an effect on the results of that test.

"Yes, but if the gearing was different to take advantage of the engine with more output, then it would turn fewer revs and have better gas mileage."

That would be true if the DOHC engine has more torque at the low RPMs used during normal driving than does the SOHC engine. Does it?

Buy American or you are shooting yourself in the foot, not to mention your children's feet and the rest of your countrymen's feet for that matter. The difference between american and foreign cars is very little currently. People buy what they percieve to be " cool ", or they have an axe to grind w/ america in general

That's your opinion.

I suggest you review the information in the thread linked below...

TJ

Here is a link that might be useful: Toyota Recalls Double in '05

Buy American or you are shooting yourself in the foot, not to mention your children's feet and the rest of your countrymen's feet for that matter.

So which is more American? The Toyota built in Kentucky or the Ford built in Mexico or the Chrysler built in Canada? Or does the Chrysler get a double-whammy because not only is the car built outside the U.S., but, ultimately, the profit goes outside the U.S. as well?

And where can I buy an American passenger car with a turbodiesel engine?

g.m.s losing money. gee i wonder why. iam in the market for a 2 seat roadster, the miata or the solstice, mazda dealer- sure take it for the day see how you like it. pontiac dealer- we need a signed sales agreement and 500 bucks down, to show your serious, then you can drive it with the salesman. the mazda has better fit and finnish, smoother reving engine, smoother shifting trans, and a longer warranty. plus the top is 10 times easier to use. now to the price, the sticker is about the same on both, in fact i little better on the pontiac, but the dealer wants a premium for the solstice because their in short supply, 3k over list. screw you g.m. you deserve to go under! iam buying a miata!

GM's biggest problem is the high cost of pensions and escalating medical costs. They were forced into signing rediculous, unsustainable wage, benefit and medical packages by the suicidal liberal unions. The same liberal types who hate America and buy everything foreign all the while complaining that nobody is doing anything about "it "

beaglebuddy,

Those are only a few of their problems. I suggest you follow the information coming out of Wall Street and other financial news related to GM...

TJ

They were forced into signing rediculous, unsustainable wage, benefit and medical packages by the suicidal liberal unions. The same liberal types who hate America and buy everything foreign all the while complaining that nobody is doing anything about "it "

Yeah, I'm sure that spending two billion dollars on FIAT and getting pretty much nothing out of it was a wise way to spend money. I'm sure that keeping the J-body (Cavalier, Sunfire, etc.) in the line for almost a decade and a half (four generations of any other car line) was a wise way to conduct business. I'm sure that selling cars for the prices normally charged to company employees was a wise way to ensure the long-term health of the corporation.

Besides, when those terrible "liberal" (huh?) labor unions were holding that figurative gun to GM's head, GM owned the majority of the U.S. car market. Would it have hurt GM or the unions more if GM simply said "Go ahead and strike. We don't need you."? Stand the relatively short-term cost of a strike and start over again with a different deal. Like PATCO. Like the airlines. Like most of the other car companies manufacturing in the U.S.

Don't get me wrong. GM does have very high expenses for pensions and health care. The unions have played their part in pushing hard for benefits way beyond what most manufacturing workers (heck, maybe most all workers) enjoy. Union leadership also has failed its membership in not offering compelling reasons to continue to hire union workers. But to blame those terrible horrible awful liberal unions for the mess GM is in now excuses a few decades of poor management and bad marketing.

Some good points steveo, but don't try to say that unions are not a liberal institution, they are major demo fundraisers and have endorsed liberal candidates seemingly forever. Every car co. out there has made some whoppers of poor decisions. Are you saying that GM should bust the union ? I can hear the caterwalling and cry for a boycott already, Boxer and Kennedy screaming in outrage. You are under estimating the pension problem. Unions were necessary, but now the pendulum has swung too far their way. You don't see any brick chimney's around here anymore as their unions have priced them right out of a career, chimney's are framed in wood now. I'll bet the packages for foreign car makers in the U.S. are nothing like UAW gives.

**I'll bet the packages for foreign car makers in the U.S. are nothing like UAW gives.**

I'll bet you'd be wrong. Seems I read some time ago the UAW wanted to unionize Japanese manufacturing plants in the US. They didn't get anywhere because the workers in those plants were already getting comparable wages and benifits to those in the US unionized plants. The workers weren't interested in joining for that reason. Nothing to gain plus dues to pay.

Everyone always gripes about those high priced union assembly line workers. Wish someone who has the job would chime in and say what the pay is per hour. Mostly what people post on message boards goes something like 'I know a guy who knew a guy who knows a guy that was a ford assembly plant worker for 20 years, who retired at age 40 and lives in a mansion. I have a hunch that the real deal is the assembly line workers earn a lot less and have to work harder than what many of the people doing the griping earn. Just a hunch.

GM must of been doing something right keeping the J body Cavalier for a decade and a half acutually 23 years.After all they sold more Cavaliers then any competitor sold there compact models.

I do not under stand the Liberal comment either.Must be different in your area.Around here its Conservatives driving Rice Burners and helping to sell the Country out.

In California, a liberal would not be seen dead in an american car.They mostly drive volvo,toyota,vw,saab( I know GM owned )ect..Interestingly however there are some soccer moms who express liberal sentiments yet drive yukon xl's, go figger. Only old people and hard core conservatives drive american. Yeah yeah there are always exceptions, save it.

well as a very conservative liberal, no wait make that a very liberal conservative, well anyways the north american auto show is going on now. so come to detroit and see it all, from the azera to the zepher. and being its detroit, while your looking at the new cars, someone will most likely steal your old car. so then you have a reason to buy a new one from the country of your choice.

Are you saying that GM should bust the union ? I can hear the caterwalling and cry for a boycott already, Boxer and Kennedy screaming in outrage. You are under estimating the pension problem. Unions were necessary, but now the pendulum has swung too far their way. You don't see any brick chimney's around here anymore as their unions have priced them right out of a career, chimney's are framed in wood now. I'll bet the packages for foreign car makers in the U.S. are nothing like UAW gives.

I probably should state that I have never belonged to a union -- in fact, for 'most any job I ever held, union membership wasn't even an option. Similarly, the only person who ever fights for my job and compels companies to pay what they pay me is -- me. With that out of the way....

Bust the union? No. But GM could have stood a lengthy strike to make the point that benefits were getting "out of hand." The time to do that was years ago, when GM was strong and the UAW was just starting to build on their great benefits. Now all GM needs is one more solid punch and they're down.

I still don't understand the "liberal" characterization unless you're using the sloppy meaning in which "liberal" is used to mean "not-pro-business-at-the-expense-of-workers".

Didja ever notice that Southwest Airlines is about the only airline out there making money now? While American/Delta/Northwest/United/USAir/etc. are trying to force their employees to work for cheap, SWA keeps right on going. Funny thing is, they're as unionized as the bankrupt carriers. But they've figured out that working with the necessary unions is a better way to go than constantly being at each other's throats. Detroit never learned that lesson, so in addition to some stupid short-term thinking, they have an enemy in the UAW. Brilliant.

Motor vehicles is not the only business facing huge pension liabilities. So are airlines. So are city, county, and state governments, because accounting practices let them defer the real cost of paying pensions and now those pensions are coming due. Speaking as someone who has never had anyone guarantee my pension, I think current and future retirees are in for some nasty surprises. What was promised (either by the business or their union) is just not sustainable. Especially if SSI will be handed out indiscriminately and especially for a generation or two that has seen the biggest increase in personal wealth in the history of the U.S. There will be a lot of caterwauling as people realize either they get stiffed a little bit now or they get stiffed a lot later when whoever is providing the pension and health care goes bust.

FWIW, my next-door neighbor retired from one of the Big Three about four years ago. He was a line worker and was making in the mid-50s when he left after his 30 years. Including full health coverage for his family. Minus UAW dues. Not too bad for a guy who has no degrees and no certifications. He's d@mn good at what he does, but people in fields requiring far more education and certification are making far less than that even today. Not a bad deal at all.

I worked at a UAW job for a short time about four winters ago Caterpiliar.When I started I thought I might stay.But did not stick around to join the Union in 30 days.Because the new guys did not get the benifits.You are casual workers considered partime.Yet work 40 hours a week and get a lot of over time.Start out at 12 to 14 dollars per hour.Depending on the job and shift.No benifits unless your hired full time.Went thru a few days of testing to see where I would be best suited.Was placed high experinced with hydraulic systems and was placed with 25 year veterans making big money and doing the same job as me.This did not set well with me.I never did like being a puppet on a string anyway and told them what to do with there job.Because im a independent cuss and I was not about to let them make a fortune off me.When guys around me were getting rich bossing me around and calling me a scab.

Thats how it is there now.At one time was the best place to work.My brother worked there for 30 years and retired and so did other family members and friends.Now there working other jobs to pay there insurance they were swindled out of.Im sure GM has the same new practices and there not going to tell me there not making money.I will not fall for it.

As for College people making more then people with out a degree.So what I here that a lot.I know people who went to college and do not deserve to make more money.Because they do not know anything except what they found in a book.

Example I work on a farm operation.I have a life time of expirence.They hired a college guy who thinks he is worth more then me because of that piece of paper.Problem is he does not know what he is doing unless he can read it out of a book.He is afraid to get dirty and does not like to sweat.If he made half what I make he would still be over paid.Because I went to the school of hard knox.

Example two my wife works in the nursing home industry.Has a few certificates but no college degree.Has been there 25 years.She works with a 25 year old who has a degree and is worthless and has poor work ethics also.She saids she better be making more then my wife because she has a degree behind her name!Yet has 0 comonsence and is lazy.She thought when she went to college it was buying here a life on easy street just like the college boy I have to put up with.If she was a nurse it would be different.But she replaced a worker who did not have a degree anyway.

Example [snip]

Example two [snip]

I'm sure you know there's a difference between "book learned" and "common sense". I know enough "absent-minded professors" -- and enough people who make me wonder how they stumble into the button factory everyday. You can have common sense without book learning and book learning without common sense. And d@mn few of us ever got to our first jobs knowing everything we were supposed to know.

Your two "examples" are going to run out of steam pretty quickly if they think all they have to do is show up. That has nothing to do with letters behind their names.

Steveo, I was in the plumbers union for about a year and a half but left because they had me locked into a job classification where I would never be able to make journeyman wages. They had a thing called tradesman, I was used for service and repair instead of construction. Getting in was like joining their own little private club. I felt there was tremendous waste w/ the union. For example they sent out a video every year that showed how great they thought they were. Very profesionally produced, probably cost tons to make. Whoever made it was probably related to a union official or gave them a kickback. They took out money from my paycheck every payday for a " vacation fund " when I went to take out the money there was less than I put in, I was told they have to charge to administer the service !
I am completely w/ you in regards to common sense /book sense it is something I have subscribed to for a long time.
SW air is succesful because they follow a complete different business model, use all the same airplanes and other things.
Johndeere I think the only way for the working man to get ahead nowdays is to own his own business. In the land of fruit and nuts there are so many illegal aliens here , they are taking all the jobs, not just the jobs nobody wants to do. They are working their way up to management positions in the construction and other industries. I don't know what the legal american's coming up will do for work if they don't have a degree.

You would think they would run out of steam.But they must of taken a class in Brown nose because the bosses in both cases think there great.I can not stand that Worm I have to deal with.Thats just what he is a Worm.He worms him self out of work daily.Looks at me like im a looser for working on a farm.Yet he has a degree in it.I might be a looser but atleast I never went 4 years to college for it.LOL

On a related note, Ford is having the same problems. They will be closing many plants here in the states, laying off around 30,000. I really dislike the UAW, I'm sure there are those that will defend them, but I think they have outlived thier usefullness. They are not the only problem, the corporate stucture is not what it should be either.

One huge factor in the current GM and Ford financial problems is GREED. And their CEOs set a very bad example with only only being over-compensated but refusing to cut back by a meaningful amount as they have had to gall to expect the union members to...

Not that they are not greedy, they are, we all are !

But there must be some limits to this madness..
And this has been going on for a long time.
The Europeans also have their problems, but the Orientals ???

There is much we can learn from them..

Now I read from the "car Connections" that the red ink continues to flow and as a raging river, and that there is renewed talk of GM going bankrupt..

Maybe it would be better if they did !

When GM was at their most successful era, they made for their entire line up just three main body shells during the 50s. This was before the "import invasion", and their pathetic responses (Corvair, Vega, BOP "med-sizers, etc)
GM should make, in the USA, but one line(maybe two) of body shells and that being a family size, reasonable in dimensions..
Leave the European sized car to the Europeans and of course the Japanese....
JMO

Good points, I say three lines, truck, SUV, and small econobox. The preformance crowd will always buy foreign on principle.

I was omitting the trucks,beaglebuddy.
They should make a rear drive to compete against BMW, Mercedes and cater to those who still carry the torch for rear drive ..(Nova, Camaro, Firebird, and onward, with clever design, all is possible) ..
A modern Camaro with a V6 could do 25 mpg - save the V8 for the Pontiac...Both must be rear drive..
I think all the "small econo-boxes" should come from either Mexico or Korea..

I disagree they should make the so called econo box here to keep jobs here.Because as soon as reality hits that we have seen the end of cheap gas.About what its priced at now.Soon it will be back to $3.00 and possibly beyond again and eventually to stay.Thats going to make the econobox and midsize what everyone drives.Might as well have the obsolite vehicals like the Tahoe and Silverado built across the border.