Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-29-2009, 05:28 PM   #21 (permalink)
Pokémoderator
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,864

1999 Saturn SW2 - '99 Saturn SW2 Wagon
Team Saturn
90 day: 40.49 mpg (US)
Thanks: 439
Thanked 528 Times in 355 Posts
Jammer -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer View Post
Cheap Plastic??

I thought people here were worried over the WEIGHT of cars? All cars have plastic in them, at least all modern cars do! Heck I do not have to have a wooden gear shifter and metal gas/brake pedals with cute rubber traced designs on them when my eyes should be on the road anyway. I think GM's ad is funny. They make their point, and it's truly sad that a company that builds lawnmowers is also building cars. I mean where are Toro cars at anyway?
Christ is right. The commercial was a cheap shot. Well engineered engines exist outside transportation. If GM had been doing "small" things like lawnmower engines and motorcycles, then they might have been able to accrue the skills needed to make small economy car production profitable. I would have less respect for Honda if they had abandoned their "origins" in the pursuit of the higher profit margin of "big" products like cars.

CarloSW2

__________________

What's your EPA MPG? Go Here and find out!
American Solar Energy Society
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-29-2009, 05:59 PM   #22 (permalink)
Chevy and CB Radio Lover
 
Jammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: East Kentucky
Posts: 302
Thanks: 13
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to Jammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
I didn't say plastic in the car was a bad thing, I said they'd have a cheap plastic feel. They tout luxury in their cars, and they're lined with petro-chemical garbage bags, basically.

If you're *****ing about Honda building lawnmowers and cars, why don't you complain about companies like Mitsubishi buildling TV's, or Daewoo building CD players, or the like?

Honestly, what's the difference between a lawn mower engine and an automotive engine? I don't think you can find one, can you?

I personally believe GM was dumb for not having gotten their fingers into every market segment they had a chance at, including motorcycles. Honda, Mitsu, Daihatsu, Daewoo, all of them: If their primary market isn't doing so well, they've still got income. When's the last time Honda got a bailout check?

Honda started their game with bikes. No engines at all, actually. Do a little research before you get into calling one company "sad" for their involvement in other segments of consumer marketing.
I think you missed a few, like Yamaha (Musical instruments and motorcycles, a strange combination) and a better example would be Suzuki. I have a little more respect for Honda.

I already knew this stuff before you TOLD ME to "do a little research". Honest dude, people are not as dumb as you act. I happen to like to speak my mind too, and not leave it to just a few others.

So instead of YOU telling me how to act:

SHOW A LITTLE RESPECT FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS!
__________________

Support American
Workers!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2009, 06:04 PM   #23 (permalink)
Chevy and CB Radio Lover
 
Jammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: East Kentucky
Posts: 302
Thanks: 13
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to Jammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83 View Post
Jammer -



Christ is right. The commercial was a cheap shot. Well engineered engines exist outside transportation. If GM had been doing "small" things like lawnmower engines and motorcycles, then they might have been able to accrue the skills needed to make small economy car production profitable. I would have less respect for Honda if they had abandoned their "origins" in the pursuit of the higher profit margin of "big" products like cars.

CarloSW2
Hey that's just marketing/advertising. As long as what they say is TRUE, I say it's fair game.
__________________

Support American
Workers!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2009, 06:45 PM   #24 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,757

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,582
Thanked 3,541 Times in 2,211 Posts
GM did a fairly decent job with their 3800/large sedan/a/t combo. I've long wanted to see one with a 5-speed and a few other modest unobtrusive ecomods.

Edit: Actually starting '96 Camaros could be had with the 3800, m/t or a/t. Old EPA put the m/t at 30 hwy; a/t at 29... not much difference but the moderately alert ecodriver could do much more with the m/t. An honest 30 mpg with that sort of power is pretty good IMHO.

I've long maintained that GM ENGINEERING knows what it takes to extract maximum fe. They are on the leading edge of much tech back in their R&D Department.

Too bad they don't have more influence on what gets produced. Once again, I point my bony finger at the idiots in the Marketing Department.
__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 10-29-2009 at 09:12 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2009, 06:55 PM   #25 (permalink)
Driving the TurboWeasel
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Steuben County, NY
Posts: 459
Thanks: 14
Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Funny, some GM cars can be efficient if you use them for their intended purpose. Such as my car being designed as a high-speed commuter and highway car. It gets about 30 mpg when going 70-75 mph, and more if you slow down. Doing 55-60 it gets 37-38 mpg. Name me another car of that vintage that could do everything my rolling land yacht can do with better fuel economy. The Accords of that era weren't as large, and neither was a Camry.

Eh, they figured there was more to be made in SUV's and trucks than cars. And it worked for a while. Now reality is back to bite them in the tail. And being drunk on cheap oil for the past 25 years, reality bit them hard so they're bleeding excessively and floundering about while they sober up to a world where oil is getting more dear.

Thanks for helping my point, Frank!
__________________
2012 Chevrolet Cruze Eco 6MT
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2009, 07:06 PM   #26 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West
Posts: 145
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Honda's entire line of...well everything pretty much...has proven to be reliable and fuel efficient, from their lawn mowers to cars to outboard motors. They have gathered a huge following, myself included, that prefer Honda because you pretty much maintain and forget. Gm products...not so much...
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2009, 07:07 PM   #27 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,757

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,582
Thanked 3,541 Times in 2,211 Posts
I should have included the dustbuster 3800 vans too. Claimed fe on those is very good.

Manual steering, m/t, a/c delete, maybe a top chop and a weight loss program on a '80s or early '90s 3800 GM unit, plus a "Bonneville" spoiler or some sort of aeroback... yeah baby!
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2009, 07:10 PM   #28 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,757

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,582
Thanked 3,541 Times in 2,211 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkcarguy View Post
Honda's entire line of...well everything pretty much...has proven to be reliable and fuel efficient, from their lawn mowers to cars to outboard motors. They have gathered a huge following, myself included, that prefer Honda because you pretty much maintain and forget. Gm products...not so much...
Not entirely.

The suspension guys for their "off-road" group (atvs and such) I think were "children left behind". They put out some real stinkers.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2009, 07:33 PM   #29 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer View Post
I think you missed a few, like Yamaha (Musical instruments and motorcycles, a strange combination) and a better example would be Suzuki. I have a little more respect for Honda.

I already knew this stuff before you TOLD ME to "do a little research". Honest dude, people are not as dumb as you act. I happen to like to speak my mind too, and not leave it to just a few others.

So instead of YOU telling me how to act:

SHOW A LITTLE RESPECT FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS!
Considering that the only judging factor here is what you post, and you seldom post little more than an opinion, without any indication that you have a clue, I suggested that before you go talking about how sad one company is for their involvement in other markets, you do a little research into that company's historic profile.

If you took offense to it, that's your problem. I'll keep mental note that you take offense to... everything. After the few PM's I've received from you (unsolicited each time), I just don't feel as though we're going to be able to get along. As such, I will simply ignore your input, and ask that you do the same.

Good day.


Frank -
Yep, I'm dealing with Honda's off-road suspension issues this weekend, upgrading the shocks on my friend's Foreman ATV. The OEM shocks allow serious movement with little dampening, even at low loads.
__________________
"żʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2009, 08:26 PM   #30 (permalink)
Chevy and CB Radio Lover
 
Jammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: East Kentucky
Posts: 302
Thanks: 13
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to Jammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
Considering that the only judging factor here is what you post, and you seldom post little more than an opinion, without any indication that you have a clue, I suggested that before you go talking about how sad one company is for their involvement in other markets, you do a little research into that company's historic profile.

If you took offense to it, that's your problem. I'll keep mental note that you take offense to... everything. After the few PM's I've received from you (unsolicited each time), I just don't feel as though we're going to be able to get along. As such, I will simply ignore your input, and ask that you do the same.

Good day.
I just figure whenever a person dishes it out they can expect the same back. As I do.

Frankly I'm a a little sick of being told by you I have no clue, am a fool, and you LOVE to tell ME what to do. I have already tried going private mail with you, yet nevertheless only YOU know the facts and others that disagree get called names by you. If you can tell other members what to do and get away with it, then shall I say it's time to grow up and act more mature with the people that do not 100% agree with you. As you once told me, please do not state everything as if is a "Fact", because it may not be a fact and a few of us may not agree. That is why I TRY to state my comments with words such as "Personally"; "I feel" ; "imho (in my humble opinion) etc. And I try my best to NEVER call or imply a person is some how ignorant or a fool, clueless, or whatever new word you care to use. I like to think I have more respect for those that disagree with me. Name calling is for kiddies. Telling people what to do is for the "Christ" I recognize.

Maybe I will change my handle to "GOD"- but my beliefs will not allow me to do that.

You can dish it out, but you can not take it. I do not think you are as smart as you think you are and I would think it wise if you stop acting like your so above others. If you care to take this to private PM, I welcome it. Until then, as long as the mods allow you to get away with saying these things, then I should too.

Good Night

__________________

Support American
Workers!
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GM admits the Volt concept car's aerodynamics suck MetroMPG Aerodynamics 16 12-13-2008 01:16 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com