Big Dave -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
US safety regs are not necessarily consistent with safety.
US environmental regs are not necessarily consistent with public health.
I am in complete agreement that both sets of regs need a drastic overhaul.
Profits are important. If GM sells enough cars at a loss they go the way of Packard, Studebaker, American Motors and Enron.
|
I wouldn't put Enron in your list. They got what they wanted, deregulated energy markets, and used that to cook the books. They are the posterchild for stronger regulatory agencies, not the weaker ones that you want.
That is one reason why I am in conflict with your POV. I can understand a nuanced argument that says let's do more testing and try to come up with a compromise. But I keep getting the impression that the gist of your argument is the regulatory agencies are evil and need to be stopped.
Regardless of the safety standards, the (not so) big three had plenty of examples of high MPG cars from Japan (for 30+ years!!!!) that they could have been reverse-engineering all this time, but they mostly ignored them and paid the price. Imagine the difference today if GM had spent 10 years creating "eco-package" options like the Cobalt XFE.
It could be argued that if GM was thinking beyond the quarterly profits statement, they would have designed *all* their car lines across the world to match the country with the most stringent safety standards (maybe the SUV profits would have been a good thing to roll into this R&D). As markets expanded and contracted, Lutz could maneuver his cars across borders like chess pieces (Example: the new Saturn/Opel Astra was designed for EU/USA markets). More Volvo than Volvo could have been a GM motto, which would have appealed to families that want the safest car then can get.
Question: If Lutz got what he wanted, couldn't Toyota and Honda do the same and maybe even import Kei-cars? Whatever Lutz got, his competition could *still* outclass GM products in the fuel efficiency class.
CarloSW2