Why you can't buy a high mpg car....

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by mcrews

Mini is actually a poor example as it is a 'boutique' brand or niche brand. They only want a certain market. They are not trying for mass appeal.

EXACTLY! That is a big part of what I have been saying all along: Detroit doesn't make/sell small cars because of its entrenched mental block that causes it to see small cars as cheap, appealing only to people who really want a bigger car but can't afford one. So the people who want quality small cars don't buy the cheap and low quality small cars that Detroit thinks ought to appeal to that part of the mass market.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most of the really successful small cars in the US market did so because they fit the needs/desires of a niche market, not because they were cheap "econoboxes".

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by mcrews

This article is VERY clear and detailed and footnoted. Kinda like a fair and balanced media.....which is so non-european.

It's quite clear the Bush Administration did start the bail-out, but Obama continued it, and apparently, also decided on what terms to continue it.


Different benefits depending on which union one is or isn't a member of, wouldn't go down well here, and would be seen as illegal discrimination.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

A recent media PC I built has a continuous draw of 110W at idle conditions, which is much greater than my 1995 PC. My gaming PC has a continuous draw of 400W.

Though I'm not sure exactly what a "media PC" is supposed to do, I suspect the cause is your build choices, not necessity. That is, it would be quite possible to put together a machine of similar performance & cost that draws much less power. (See the earlier post about the SandyBridge notebook.) As for your gaming PC, I would suspect that a bit of attention to processor states in the graphics card(s) could reduce that draw considerably. Besides, you're comparing apples & oranges, since "gaming PC" is something that really didn't exist in the days of the P100.

To be fair, electrical use has held fairly steady in the last 3 decades. I replaced a 36" TV that consumed 200W with a 60" plasma that consumes 200W.

Again, that's down to your choice of technology. You could have purchased an LCD TV that offers much better picture quality (judging from my very limited experience, anyway) while consuming a fraction of the power.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No confusion here; you're absolutely correct, but still missing the point. A recent media PC I built has a continuous draw of 110W at idle conditions, which is much greater than my 1995 PC. My gaming PC has a continuous draw of 400W.
...The only way fossil fuel consumption will be globally reduced is for prices to rise globally. No amount of fuel efficiency improvements will reduce consumption on a global level.

Monitors tend to suck like 50W continuously (depending on size), if you're counting that, but the actual computer itself these days doesn't draw too much power at idle. CPUs have very advanced power management, and any 40nm or later GPU cuts processor speed and voltage greatly at idle as well. I believe the high power video cards these days draw less than 20W idle despite being able to pull nearly 20 times that under load. Of course, power supply efficiency is a big part, my laptop power brick is a "5" efficiency rating (I forgot who gives those ratings but that corresponds to like 90-92% average efficiency), and the power supply I used to power my external graphics was 80 plus gold, rated for 17A @ 12V so always near peak efficiency Oh I should mention I had a 460GTX (selling it though) 1GB which happily sat at 400MHz and 0.825V idle.

[niky]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most of the really successful small cars in the US market did so because they fit the needs/desires of a niche market, not because they were cheap "econoboxes".

Niche market = high markups. Even if the dealers don't sell at a huge mark-up over MSRP doesn't mean that there isn't a huge mark-up built into the car's MSRP in the first place. There's a fundamental difference in the cash flow and market penetration of a luxury product to a mainstream one. Asking "If MINI can sell such a small car, why can't GM/Ford/etcetera do it?" is like asking "If BMW can successfully market a compact rear-wheel drive car, why can't GM/Ford/etcetera do it?"

The xB was a hit... before Toyota gave in to customer clinics and shoved a 2.4 liter motor into the 2nd gen. The Fit used to be a hit, before gas prices started going back down and sales slid back.

Without the impetus of high gas prices, people will not buy small cars in larger numbers. Which is a disincentive for spending more on marketing and development, at least in the US market.

It's different in other markets where gas prices are already higher (due to tax, scarcity or whatnot), where people will gleefully buy "small" cars with fewer luxuries and features for prices that Americans are used to paying for larger cars.

A fully loaded Honda Fit here goes for the same price you can get a stripped down, 300 horsepower Chevrolet Impala V6 for there. :

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

EXACTLY! That is a big part of what I have been saying all along: Detroit doesn't make/sell small cars because of its entrenched mental block that causes it to see small cars as cheap, appealing only to people who really want a bigger car but can't afford one. So the people who want quality small cars don't buy the cheap and low quality small cars that Detroit thinks ought to appeal to that part of the mass market.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most of the really successful small cars in the US market did so because they fit the needs/desires of a niche market, not because they were cheap "econoboxes".

ok, you dont get it.
There is no 'entreched mental block'! that is a simpleton way of thinking.
There is, however, a built in cost that other((non-big three) manufactures do not have,
Detroit cant even began to think about making a mini because there is no volume. THey have to have volume to cove the costs accoiated with each car produced.
Do you(in the plural) really not understand business models?
Do you not understand that the bail out/ jimmied bankruptcy did not provide a 'clean sheet of paper' like it is suppose to?
Where is the out rage with one person - obama -deciding who get preferential treatment and who doesnt?
Where is the outrage when $26 BILLION disappears down a rat hole?

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by niky

Niche market = high markups. Even if the dealers don't sell at a huge mark-up over MSRP

*********my point is that james says there is some huge pentup demand. If there was such a demand, then the car would fly off the sales floor. I proved that that is in fact, NOT happening************

doesn't mean that there isn't a huge mark-up

**********what!!!!!!!!!! Please show me, factually, what the 'huge markup' from the manufacturer is???????
(hint: it would be reflected in a profit and loss statement from the manufacturer) Another myth that uninformed consumers believe......***************

built into the car's MSRP in the first place. There's a fundamental difference in the cash flow and market penetration of a luxury product to a mainstream one. Asking "If MINI can sell such a small car, why can't GM/Ford/etcetera do it?" is like asking "If BMW can successfully market a compact rear-wheel drive car, why can't GM/Ford/etcetera do it?"

The xB was a hit... before Toyota gave in to customer clinics and shoved a 2.4 liter motor into the 2nd gen. The Fit used to be a hit, before gas prices started going back down and sales slid back.

Without the impetus of high gas prices, people will not buy small cars in larger numbers. Which is a disincentive for spending more on marketing and development, at least in the US market.

It's different in other markets where gas prices are already higher (due to tax, scarcity or whatnot), where people will gleefully buy "small" cars with fewer luxuries and features for prices that Americans are used to paying for larger cars.

A fully loaded Honda Fit here goes for the same price you can get a stripped down, 300 horsepower Chevrolet Impala V6 for there. :

each morning when detroit wakes up, the ceo says "what can I build that will cover the (example) $4000 of union costs that are in each car I produce?"

Each morning when Bmw ceo wakes up, he does not have to answer the same question.

[user removed]

A hundred years ago when giant corporations and monopolies used up human lives as a cost of doing business, the balance of power was tilted heavily toward the owner-management part of the equasion.
As Unions gained power their purpose of protecting workers from the abuse of owners-managers, evolved into their own power to destroy whole corporations by making them incapable of competing in an increasingly world wide economy.
Both situations have their own consequences. One destroys people as a cost fo doing business. The other destroys the business as a cost of protecting and compensating labor.
The real problem here is for labor and management to adopt an adversarial relationship much in the same way as our political system has now evolved into a very adversarial relationship which offers no grounds for compromise.
Sadly this whole "my way or the highway" position may eventually destroy the US in much the same way it has destroyed our steel industry, which, if you believe the political ads on TV would be the exclusive responsibility of the Republican candidate.
I hope we are not as short sighted as we are adversarial.

regards
Mech

[niky]

Profit-loss won't tell you much, since that's measured across all models across all markets... the MINI company does have a higher profit margin (three times higher) than Ford, but that doesn't mean anything, either, since it's tied up with BMW... but that the MINI commands a $3-4k premium over cars that are the same size certainly indicates that it's not targeted at the mass market.

The MINI is a tiny car masquerading as a compact.

[hat_man]

I apologize if I have offended anyone here. Sincerely, not sarcastically.

mcrews...I can see we are obviously in different camps. Even though I don't agree with your opinion I can respect it and by extension you (and everyone else posting here). The bail-out was announced under the Bush administration but was completed under the Obama administration and endorsed by both parties. The idea of the bail-outs had to come before the announcement so the bail-outs were initiated during the Bush adminstration. Obama also endorsed this idea so the bail-outs came to fruition during his administration. If we can't agree on anything else I hope we can agree on that.

As for fair and balanced media...you have to admit there is a wide gap between the political stances of Fox News and MSNBC. Even in the print media there is a pretty wide gap. Some wear the Red ties, some wear the Blue. It isn't nearly as "fair and balanced" as it seems.