[hat_man]

OK...I really don't think it's a conspiracy (and never did) but I figured putting it out ther like that might ratchet up the thought process and let folks explore different avenues on this topic. I still somewhat believe parts of what I said but not to the alarmist/extremeist/conspiritorial level that I led out with.

I have never figured out how to use the "quote" function with replies so please bear with me....this is going to be a long post.

SerialK11lr,minispeed,flakbadger,oldmechanic,niky. ..This is the kind of thinking I was trying to get out there. Adding or changing the gearing in rear ends and transmissions to give better fuel mileage is kind of a no brainer and can be easily done. Especially for AT vehicles that get worse mileage than MT's. A higher "road gear" would be greatly beneficial. But don't just come out with a "new and improved" transmission and say it has more gears by only adding something between 2nd and 3rd or 4th and 5th and call it better. It may smooth things out but the final drive doesn't change so is it really better? I guess it depends on what you are looking for.

Niky again...I agree somewhat about what you are saying about the bailout as it related to the next cars that were released. They were on the drawing boards before the bailout. But I guess I feel that maybe they should have had a smaller (read mid-sized not econobox or micro) car on the boards also. For you and all the others that commented on the fact that the US market wants bigger cars because that is what they buy or that they are directly related, is it really sort of a Catch-22? Do the car companies produce bigger cars because that is what the consumer buys or does the consumer buy bigger cars because that is what the car companies produce? I'm it's not as simple as that but I think you get my point. What would happen if the car companies produced smaller mid sized (again not mini's or econoboxes) cars at the same rate as the larger more inefficient cars? Would we see sales begin to increase for the smaller ones and decrease for the bigger ones or even level out? Who knows? I don't think we will ever really find out.

Niky again...The Dodge Dart is an interesting car. I helped wire some of the robots what will be putting this car together in Belvedere. (Don't blame me if the same weld becomes a recall item haha) I have high hopes for it. It is a stylish car and the new trans may yet prove itself. But transmissions have never been a strong point for Chrysler products. It seems to be a somewhat "entry level" car for the younger first time car buyers, but then again so was the neon. And if you ever owned an early model neon you know they were plagued with quality issues. I really hope the Dart does better.

Redpoint5...I knew someone would hit back with the same tone as I put out there. Glad to see I got someone incensed but not in the way I had hoped. Again I really don't think it's a conspiracy out there, but I'm sure there is a little "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" going on. I mean, come on, how many times have we heard one administration or another say they are going to "take a hard look" at the oil companies record profits year after year. I know, there is the "speculator" aspect to take into consideration, but I don't think it has been "looked into" closely yet. Seems to me that a somewhat similar thing happened a few years ago in California with a so called "energy-crisis" and electrical rates went up pretty high. I thought I had heard that it was a manufactured crisis to benefit the utility companies. If I am wrong (and I very well may be) I will gladly take that statement back. I agree with your statement about striving for both powerful or efficient cars being fun and neither being absolutely necessary. Neither extreme is necessary, but moderation is. And that is what I guess I feel the US car industry isn't ready for, even though the US consumers are. If they weren't ready for it they wouldn't have been buyuing the midsized imports for the last 15 years. It seems what we have to choose from is mainly the two extremes and not much in the middle. Hopefully cars like the Dart will be a breakthrough in thinking.

Redpoint5 again...as for technology, I know it isn't sitting on a shelf collecting dust. But when you look at some of the older model cars that were really efficient, you saw ideas that aren't around anymore. Ideas that I'm sure in part, died off because consumers didn't see them as necessary after the fuel crisis, but it is interesting that they didn't make a comeback around 2003 or so when gas prices went so high. Again, is it because not enough consumers asked for them or were they holding out hope that gas prices would return to pre-2000 levels? Maybe. But we can't buy what isn't offered, and they won't build what isn't asked for. We as consumers are partially to blame, but the auto industry must shoulder some of the blame also.

OldMechanic and pete c...I give Ford a lot of credit for not taking any money from the gov't and I think you are right. They get the smaller engine higher output scenario. I think though that the Fiesta isn't for everyone as it is small. But that being said a 1.0liter, 6-speed, 60 mpg, $12K "no frills" car would still sell. What I am saying is do something similar with a mid sized sedan. A 2.0 liter, 6-8speed AT (with higher road gears not just smaller steps between gears resulting in the same final drive as a 5-speed) with shift points that put you in a more efficient gear at real world speeds, (do you ever notice that you almost have to almost break the speed limit, even in town, to get an AT to shift into a better gear and then bring it back down to speed and feather the go pedal to keep it from automatically down shifting?) or even a MT, room for 4 adults, without quite so many options (keep pwr brakes for the ABS) for $14K would sell pretty well I think.

mcrews...I can already feel the tongue lashing that is coming my way but here goes...If you look at some of the older model vehicles they DO out perform a lot of todays vehicles when it comes to efficiency. Maybe not in speed and HP but that isn't what I was getting at. I am talking fuel efficiency. As for the geniuses in the R and D compared to a bunch of eco modders. Why can we come up with ideas like warm air intakes being more efficient than cold air, better gearing options with respect to overall drive ratios, and, as one very enterprising poster here has done, taking the time to figure out that by adding a 39 cent 1.5k ohm resistor to a certain Ford engine it advances the timing of a supposedly "un-advancable" system a few degrees and adding MPG. I'm sure the "experts" could have built this into the circuitry, but they didn't. As for most MPG improvements being at the "nut behind the wheel" I 100% agree. If people drove better they would see improvements also. But as for numbers 1 and 2 I don't agree and somewhat take exception too. As for some of our "tweaks" not surviving normal consumer use or a day of normal consumer driving...I would venture a guess that a lot of us drive our "eco-tweaked" vehicles as our daily drivers and not just as a special use vehicle. Boat-tails, yeah might not survive, but an aero cap on a pickup would. Grill blocks...bet a lot of us have them and have had them survive for a long time. Wheel skirts or "pizza pan moonies"...nah they never survive (sarcasm intended!) Warm air intakes and changes to final drive ratios I think would withstand most driving situations. "Tweaks" like synthetic fluids and belly pans (better under vehicle airflow) are finally being picked up by the auto industry but this isn't new and emerging information. But saying that our "tweaks" or mods wouldn't last a day of normal use or our abuse I strongly feel is demeaning to everyone here that has tried and or succeeded in improving on what the auto industry (foreign or domestic) has given them, in whatever way they saw fit! Your opinion is yours though. I know that the auto industry is not sitting on their hand waiting for the next big break through, but I do think it's been a long time coming for them to try and break from the "status quo". As for technology...see my second response to Redpoint5. As for you thoughts on the "bailout"$$$ that's an argument for another thread. You seem to think it was all the unions fault. I disagree. If you can't blame the failed business model then blame the unions. That's the way it always is. The big bad unions. Everyone sees AFSCME and the problems they have caused and lumps all unions together with them. Trade unions are a different story. If you look back through history and see what trade unions have brought the working class you would be thanking them not blaming them for all the manufacturing industries woes. The unions aren't to blame as much as you think. Remember they work under contracts that are negotiated and agreed upon by BOTH sides. The workers and management. They don't just say they want everything and management says OK. In fact most UAW members have taken wage and benefit concessions over the last 10 years to keep their jobs. But I'm sure you didn't know that so I really can't hold you accountable for it. Im sure that the high price of cars has nothing to do with corporate greed and "golden parachutes" and consumers only being offered what the manufacturers want to sell. Your right it is all the unions fault. (Sarcasm definitely intended here!) As far as MPG numbers and the EPA I don't intend any sarcasm here but want to understand what you are saying. I am using real world everyday numbers for my truck. Before any mods and "nut behind the wheel tightening" I was getting 26mpg highway and about 20-22mpg city. That was with 97K miles on it as I bought it used. Now I get 30mpg highway and haven't really checked for the city because I drive only about 20% intown now. Again I am not attacking, just trying to understand...are you saying that the mpg numbers shown for newer vehicles are "shorted" and can get better than posted without mods or driving techniques to be more "real world"? I guess I don't understand what that has to do with my numbers. All I was trying to say was that those are the numbers I am getting and I'm doing it with the technology that was available at the time the truck was made (1997) and a very few minor tweaks. And yes the most of it is driving techniques as I only have a homemade warm air intake, grill block, and synthetic fluids for mods. But I am fighting rear wheel drive (as opposed to more efficient front wheel drive) and bad aerodynamics of a truck (no aerocap yet not even a tonneau cover) and meeting and sometimes exceeding newer Rangers and even some newer cars. I was just trying to point to the fact that vehicle technology has come a long way in 15 years but it just seems like the efficiency hasn't kept pace. Again, no sarcasm intended and I'm not attacking here. Just trying to understand better.

jamesqf...I think you have it right. When the imports started taking off and selling larger quantities they saw a niche that wasn't being met by the US auto industry and took advantage of it. It's just too bad that the US couldn't have filled that need then. Look what we might have now.

vman455...I think you have it right also. The imports got their "foot in the door" with the smaller more efficient vehicles that filled a void and appealed to the consumer. If they hadn't appealed to the consumer sales volume would have been lower. Now that they have staked a claim in the market they are building cars that are larger than what they started with but are still meeting or beating the US models in fuel efficiency. Are they falling into the same Catch-22 of only offering what the consumer is buying/consumers only buying what is offered? I don't know. Maybe?

minispeed...It seems like a good business model to me. Get a foothold in a foreign market (the US) and don't really change anything until you are pretty solid there. Then start making you current models equal to (parity) the domestic market by upsizing them and filling the newly created voids with smaller cars that resemble the models you started out with. Thereby trying to get a new foothold in a different sector of the market without sacraficing your place in your original sector of the market. Now why didn't we think of that?

vman455 again...yes the newer inports have grown in size. Like I said, it seems like a good business model to do so. I can't comment on the Camry or Honda's offering in that size but to say that larger cars have trouble overcoming their size to get decent fuel economy isn't exactly true. I have driven both the Kia Optima and the Hyundai Sonata and both are extremely roomy, the Sonata feeling bigger than the Optima to me, and both getting above average fuel mileage. My parents had an early 2000's Buick Century that got 32-34 highway with I think a 3.6l V6 and you can't say that wasn't roomy, but you just don't see those types of cars anymore. I'm sure they would sell.

mcrews again...It is painfully obvious that you don't like unions. I think you have made that perfectly clear. So (in a hypothetical world) lets say that the Big 3 get rid of all union employees by not renegotiating with the unions when their next contracts come up. Contracts that, by the way, were agreed upon by management. You could say that the unions "held a gun to their heads" by threatening to strike. Maybe the hypothetical President could pull a Ronald Reagan (I think it was him) and disband the unions like the air traffic controllers. So what (in our little hypothetical world). Good riddens to bad rubbish. Right? Then take some of the unemployed or underemployed millions of Americans and get them to build the cars for non-union labor rates and benefits. Hell, hire twice as namy of them and have them work 24 hours a week so you don't have to pay them any benefits because they are now part-time employees. What a win-win for management. They have cut their operating costs by not having to honor their union contracts (eliminating high wages and retirees), not having to pay into retirement plans or provide health insurance of any kind, and look like heroes in the eyes of the public for putting so many Americans "back to work". If that were to happen then would they build a quality AFFORDABLE car here to beat back the imports and send them packing back overseas? I doubt it. The shareholders would get richer because the cost of the car would not come down, ("Hell they're paying that much now they'll pay that much again.") and profits would double. Do you really believe that management would do anything to LESSEN it's profits? The workers would see nothing. Maybe a cost of living increase that would get eaten up by the increased income taxes they would have to pay because they have more income.

Get off the "It's all the unions fault!" bandwagon. Did you invest in GM and lose your shirt in the stock market crash and are now looking for someone else to blame? Sit down with some UAW guys at lunch sometime and find out how things really are. Or is that too "blue collar" for you?

jamesqf...posts 115 and 116. I agree. Whatever happened to that car called a Tucker anyhow? How about the EV-1. Are they still selling like hot cakes? Too bad that we chose to build "disposable" cars and the imports built reliable ones. Too bad for both of them. Don't worry though. 20% ethanol will tip the scales pretty quickly into the Big 3's hands again. Unless you can bend your own stainless gas lines. But I don't want to sound conspiritorial here.

Leanburn...great with your '97 Suburban! It shows what I am trying to say. 15 years of technology and 0-1 years of efficiency. What gives?