These dumb@sses snatched up our tax money via bailout, now its CEO wants the government to raise fuel taxes.
QuoteDetroit — General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he's confident the government will soon shed its remaining 26 percent stake in the once-bankrupt automaker.
"I actually think the government will be out this year — within the next 12 months, hopefully within the next six months," Akerson said in a two-hour interview with The Detroit News last week.
He is grateful for the government's rescue of GM — "I have nothing but good things to say about them" — but Akerson said the time for that relationship to end is coming because it's wearing on GM.
"It's kind of like your in-laws: It was a nice long weekend. We didn't say a week," Akerson said with a laugh.
And while he is eager to say goodbye to the government as a part owner of GM, Akerson would like to see it step up to the challenge of setting a higher gas tax, as part of a comprehensive energy policy.
A government-imposed tax hike, Akerson believes, will prompt more people to buy small cars and do more good for the environment than forcing automakers to comply with higher gas-mileage standards.
"There ought to be a discussion on the cost versus the benefits," he said. "What we are going to do is tax production here, and that will cost us jobs."
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110607/AUTO01/106070368/GM-chief-pushing-for-higher-gas-taxes
Screw them.
Someone should expect a visit from the oil company enforcers anytime.
I brought this up in another thread, I can't remember which one now. Problem he fails to realize is that would be a truly regressive tax. The people who would be pinched the hardest likely could not afford one of the newer more efficient vehicles, or would be forced into buying a car they really cannot afford.
Build cars people want to drive at a competitive price, manage your business wisely, and you wouldn't need the government to be creating taxes to force people into buying cars they don't want. You also wouldn't need the government to rescue your failed business model in the first place.
It's a strange thing. Their margin is much higher on the larger less efficient vehicles.
Unless this is a way to get people to get rid of older less efficient vehicles for shiny new less-less efficient vehicles...
I own a GM.
I had to rent a Ford Edge this week, with SYNC. . .
All I can say is I'm buying a Ford!
The materials and construction are 10 times better than my Equinox!
Quote from: Gaspar on June 08, 2011, 04:55:14 PM
I own a GM.
I had to rent a Ford Edge this week, with SYNC. . .
All I can say is I'm buying a Ford!
The materials and construction are 10 times better than my Equinox!
You been talking with Mike (Dirty Jobs) Rowe?
Quote from: guido911 on June 08, 2011, 04:04:15 PM
These dumb@sses snatched up our tax money via bailout, now its CEO wants the government to raise fuel taxes.
Big surprise? The government tells GM to build small, more efficient, boring, white bread with plain bologna cars and now they need a market for them. (Two notable exceptions, the Vette and Camaro)
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 08, 2011, 06:39:19 PM
Big surprise? The government tells GM to build small, more efficient, boring, white bread with plain bologna cars and now they need a market for them. (Two notable exceptions, the Vette and Camaro)
Whew! The two worst cars in the world. In the history of cars!
GM has never been known for its social consciousness. Remember the trolley wars??
Gaspar, I rented a Ford Focus a few weeks ago and I was beyond stunned. It had plenty of room for my fat backside. It ran pretty well, and handled nicely. Could not believe it. Was not what I expected in that tiny little thing. It even got about 31-32 mpg. I was impressed. Have had several Grand Marquis' and it certainly seems like Ford is starting to pay the same attention to small that they used to pay to large cars. There may be hope!! ??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 08, 2011, 09:30:43 PM
Whew! The two worst cars in the world. In the history of cars!
GM has never been known for its social consciousness. Remember the trolley wars??
Gaspar, I rented a Ford Focus a few weeks ago and I was beyond stunned. It had plenty of room for my fat backside. It ran pretty well, and handled nicely. Could not believe it. Was not what I expected in that tiny little thing. It even got about 31-32 mpg. I was impressed. Have had several Grand Marquis' and it certainly seems like Ford is starting to pay the same attention to small that they used to pay to large cars. There may be hope!! ??
I would never have bought (or taken for free) a Grand Marquis. Not my kind of car regardless of your luck with them. I never particularly wanted a Camaro but they were the base for the IROC series. They could be made to handle reasonably well for that. Too big for a track like Hallett. A Vette would be fun but only as as toy. Yes, they are heavy but the later generations are reasonable handlers.
You will have a difficult time convincing me that a Yugo was better than anything GM has made in my lifetime, including the Corvair.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 08, 2011, 10:17:27 PM
I would never have bought (or taken for free) a Grand Marquis. Not my kind of car regardless of your luck with them. I never particularly wanted a Camaro but they were the base for the IROC series. They could be made to handle reasonably well for that. Too big for a track like Hallett. A Vette would be fun but only as as toy. Yes, they are heavy but the later generations are reasonable handlers.
You will have a difficult time convincing me that a Yugo was better than anything GM has made in my lifetime, including the Corvair.
New Camaros, while they might look cool, have zero headroom and make you feel like you're driving an Abrams. Vettes? We all know what those are substitutes for.
I'd take any of those two models specifically in the late 60s.
Quote from: Hoss on June 08, 2011, 10:38:32 PM
New Camaros, while they might look cool, have zero headroom and make you feel like you're driving an Abrams. Vettes? We all know what those are substitutes for.
I'd take any of those two models specifically in the late 60s.
A lot of the new cars have little headroom, the visibility out is terrible, I feel like I'm sitting in a pit with the high belt line (I think that's the term for the bottom of the side windows), and several have such sloping hoods that I can't see anything forward past the windshield wipers. I'm 5' 10" tall so I don't think I am height challenged in that regard.
No, I don't think the AMC Pacer was a good looking car.
Few new cars are nice in that regard, Hoss. You can thank IIHS and their side impact ratings for that...
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2011, 11:18:36 PM
Few new cars are nice in that regard, Hoss. You can thank IIHS and their side impact ratings for that...
I actually like my car. For how it appears it has decent leg/headroom all throughout. I did my homework though before purchasing. Impulse purchasing I've seen from friends who wind up regretting their purchase after having it about a year. I'm still happy with mine, after 3.5 years.
Why are the new gas efficient, hybrid or electric cars so hideous? The "leaf" is f'ing ugly and its name is stoopid. I bet its momma is fat and its dad is a degenerate gambler.
Red,
I wouldn't have taken one either until about 1989/1990. That is about the time when GM completely and totally abandoned their customer base. 'Till that point, I had nothing but GM in the larger sizes...well, except for the 1970 Cutlass (still have it) which is a rather small car.
That time is when Gr Marquis became the Olds Delta/Pontiac Bonneville/Buick Wildcat of the world. There were no other options.
And GM pickups?? Well, through the late '60s they were great. After that?? Well,....Ford really was the only choice at all until Dodge put a Cummins diesel into their pretty sorry body.
Quote from: carltonplace on June 09, 2011, 08:11:21 AM
Why are the new gas efficient, hybrid or electric cars so hideous? The "leaf" is f'ing ugly and its name is stoopid. I bet its momma is fat and its dad is a degenerate gambler.
They had a Volt at the trade show I was at last week. Got to sit in it. It looks cool on the outside, but the inside is for
tiny people.
Quote from: carltonplace on June 09, 2011, 08:11:21 AM
Why are the new gas efficient, hybrid or electric cars so hideous? The "leaf" is f'ing ugly and its name is stoopid. I bet its momma is fat and its dad is a degenerate gambler.
Nissan's design department seems to be designing ugly for the sake of being ugly. The Juke is so ugly you have to tape a pork chop to the bumper just to get dogs to chase it.
(http://www.thetorquereport.com/2011_nissan_juke_press3.jpg)
Heiron..
The family cars when I was young were "full size". My first car was a 66 Buick Skylark GS (400). I moved out of the world of land yachts to something a bit smaller (for the times) and with sportier handling. I had/have no desire to go back to the really big yachts. I don't want a roller skake with an engine either.
I remember the first time I rented a Doge Neon back in the early 00s. I quickly figured out why they called it a Neon.
When you got in, you had your knee on the dash, and your knee on the door, and your knee on the steering wheel. . . :D
Quote from: Gaspar on June 09, 2011, 08:25:16 AM
They had a Volt at the trade show I was at last week. Got to sit in it. It looks cool on the outside, but the inside is for tiny people.
I actually drove a Volt a few weeks ago and found it comfortable in the front driving and sitting in the back as well, and I'm 5'10" ~200lbs. As for the Leaf and that other hideous Nissan shown here, would take either one.
Skylark of the 60s was just like the Cutlass - a compact! Now, the 1952/1953 Skylark was a real size car!
There is a 1970 Delta 88 convertible for sale in Skiatook that I looked at a couple weeks ago. Pretty nice. Have been thinking about it, but just having trouble with that 8 mpg thing! So much fun for the few miles I could drive it though!
Also found a VW convertible (about 1972) in OKC area that seems to be reasonable price. 20 mpg is better than 8.
I really thought the Focus would be a bust, but it wasn't bad at all. In fact, just the idea that I am still talking about it after so many weeks must have left quite an impression. Kind of grows on you after a while. Like moss? Or mistletoe?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 09, 2011, 01:01:29 PM
Skylark of the 60s was just like the Cutlass - a compact! Now, the 1952/1953 Skylark was a real size car!
There is a 1970 Delta 88 convertible for sale in Skiatook that I looked at a couple weeks ago. Pretty nice. Have been thinking about it, but just having trouble with that 8 mpg thing! So much fun for the few miles I could drive it though!
Also found a VW convertible (about 1972) in OKC area that seems to be reasonable price. 20 mpg is better than 8.
I really thought the Focus would be a bust, but it wasn't bad at all. In fact, just the idea that I am still talking about it after so many weeks must have left quite an impression. Kind of grows on you after a while. Like moss? Or mistletoe?
We had a '68 Skylark. Same car as a Chevelle. I don't know anyone who would call that a "compact".
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 09, 2011, 12:58:26 PM
I actually drove a Volt a few weeks ago and found it comfortable in the front driving and sitting in the back as well, and I'm 5'10" ~200lbs. As for the Leaf and that other hideous Nissan shown here, would take either one.
Been a SUV man for too long. I like my space.
Coincidently, the Scion XB has a ton of space inside, but is quite compact. My wife had one before we bought a Mazda, and you could literally cross your legs in the front or back seat. We got about 30 mpg too. Unfortunately it was a cheap little metal box, and I worried about her and the kids. The good news is that it was a popular car among thieves and so it didn't last long.
The first couple of years the Chevelle, Special/Skylark, F85/Cutlass, and Tempest were sorta compacts. Well, they were when compared to things like the Electra, Olds 98, and Bonneville. By the mid-60s they had grown to mid size. My 66 was 3900 lb and 116" WB. I don't know the weight of the Electra 225 but the WB was about 126".
Quote from: carltonplace on June 09, 2011, 08:11:21 AM
Why are the new gas efficient, hybrid or electric cars so hideous? The "leaf" is f'ing ugly and its name is stoopid. I bet its momma is fat and its dad is a degenerate gambler.
I don't know, I thought the Tesla was a pretty nice electric
(http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss9/custosnox/2011-04-08124217.jpg)
(http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss9/custosnox/2011-04-08124106.jpg)
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 09, 2011, 09:02:45 PM
The first couple of years the Chevelle, Special/Skylark, F85/Cutlass, and Tempest were sorta compacts. Well, they were when compared to things like the Electra, Olds 98, and Bonneville. By the mid-60s they had grown to mid size. My 66 was 3900 lb and 116" WB. I don't know the weight of the Electra 225 but the WB was about 126".
Corvair was really the only compact Chevy had in their line up. Chevelle was introduced in '64, along with the up-sizing of the early '60's GM compacts into mid-size.
Basically the ones which had the aluminum 215 V8 or the big 192 four cylinder are what I think of when it comes to the GM compacts. Buick, Olds, and Pontiac produced them from '61 to '63. Those were the Y-body platform, '64 on became the A-body platform.
I sorta remember most of that, I did have a little Google help. My first car was a '68 ElCamino (after my step dad said "hell no!" to a '67 396 SS Chevelle) and I've always had an affinity for the late '60's Chevelles and Camaros.
Quote from: custosnox on June 10, 2011, 01:09:34 AM
I don't know, I thought the Tesla was a pretty nice electric
(http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss9/custosnox/2011-04-08124217.jpg)
(http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss9/custosnox/2011-04-08124106.jpg)
Top Gear did a test of one and found it impressive, but it does have problems.....
There is a BTW graduate working (Manager battery technology) at Tesla
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=54&articleid=20101107_54_E1_CUTLIN48714&archive=yes (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=54&articleid=20101107_54_E1_CUTLIN48714&archive=yes)
Supposedly there were shenanigans in that test. Besides, it's very well known that Jeremy hates everything that doesn't have at least a V8. (and who would be constantly driving a tesla like that..I drive very quickly, but I can't say I drift on the public roads..)
The model S looks like it'll be pretty darn nice, with an entry price right around that of the Volt (only 250mi range with that battery, though..more range = more money) . I'm not a huge fan of the styling, but it's similar to vehicles many people seem to like.
I like the fake windmill about 8' off the road stuck in the freshly cut hay field.
Tesla is about to release a sedan. Looks a lot like the contour in my opinion. Is supposed to have a good range on it, and be low in price (don't remember the details the lady at the dealership was rattling off). They have some limitations, but electrics have come a long way in the past severel years.
Conan,
I grew up driving Delta, Wildcat, Bonneville size. So when I got the Cutlass, it felt tiny. Very much a compact to me. Now it is a very large car.
Red,
Electra 225 was a fantastic ride. Like the Olds 98. Weighed about 4,800 lbs. - just a little under 5k.
Called it "deuce and a quarta'"
Wildcat was the small, sporty version of the Electra.
Ok, maybe I exaggerate a little...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Electra 225 was a fantastic ride.
My grandfather had a deuce-and-a-quarter Buick. Like riding a marshmallow down the street.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Electra 225 was a fantastic ride. Like the Olds 98. Weighed about 4,800 lbs. - just a little under 5k.
Called it "deuce and a quarta'"
One of my high school friends' father had several Olds 98s and a Electra over the years. Nice cars but too big and floaty for my taste.\
Chevy had another "small" entry with the Chevy II which morphed into the Nova.
The first muscle car I drove was a '69 SS 396 Chevelle. It belonged to a co-worker where I had a summer job (he was full time). He bought it brand new a few weeks before I started for the summer. As I remember, it was dark blue with a black vinyl top. 4 Sp stick tranny. It was a lot quicker than mom's '63 LeSabre (401 cid/ 4bbl/ 325 HP but Dynaflow and heavy) I was driving to work. I didn't get my '66 GS Skylark until spring of '71.
Red,
I don't suppose his name was Jimmie, and you were working at a local sign shop??
(Naw, that would be too strange...)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 13, 2011, 01:26:55 PM
Red,
I don't suppose his name was Jimmie, and you were working at a local sign shop??
(Naw, that would be too strange...)
Those were my Pennsylvania days. The name and job are also incorrect.
Spooky how common our shared experience is; guy I worked with let me wreck his gorgeous '64 Impala SS, then let me drive his replacement '69 Chevelle SS!! Here in Tulsa, though. He really was a great guy, a fact which I did not appreciate until too many years later! DID NOT wreck that one! Fantastic car for a 15/16 year old boy to drive! The '69 Corvette the boss's daughter drove wasn't too bad to drive, either! (I think they were both '69, but could have been '68...)
Sorry, I keep forgetting you are a Yankee immigrant! (LOL!) You gotta green card?? (Actually white with a green stripe.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 13, 2011, 10:04:32 PM
Sorry, I keep forgetting you are a Yankee immigrant! (LOL!) You gotta green card?? (Actually white with a green stripe.)
The family has been here since '71 (40 years this August). We took part in the amnesty in the 80s. I have lived here full time since Dec of 76 when I got out of the Navy. ;D
Yep, once a Yankee...always a Yankee!
Well, welcome anyway!! We are glad to have you! Always need more engineers and analytical type people!
Friend recently bought a Honda Fit. It has some great features (I like how the back of the back seats easily folds down and the seats of the back seats fold up so you have a number of "haul" options) I like how spacious the inside is, even though it appears very small from the outside. Its also easy to see out the front with the extra little windows.
As for the Nissan Juke, I think ya'll are insane. I LOVE it!
Quote from: Conan71 on June 08, 2011, 04:15:07 PM
I brought this up in another thread, I can't remember which one now. Problem he fails to realize is that would be a truly regressive tax. The people who would be pinched the hardest likely could not afford one of the newer more efficient vehicles, or would be forced into buying a car they really cannot afford.
Build cars people want to drive at a competitive price, manage your business wisely, and you wouldn't need the government to be creating taxes to force people into buying cars they don't want . You also wouldn't need the government to rescue your failed business model in the first place.
...... "creating taxes to force people into buying cars they don't want" Indeed, indeed.
Quit spending tax money on building roads and highways and fewer and fewer of us wouldn't be FORCED to buy cars (or gas, or car insurance, maintenance, "pay for..."city, business/retail, and personal parking garages, etc. etc.) at all! Either that or be forced to move to another city or country where you don't have to buy a car and on the occasion you feel you do need one can simply rent it.
I don't understand why so many don't understand that "Less government" should mean "Less government" not "Less government if its something you want, but if its something I want then its critical!" lol
Quote from: TheArtist on June 14, 2011, 02:25:29 PM
...... "creating taxes to force people into buying cars they don't want" Indeed, indeed.
Quit spending tax money on building roads and highways and fewer and fewer of us wouldn't be FORCED to buy cars (or gas, or car insurance, maintenance, "pay for..."city, business/retail, and personal parking garages, etc. etc.) at all! Either that or be forced to move to another city or country where you don't have to buy a car and on the occasion you feel you do need one can simply rent it.
I don't understand why so many don't understand that "Less government" should mean "Less government" not "Less government if its something you want, but if its something I want then its critical!" lol
The present struggle seems less about abolishing big government than about who gets to use it. – William Greider, One World Ready or Not
Quote from: TheArtist on June 14, 2011, 02:25:29 PM
Quit spending tax money on building roads and highways and fewer and fewer of us wouldn't be FORCED to buy cars (or gas, or car insurance, maintenance, "pay for..."city, business/retail, and personal parking garages, etc. etc.) at all! Either that or be forced to move to another city or country where you don't have to buy a car and on the occasion you feel you do need one can simply rent it.
Would you also accept that Public Transit also be returned to private, for profit businesses?