Perhaps the lack of comment comes from a sentiment of "What, again?".
My initial response was to ignore it as just one more refrain of the same old automakers song. This is the same group that has previously told us they could not: install safety glass, install seat belts, install air bags, reduce emissions, build an electric car, improve fuel economy (oh, wait, that's the one they're singing again this time), and so on. I just get to the point I tune out this kind of background noise. Of course GM can't do it, they never could. Someone else will figure out how to do it, and GM will buy the know-how and meet whatever targets are set for them. GM's contributions include cost-accounting, the annual model cosmetic makeover, and building the same vehicle under up to 5 different marques to achieve economies of scale, but not much in the way of technological advances. GM's heroes are accountants, marketers and stylists, not engineers. If the technology in question is hybrids, not to worry. GM doesn't have it, but they can buy it from Toyota (NUMMI partner) or Honda or someone else. Murdoch wrote <big snip> > We see and hear story after story after story about how the > various auto makers spend billions upon billions of dolllars in research. > For *what* exactly? Mostly lawyers researching how to avoid compliance with laws and regulations, accountants to fudge the books and lobbyists to get changes to the laws and regulations they can't evade. GM probably has spent more on lawyers on the air quality question than on engineers to actually improve the technology. (They bought catalytic converters and the EV-1 from others). Doyle covers GM and air quality very well in "Taken for a Ride". GM inflates the numbers they spend on zero-emissions vehicle research in order to get bigger deductions and grants from government, even though the work done is just as likely to be used in their gassers (e.g. aerodynamics, weight reduction, cabin climate conditioning, on-board monitoring systems, fuel efficient tires, etc). Daimler Chrysler's solution to the CAFE dilemma? Market the PT Cruiser as a light truck instead of a car so it wouldn't hurt the automobile average and would actually help the light truck fleet average. Remember, the PT Cruiser sits on the same chassis as the Dodge Neon - a compact car. Ford's solution to the light truck CAFE problem? Make their big SUVs (e.g. Navigator, Excursion) heavier, so they will bulk out of the light truck category, thus improving the average for their light truck fleet. With their history, why would anyone look to the major North American auto makers for useful innovation? Darryl McMahon Darryl McMahon 48 Tarquin Crescent, Econogics, Inc. Nepean, Ontario K2H 8J8 It's your planet. Voice: (613)784-0655 If you won't look Fax: (613)828-3199 after it, who will? http://www.econogics.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
