 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / April 2006Vauxhall - Opel Profits and USA
Why is it that Vauxhall - Opel in Europe can make profits but that GM US cannot. Why is it that Americans still drive around in V6 / V8 3-5 litre engined cars that don't produce anywhere near the power per litre that European cars do and still complain they don't get good "gas" mileage. At last the US is starting to suffer high fuel prices. Maybe this is the motiviation required for you President to start reducing green house gases. American cars have always been poor quality, bad handling, uneconomical piles of trash. Europeans laugh at the half hearthed attempts for US cars to gain any ground in the European market. Dire products such as the Chrysler Crossfire are a joke and Cadillac are just appaling. We don't get Pontiac or Buik and Chevrolets over here are rebadged Daewoo's that fall apart when you look at them. Toyota have nowhere near the market share in Europe. Why? Because their cars are boring. Boring to drive and boring to look at (the Yaris is the exception but who wants to drive a microcar!). Nissan is the same. The only half decent Jap cars are Mazda (Ford) and Subaru. So why doesn't GM do the sensible thing and build its European styled and designed cars in the US. Fast, economical, great looking and handling cars. The Diesels are fantastic. 150 BHP, 50 mpg+, refined and torquey, perfect mating to an automatic that everyone in the US insists on (why I have no idea! The new Astra and Vectras look great too with SX and SRi trims, 18" wheels and Irmshir bodykits. Of coarse Rick wouldn't do this would he, being as no-one could admit that the Europeans understood the US market better than the Americans? One more thing, why is it that the manufacturers are all trying to make gas (petrol) hybrids? What is the point. Just use Diesel engines or if you want to be really trick use a Diesel Hybrid for really impressive MPG. Peugeot are in the process of developing one now. Rant over. Tim What do you mean by that? The Bush administration is spending more money on the environment than ANY administration in history. That is irresponsible, in my opinion. When the budget is in deficit because of things like 9/11 and our war in international Islamic terrorists, we should be looking to cut spending not spend more money on questionable projects that may or may not effect the environment. There was a guy an TV just the other day that said the world in warming because pollution has been reduced allowing more sun to warm the earth. Another report says the ice caps in Iceland are melting, yet another says the ice layer in Antarctica is growing because the earth temperature has risen over the past three years. Whom should we listen too before we spend billions on what they suggest as a cure. What if we had listened to what the 'scientist' were telling us when I was in collage about global cooling that was leading the world into another ice age? What if we had spent billions to cover the glaciers with soot to make them melt as was suggested. What about all of the scientific community that says movement of tectonic plates, volcanic activity and the ongoing shift in the rotation of the earth around the sun is what has always caused the changes in the climate on the earth and controlling global temperature is beyond mans capabilities and could actually make things worse. They tell us the earth temperate was much higher 65 million years ago, all during the 165 million years that dinosaurs roamed the earth, than it is now or projected to be in 100 years and the was plenty of food for those big guys. Why should we believe those that have a vested interest in man being 'the cause of global temperature change,' they no longer refer to Global Warming since there is so much evidence that while some parts of the world may be warming other are cooling . Whom do we believe? mike hunt > Why is it that Vauxhall - Opel in Europe can make profits but that GM US > At last the US is starting to suffer high fuel prices. Maybe this is the > motiviation required for you President to start reducing green house > gases. > Tim > There was a guy an TV just the other day that said the world in warming > because pollution has been reduced allowing more sun to warm the earth. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Warming since there is so much evidence that while some parts of the world > may be warming other are cooling . Whom do we believe? On this I agree with you Mike. Global warming has become a BIG business case. The Northern Hemisphere has been warming up for over 15,000 years. We don't know much about the Southern Hemisphere, but the Antarctic has been cooling for the last 20 years. The cyprus swamp trees, that now grow in a Carolina climate, found on Baffin Island some only partly petrified tell a story about the earths climate changes. The discovery last year that the ice fields of the high Yukon were warmer 8,000 years ago than more recently, also tells a story. The global warming pushers tend to ignore these climate facts. I feel most of them are part of the Static Earth society, having left the Flat Earth Society. However, IMO we should reduce our impact on the environment by consuming and polluting less, particularly air pollution which can kill us. After all we have to leave pollution room for rapid growth of consumption in Asia. I'm 80 years old and I can tell you the air and water today is fine, much cleaner than any time in my life. There was a time when everything was powered by wood or coal, both of which spewed crap into the air. Woman washed cloth on a Monday because while people worked twelve hours a day, for six days a week, plants closed down on Sunday, so there were fewer coal powered steam trains running on Mondays. Today coal is burned cleanly. Any thing we no longer wanted, back then, was dumped in a hole or a nearby waterway. That is not longer possible. When I was in Europe during WWII you could not tell by the smoke over some towns if they had been bombed or it was from fires used to heat the houses When I was in college in the late forties we were taught we were headed into another ice age because all of the pollution. They were still teaching that when my one son was in college in the seventies. In California they had smog alert days when people would wear dust masks. Anybody who tries to tell you things are worse today does not know their a$$ from a hole in the ground ;) mike hunt >> There was a guy an TV just the other day that said the world in warming >> because pollution has been reduced allowing more sun to warm the earth. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > After all we have to leave pollution room for rapid growth of > consumption in Asia. Well put from someone old enough to be your son. It is your generation that kept GM, Ford and Chrysler alive. Hmm, I am going to put a wood stove in my house. Enough people here in Arlington, VA cut down trees and leave the wood for the takin' > I'm 80 years old and I can tell you the air and water today is fine, much > cleaner than any time in my life. There was a time when everything was [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > After all we have to leave pollution room for rapid growth of > > consumption in Asia. There should be a law that requires wood burning stove makers to attach a label that says. "Warning, one of the sources of wood for this stove could be your living room," another thing I learned a long time ago. Why do you think we stopped using wood and kerosene to heat our homes? ;) mike hunt > Well put from someone old enough to be your son. It is your generation > that > kept GM, Ford and Chrysler alive. > Hmm, I am going to put a wood stove in my house. Enough people here in > Arlington, VA cut down trees and leave the wood for the takin' >> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message >> I'm 80 years old and I can tell you the air and water today is fine, much >> cleaner than any time in my life. There was a time when everything was [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> mike hunt Maybe the technology of the stoves has improved. I would purchase it new and have it professionally installed. There are plenty of used ones available on ebay though. > There should be a law that requires wood burning stove makers to attach a > label that says. "Warning, one of the sources of wood for this stove could [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >> > >> mike hunt Rather you then me, I would not burn wood if the wood was free. A few years ago I guy built a new house in our area in which he had two large fireplaces built. When he was showing me the house I suggest the large pile of wood he had on hand was not enough for one fireplace let alone two, the laughed. By the middle of January he had another tractor-trailer load delivered. The next summer I saw a propane company installing two gas burners. LOL mike hunt > Maybe the technology of the stoves has improved. I would purchase it new > and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> mike hunt > Why is it that Vauxhall - Opel in Europe can make profits but that GM US > cannot. > > Why is it that Americans still drive around in V6 / V8 3-5 litre engined > cars that don't produce anywhere near the power per litre that European cars > do and still complain they don't get good "gas" mileage. They don't. The ones who "complain" about fuel mileage in American cars are the biggots and the zealots for foreign cars. I've been quite happy with 30mpg highway mileage out of an American 3.8 L in a nicely appointed supercharged Buick Park Ave. Likewise with a Buick Regal, a Grand Am, a Malibu. > At last the US is starting to suffer high fuel prices. Maybe this is the > motiviation required for you President to start reducing green house gases. And the US should suffer high fuel prices for what reason? Because other countries tax the living hell out of their citizens at the fuel pump? Sounds like simple jealousy to me. > American cars have always been poor quality, bad handling, uneconomical > piles of trash. Really? Funny how I spend only a fraction of what my friends with BMW's and Mercedes spend on their repairs. Not to mention the delta in purchase price. The complexity of some of those cars makes them akin to mortgaging your home just to keep the car maintained. Now there's a real bargin. > Toyota have nowhere near the market share in Europe. Why? Because their > cars are boring. Boring to drive and boring to look at (the Yaris is the > exception but who wants to drive a microcar!). Nissan is the same. The > only half decent Jap cars are Mazda (Ford) and Subaru. And European cars aren't boring? I guess there's no accounting for taste. > So why doesn't GM do the sensible thing and build its European styled and > designed cars in the US. As if the European definition of styling is something the rest of the world should rush after... > Fast, economical, great looking and handling cars. Economical??? > Of coarse Rick wouldn't do this would he, being as no-one could admit that > the Europeans understood the US market better than the Americans? If you are evidence of that understanding then I guess the Europeans have a long way to go. But then again, Europeans were never short on ego.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Why is it that Vauxhall - Opel in Europe can make profits but that GM US > cannot. Mulder, two thoughts come to mind here. First, have you ever heard of intercompany pricing? That's where a parent company allows a subsidiary to appear profitable for purposes known only to the parent. i.e. the subsidiary has a lwoer tax rate. Parent companies have many ways of manipulating the bottom line of subsidiaries, such as interest-free intercompany loans, etc. My 2nd thought on this matter is that if we were to assume that Vauxhall - Opel in Europe is legitimately profitable by its own performance, I wouldn't be bragging about it if I were you. That would mean that you the consumer are paying the company (Vauxhall) a higher profit margin than the parent company enjoys. But the parent is ultimately the beneficiary of Vauxhall's performance! That makes GM the winner and you, the Vauxhall consumer, the loser!!! *LOL* > Why is it that Americans still drive around in V6 / V8 3-5 litre engined > cars that don't produce anywhere near the power per litre that European cars > do and still complain they don't get good "gas" mileage. Yeh, that's a funny thing about Americans. They'd rather have a big horsepower, bigger displacement engine without a turbo or blower that lasts for years and years, than a high-revving little turbo/blown chainsaw motor that needs a costly rebuild ever few years. Call us crazy! > At last the US is starting to suffer high fuel prices. Maybe this is the > motiviation required for you President to start reducing green house gases. Spoken tongue-in-cheek as could only be done by a resident of the country that fostered the industrial revolution and coal burning! *LOL* > American cars have always been poor quality, bad handling, uneconomical > piles of trash. Europeans laugh at the half hearthed attempts for US cars > to gain any ground in the European market. Dire products such as the > Chrysler Crossfire are a joke and Cadillac are just appaling. We don't get > Pontiac or Buik and Chevrolets over here are rebadged Daewoo's that fall > apart when you look at them. I have a strong hunch that you are not the voice of "Europeans" as you would have us believe. > Toyota have nowhere near the market share in Europe. Why? Because their > cars are boring. Boring to drive and boring to look at > (the Yaris is the exception but who wants to drive a microcar!). Oh stop! You're killing me! The Yaris is an exception! Bwa, Ha, Ha! Let me get this right - you think the Yaris is exciting! LMAO! > Nissan is the same. The > only half decent Jap cars are Mazda (Ford) and Subaru. > > So why doesn't GM do the sensible thing and build its European styled and > designed cars in the US. Uh, let me think about that - because European styles are as boring as Toyota and the Yaris! > Fast, economical, great looking and handling cars. Are there models that we don't know about? What "fast, economical, great looking and handling cars" are in Europe? > The Diesels are fantastic. 150 BHP, 50 mpg+, refined and torquey, perfect > mating to an automatic that everyone in the US insists on (why I have no > idea! The new Astra and Vectras look great too with SX and SRi trims, 18" > wheels and Irmshir bodykits. Oh, puleeze! Plain and simply, diesels stink and foul the air and lungs. And besides, in the U.S., we don't consider 150BHP the basis for a fast car! > Of coarse Rick wouldn't do this would he, being as no-one could admit that > the Europeans understood the US market better than the Americans? Actually, you havenow proven, without a doubt, that one European doesn't understand the US market whatsoever! *LOL > One more thing, why is it that the manufacturers are all trying to make gas > (petrol) hybrids? What is the point. Just use Diesel engines or if you > want to be really trick use a Diesel Hybrid for really impressive MPG. > Peugeot are in the process of developing one now. You really are a walking contradiction Mulder. One minute you're against greenhouse gases, but the next minute, you're an advocate of diesel power when it suits you. Need I remind you that there are low zero-emission alternatives to diesels! > Rant over. Likewise. > Tim Toyotas and other Japanese cars are not as prevalent in Europe, as in the US, because in Europe they have to compete on the same playing field. European taxpayers are not building plants for Japanese companies and training the employees to work in those plants for lower wages and les desirable benefits as they do in the US. In Europe they must pay the same wages and the same taxes as the other corporations that build vehicles in Europe and can not take the profits back to Japan tax free as the do in the US ;) mike hunt >> Why is it that Vauxhall - Opel in Europe can make profits but that GM US >> cannot. >> Toyota have nowhere near the market share in Europe. Why? Because their >> cars are boring. Boring to drive and boring to look at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Tim > Toyotas and other Japanese cars are not as prevalent in Europe, as in the > US, because in Europe they have to compete on the same playing field. > European taxpayers are not building plants for Japanese companies and > training the employees to work in those plants for lower wages and les > desirable benefits as they do in the US. I spent 10 days in Italy a few weeks ago. Chevy advertises heavily, but I saw very few on the road; same with Ford. Toyota and Hyundai were more prevalent. Fiat, Smart, Alfa Romeo and Mercedes were all over the place. I don't recall any Mazda or Subaru. Alpha has some sharp looking models, but I don't think I'd buy one based on their past quality in the US market. > Why is it that Americans still drive around in V6 / V8 3-5 litre engined > cars that don't produce anywhere near the power per litre that European cars > do and still complain they don't get good "gas" mileage. > American cars have always been poor quality, bad handling, uneconomical > piles of trash. Europeans laugh at the half hearthed attempts for US cars > to gain any ground in the European market. Dire products such as the > Chrysler Crossfire are a joke and Cadillac are just appaling. We don't get > Pontiac or Buik and Chevrolets over here are rebadged Daewoo's that fall > apart when you look at them. > So why doesn't GM do the sensible thing and build its European styled and > designed cars in the US. Fast, economical, great looking and handling cars. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tim And how many Euro based cars flopped here in the States ? Opels, Cadillac Catera, Merkurs, Renault, Peugeot ... Chrysler brought over Simcas in the 60s and they sucked. Ford brought over Merkurs in the 80s and they stunk. AMC brought over Renaults and they , well at least they were better than Pacers and Gremlins. They have a different market and driving conditions. The diesel option does not currently exist here because of emissions problems (NOx and particulates). It's the EPA, dude. There is real doubt whether ANY passenger car diesels can be sold in this country with forthcoming regs. The diesel has a bigger footprint in Europe because of taxation policies there and looser environmental regs and the availability of low sulfur fuel (we get that here, soon). By the way, you ever been to a large European city? You noticed the diesel haze in the air...like I did in Italy last year? You also noticed how diesel costs more than gas in the U.S. now? The apparent salvation of passenger car/small truck diesels in the U.S. is low sulfur fuel and if the EPA allows urea injection to meet emission regs. I agree diesels would be VERY nice. I test drove a new E-class diesel last year and liked it A LOT. Great city and highway numbers as well as generous power. No negatives except the $50,000 price tag for an unreliable nameplate, Mercedes. As for Japanese cars not selling as well in Europe as here, true enough, but how many European cars are sold in Japan? Not many. You going to claim they are too exciting for the Japanese? More like European cars are crap quality compared to what the Japanese expect. Check the J.D. Power and CR owner survey results. European stuff is no better and often worse than U.S. brands. The sales thing might just be that the Japanese have not cared enough about Europe to develop the needed diesel engines or maybe they just prefer to play in North America. Dunno. Diesels belong in all the SUV's we Americans love. > Why is it that Vauxhall - Opel in Europe can make profits but that GM US > cannot. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Tim |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.