Slashdot Mirror

That was 2008. Nothing went well economically in 2008, in case you've forgotten.

You assume there IS a decline. I don't see one.

https://media.gm.com/media/us/...

The Tesla loses. The Duramax trucks weigh more, have more contact patch, and more torque.

Why on Earth was this modded up? To date Tesla has sold less than 100,000 cars. In 2014 GM sold over 3.4 MILLION. Instead of focusing on the fact that these incidents were notable because of Tesla calling their adaptive cruise control tech "autopilot", which mass-media picked up on, or the fact that it involved a car that typically cost over $70,000 US, you jumped straight to conspiracy.

Not to mention that the other car makes DO get media attention...I guess you can ignore that to because consipracy and Elon Musk.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/m...

https://forums.teslamotors.com...
http://media.gm.com/media/us/e...

*I know that safety can be determined through a number of different ways, such as deaths per miles driven, but I don't think that's applicable when talking about why journalist would pick up a story.

My understanding is that the Volt also shifts into the mechanical connection at very high speeds (in the area of 70mph / 110 KmPh) even when it has power in the battery. The ability to couple the engine to the drive wheels adds a lot of mechanical complexity to the transmission, which both adds weight to the car and creates a possible maintenance problem; I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation Volt does away with that and becomes a pure series hybrid.

If you are in charge deplete mode (i.e. running off the battery), the Volt will not turn on the ICE nor engage it to the wheels regardless of speed. It is the sources that led to that misunderstanding that I am trying to get to stop spreading false information =/ Sources: a) I own a Volt; b) GM's head of electric propulsion; c) Popular Mechanics; I could keep digging up more if you'd like.

If you watch the "Deep Dive" videos on YouTube, you'll see that the system is actually not that complicated: a fixed planetary gear set with three clutches that only mate when speed-matched. This is much simpler than the transmission in most vehicles, including automatics, standards, and CVTs, so it is disingenuous to say that it could be a maintenance problem. Is it more complicated than a single electrical motor connected only to the wheels? Yes. On the scale of possible automobile complexity is it really that complex? No, not really. Have a look inside a dual-clutch automated manual transmission.

Lastly, I would be very surprised if GM moved away from the Voltec drivetrain. They have invested a lot of money in designing it, and these very aspects that we're talking about are what make it stand apart from other parallel, series, and parallel+series hybrids out there. The fundamental decision is if you're committed to lugging around an ICE to drive a generator, how do you make the most efficient use of it across the full range of driving scenarios? The Cadillac ELR is based on the Voltec drivetrain (slightly different ICE, possibly slightly different motors, and certainly different software) and operates in the same fundamental way.

p.s. The next-generation Volt has already been unveiled, and the new generation of Voltec drive-train appears to operate in much the same manner; they even indicate that a key development is to couple the two motors together in even more driving scenarios

Check out the chart at Wikipedia the Model S sold about 40,000 cars this year. Compare that to the significantly less sexy Nissan leaf with its 130,000 sales - or GM's total sales for 2014 January - June of 4.9 Million vehicles. See, GM's sales report for Q2-14.

Tesla is a great car company and likely to be an even bigger deal in the battery market - but compared to GM, it's sales barely register.

On the stock front - GM's market cap is 51.8B, Tesla's is 30B. So, yes, Tesla is probably a bit overpriced right now - people are buying what Tesla will be, not the company it is today.

The Tesla/Panasonic plan gets cell and battery production back into the same plant. The battery industry has, for a while, had a model where cells were made in one country (usually Japan, Taiwan or S. Korea, or at least with machinery from there) and assembled into device-specific battery packs near where the end device was produced (usually China or the US.) For the Chevy Volt, the cells come frm LG Chem in Korea, and the battery packs are assembled at the Brownstown, MI Battery Assembly plant.

There's no good reason to do it that way now that the era of cheap labor in China is over. As a rule of thumb, labor has to be 4x cheaper to justify offshoring. The coastal provinces in China have reached that level with respect to US/Japan wages.

Done right, this isn't labor-intensive. Brownstown has only 100 workers in a 400,000 square foot plant, and they're doing battery assembly, which is the more labor-intensive part of the operation. Tesla claims to need 6,500 employees for their 10 million square foot plant, but they're probably counting construction-phase employees.

GM, otoh, was recently bailed out by the US taxpayers (as funded by the Communist Chinese) at a net loss of $10B, after decades of deplorable management that consisted mostly of accountants and empty suits, rather than anyone with a clue about how cars should be designed/built - all of whom "rose through the ranks". Admittedly, the new GM CEO has engineering credentials, but then somehow ended up in HR (?!), and then rose through the ranks. While it has been hailed as a great move by GM (and likely is, at least relative to their prior choices), the kudos seem to have more to do with the CEO's gender than qualifications, so the results remain to be seen.

Just to compare to a similar vehicle (if there is one)

The Cadillac ELR (A fancy volt ) will be 4070 lbs

The project was/is worked on in my home town, although the person who owns the land they are leasing wanted to force them to sign a 10 year lease instead of a shorter lease has dropped their lease and they are leaving the area in first quarter 2013 to go back to Detroit. There were fuel cell cars driving here on test runs constantly, although since the announcement that has pretty much stopped. On the outside the cars looked like normal GM cars (Of course with nice "GM FUEL CELL CAR" decals branded on it)

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/photos.detail.html/content/Pages/galleries/us/en/facilities/honeoye_falls.html#
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2790586.shtml

GM called it a hybrid the whole time.

Bollocks. From GM: The Chevrolet Volt is not a hybrid. GM has never to my knowledge called the Volt a hybrid and resisted anyone calling it a plug-in hybrid. Go visit the Chevy site and read their electric and hybrid pages, I'll wait.

You have the engineering basically right, but this is all about marketing. The Volt has two on-board sources of power (battery and gasoline engine) and can plug in to recharge the batteries. By everyone else's definition, that makes it a plug-in hybrid. But for whatever reason GM wanted to come up with their own car category with all the goodness of "electric" but with something new to forget the bitter pill of the EV1, yet without competing with Toyota "hybrids". GM tried the terms "extended-range electric vehicle" and "range-extended electric vehicle" but seem to have given up on establishing them. Their strategy has utterly backfired because once the car sites got hold of the car they determined the gas-only-after-battery-depleted MPG in the 30s which lets anti-environment car nuts immediately blather about existing hybrids and their 1992 Civic doing better. So now GM has to go back and promote the plug. Along with Sirius Cybernetic Corporation, GM's marketing department are truly "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes."

GM's site currently says Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity. Plug it in, let it charge overnight, and it's ready to run on a pure electric charge for up to 40 miles(2) - gas and emissions free. After that, Volt keeps going, even if you can't plug it in. Nope, an electric car is one powered by batteries only. The problem with GM's neologisms and hair-splitting over the definition of "only" is if the Volt is an electric car, then any car maker with a crappy mild hybrid that can travel 0.5 miles up to 17 mph from its electric motor "only" can split different hairs and call theirs "The next electric car", some of these jokes even have an "EV mode" button!

The sad thing about this marketing clusterfuck is the Volt will be the world's first plug-in hybrid vehicle for sale, and it it undeniably an impressive engineering achievement. Instead of USA! Chevrolet! USA number one! America F*** YEAH! we're pouring thousands of words into this boring non-argument. /EndThread

This isn't the kind of thing you expect from Slashdot, or Slashdot submitters/readers.

It's a PR stunt, but it's filed under 'science'.
It's also linking to a third party blog, 11 days after it was news.

Press release containing contact info: http://media.gm.com/content/media/gb/en/news/news_detail.brand_chevrolet.html/content/Pages/news/gb/en/2010/CHEVROLET/07_15_perfect_hand_shake

Original (as far as I know) blog entry mentioning it: http://jalopnik.com/5588201/this-is-the-formula-for-the-perfect-handshake

Contact email on the press release is chevrolet@mischiefpr.com.

If a Slashdot contributor gets taken for a line with that one, and editorial staff allows it through as a Science (not Idle) story, while nobody bothers to do even the slightest amount of digging, it might be high time to revise standards and practices, since Slashdot is starting to descend to a less-timely, less-informed, more gullible version of reddit.

I remember when Slashdot was THE place for techie/geeky news, and the comments were considerably more often than not insightful. Nowadays, people seem happier to quibble over minor semantics in an article while missing the big picture. I'm not trying to put Slashdot, one of my favorite sites, down but I'd rather it retain or improve level of quality, not slip toward the same plateau as Slashdot Parody Sites[tm].

If you're going to accept PR advertisements, at least put them in the ad box in the corner and accept payment, so people can opt out.

Here, let me google that for you.

http://www.gm.com/vehicles/hybrids-and-electric/hybrids/

No, just 5 years or 100,000 miles.

If only GM would sell a decent Opel here.

Rejoice! ;-) It is coming. Buick regal 2010 is actually the Opel Insignia with swapped grille and logo. Initially it will be even built in Germany moving later to Canada.

The reason people are upset about about CEO compensation is because they have no idea what a CEO is being compensated for. The fact is, there are a very small number of people who are capable of running a very large organization successfully. It's the same reason most small businesses stay small businesses - the owners reach the limit of their management potential and can go no further.

Nah. It's because CEO compensation is set by... Boards of Directors that happen to be made up of other CEOs with a vested interest in promoting their pay over the interests of the shareholders. For example, GM's board of directors is 75% former/current executives.

CEOs and Boards of Directors are currently a nearly closed cartel, responsible for setting their own compensation despite the complete absence of any meaningful performance metrics.

Did I mention that in most cases the boards set their own compensation? It's all a big racket, and it's completely unrelated to performance-- CEOs are being compensated for being part of the club, not for performance.

You kidding?

I would *love* to be a CEO but I don't have any idea how to do that.

There in lays the problem. Correct?

For example how did the CEO of General Motors reach that level? I suspect it was pure luck.

Or perhaps not luck at all? Lets look at his C.V.

Summary from: Frederick (Fritz) A. Henderson - GM President and Chief Executive Officer

Prior to graduate school, Henderson was a certified public accountant. He received the William A. Paton Award for achieving the highest score in Michigan on the May 1980 CPA examination; he also received the Elijah Watt Sells Award for attaining one of the top 100 scores in the U.S.

Bachelor of business administration degree with high distinction from the University of Michigan in 1980 with an emphasis in accounting and finance.

Master's degree in business administration from Harvard Business School in 1984 graduating as a George F. Baker Scholar.

After graduating, Henderson started his career at General Motors in 1984 as a senior analyst in the Treasurer's office in New York.

Perhaps he worked his balls off for 20+ years in the same company?

-12.60 seconds at 111.28 mph- John Kennedy's 2002 Chevy (far lane) produced the second best performance of the evening. While the engine is basically untouched and hasn't been taken apart, it is always a top performer. The combination of performance products John is using works, and works well.

http://www.thedieselpage.com/features/edgeweekend.htm

GM made locomotive engines from the 1930s until 2005 when the sold off that division. CSX Claims that they can transport 1 ton of freight 436 miles using one gallon of fuel. Depending on if CSX used a General Electric Engine or an EMD to get their figures, Gm might be able to use the knowledge gained from building efficient trains to build cars.

If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wait the fifty.

If you have to remove that cancerous tumor now or wait a year, what will you do?

But more importantly, there's a philosophical point to be made. When faced with a possible problem, should you always make a radical change to the status quo? Well, what do you do in your personal life? Most people don't do this, unless the potential problem is both very serious and has a high probability

Right now, it has already been proven to an extremely high degree of certainty, that global warming is both very serious and has a high probability.

broken models like this one do damage to the radical policymakers

Broken model? What broken model? The model for global warming is fully intact. The fact that one small part of an accessory needs some adjustment in no way breaks the model for global warming.

The only thing this study shows is that water that circulates in depths of 700 to 1500 meters under the surface travels in wider and slower paths than had been previously thought. The total flux of water is, naturally, the same, water isn't accumulating in the Arctic.

And how can we possibly justify spending such massive sums with that much uncertainty as to the outcome?

You speak as if we weren't already spending hundreds of billions to keep companies that cause global warming alive.

Even better would be to ferry the cars along those rails so you can drive as needed once you reach your destination.

By definition you wouldn't need a highway-capable car at the destination, so glorified golf cart would probably do.

I would love to see a future where people use lightweight, low-speed vehicles for tooling around town, and load those vehicles onto railroad cars for long-distance travel.

Interesting comment, but I can't pick out the "oil company and foreign oil company interests" that are in the board of directors. Who are you talking about?

Erskine B. Bowles
President,
The University of North Carolina
Director since 2005

John H. Bryan
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Sara Lee Corporation
Director since 1993

Armando M. Codina
President
and Chief Executive Officer,
Flagler Development Group
Director since 2002

Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
Chancellor,
University System of Georgia
Director since 2007

George M.C. Fisher
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Eastman Kodak Company
Director since 1996

E. Neville Isdell
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
The Coca-Cola Company
Director since 2008

Karen Katen
Chairman,
Pfizer Foundation,
Retired Vice Chairman,
Pfizer Inc and Retired President,
Pfizer Human Health,
Director since 1997

Kent Kresa
Chairman Emeritus,
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Director since 2003

Philip A. Laskawy
Retired Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Ernst & Young
Director since 2003

Kathryn V. Marinello
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer,
Ceridian Corporation
Director since 2007

Eckhard Pfeiffer
Retired President
and Chief Executive Officer,
Compaq Computer Corporation
Director since 1996

G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.
Chairman
& Chief Executive Officer,
General Motors Corporation
Director since 1998

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/corp_gov/board.jsp

Why should the population of the US prop up an industry which has had many many decades to compete on the world market.

I really don't know

I chose not to respond to the "300% higher" comment because you were right, and it didn't need comment. Their wages aren't 300% higher, they're more along the lines of 30-50% higher in most cases -- NOT new hires, which are now lower than their competitors. This discrepancy has been mostly addressed.

Yes, the Big 3 have focused way too much on high profit margin, large vehicles and it is going to cost them. But keep in mind that for the longest time small trucks outsold cars in the U.S. They were building what people were buying. AND those models have higher profit margins than the smaller cars. Had the Big 3 been focusing on smaller, lower margin cars, they'd have been in this position sooner.

Yes, there is indignation in what the executives get at the Big 3, and rightfully so. But, it is hand-waving. The CxOs could work for $0 and it wouldn't make any appreciable difference to their bottom line. These companies are hemorrhaging BILLIONS, and you want to scream about a few ten millions. Yes, it needs to be addressed, but that issue is like carping about the amount of money spent on the National Endowment for the Arts in proportion to the Federal Deficit. A pittance, and a distraction from the real issue.

And I was just as vocal about the bailout for Wall Street. Feel free to check my journal, but don't put words in my mouth.

The simple fact of the matter is, according to GM's most recent 10-Q filing with the SEC (quarterly statement) is "post-retirement benefits other than pensions" and "pensions" make up the largest single chunk of their liabilities, at 26.6% -- down from 30% a year ago. "Long term debt" and "Accrued expenses", whatever the hell that is, make up another 25% each.

I'm not primarily blaming the unions, though they do shoulder some of the blame. I mostly blame GM, Ford and Chrysler who orchestrated this scheme way back when in their glory days. Their pension and benefits plan is similar to the U.S. Social Security model, where current employees pay for retiree benefits. That crap only works if "current employees > retirees". Once there are more people drawing benefits than paying into the pot, you start rapidly going into the hole. GM and Chrysler are now very deep in that hole. This is really nothing more than a legalized Ponzi Scheme. That scam only works if you have an ever increasing number of new investors (employees), which is eventually impossible. It is what gutted the U.S. steel industry and is now going to do the same to the U.S. auto industry.

I'm not targeting unions. The Big 3 made their bed and should be required to lie in it, even if it kills them. But the unions need to realize that their retirement packages ARE a big chunk of the costs. Those benefits are directly tied to the Big 3 still being in business -- unless you feel confident about the U.S. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp taking over. It is time for the unions to deal with the reality that the Big 3 made promises they couldn't keep.

The unions share part of the blame for blindly accepting such deals. If someone promises you the moon, you have a certain responsibility to find out if they can actually deliver on those promises. "But you promised!" doesn't have any pull outside the playground.

Not exactly what you are talking about, but it gets good enough gas mileage to not kill you at the pump. 2008 GMC Yukon Hybrid

I will remain pseudonymous, but I will say that my current area of research (I am a graduate student) is tangentially related to this field, related enough that I've looked into trying to convince GM to give me funding (so far nothing has materialized). Specifically my research looks deals with programming language design (e.g., making less-than-Turing-complete-but-still-useful programming languages structured in useful ways) to aid in static analysis. The aim is at safety-critical code (nuclear power plant code, industrial controller code, automotive software) such that you can say "barring hardware failure, this code is 100% guaranteed to meet hard realtime constraints", etc.

Anyway, at least publicly, GM is probably the most impressive car company in terms of researching these sorts of things. I feel kind of bad for GM. I hear they're selling terribly and are even selling at a loss on many cars, but their research department really is something impressive. Maybe they're a little bit Microsoft-ish in that their research department is heavily insulated from the rest of the company, I don't know. But GM is doing a lot of cool stuff and funding a lot of cool stuff with regards to "correct" software.

If it were some other random company, I would probably roll my eyes and say "oh they'll probably just test it really really heavily and then tell us that it works", but more than most companies, I trust GM to develop cool technology (such as novel static analysis techniques) to get this to work. Their R&D is active in a lot of areas, 99% I'm sure will never amount to anything, but I wouldn't doubt it if they could get the technology together to get auto-driving cars in 10 years.

Disclaimer: as I mentioned before, my efforts to get GM funding are still unsuccessful, and consequently I'm not on GM payroll in any imaginable way. I don't even drive a GM car (or any car). In fact their cars look kind of lame in general, but their R&D department in Cool.

...but who knows, detroit is getting desperate and I bet there's some skunk works action going on there...

Apparently the supplier and GM are using a nanophosphate version of the LI battery, supposedly a lot safer (and I've read elsewhere closer to what is in a hand held power drill than a laptop).

I wish for once they'd stop lying and come clean. The batteries are there. Tesla uses them, heck, even indian REVA uses them in a full electric car. There are also a bunch of new generation safe li-ion batteries with high charge and discharge rates available and in mass production in some cases. A123 ships in volume in Black and Decker power tools, Valence has some market penetration, Altair Nano just shipped their first automotive-size batteries. There are also countless hobby lithium-ion conversion EVs on the roads, and lithium-ion plug-in conversion kits available for Prius. If batteries were good enough to run 100 miles ten years ago in an EV1, they are definitely good enough to run 40 miles now. So stop the FUD and bring this tech to market.You may wish to tell this to GM Vice Chairman Robert Lutz himself on his blog at http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/ Also, if you want it, go vote for it on GM page > http://www.gm.com/company/gm_exp_live/events/naias _2007/index_flash.html?navID=3.0.1.1

And when used with FlexFuel, [GM full size SUVs are] using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Read up on it. Google is your friend.

Or try this if you want the official lowdown.

With the success of Ubuntu and Fedora, and the advent of OpenSuSE and Freespire, are businesses and distributions paying more attention to the community?

Side sensors on the car's side, for example, gauge if the car is about to roll over, and then activate the roll-over bar, which breaks through the glass of the back windshield.

For front-end collisions, a fiber optic connection from left to right registers impacts. The sensors' algorithms then program the hood and front end to react differently according to what is hit.

For pedestrians, a mesh-like material is activated in less than 50 milliseconds beneath the hood, which serve to cushion the blow upon impact.

These well-nigh amazing safety features leave me asking the same question that I ask myself when I hear GM's OnStar commercials, touting features like calling emergency services on airbag deployment.

How many lives does a feature have to save before it should be required equipment?

Early automobiles were deathtraps, until a fellow by the name of Ralph brought the issue to national prominence in 1965 with Unsafe at Any Speed , a book to which many of us owe our very existence. Since then, we have assumed a right to a safe vehicle. No car company would be allowed to sell a $3000 rattletrap with no seat belts and no air bags and an engine in the passenger seat, even if they required purchasers to sign a safety waiver. I think this can be counted as "progress", though the more Libertarian folks out there might disagree.

But assuming that Da Gooberment has an obligation to obligate safer vehicles, where do you set the bar? If a "mesh-like material" is the difference between injury and Pedestrian Souffle', why not require such a system on all vehicles? Or do I have to cross my fingers and only step out in front of cars built by Jaguar?

Pretty much all major auto manufacturers produce cars ready for operation on straight ethanol these days, IIRC.

They are available, but most cars can NOT run E85 without modifications

http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fuel_flexible.htm l

As far as Biodiesel is concerned, you are correct on the natural rubber problem on older vehicles. Biodiesel also has a detergent effect so older cars should have their tanks cleaned first, or you're liable to ruin your injectors.

Veggie oil has different problems. You still need diesel and you have to use it when you start up and shut down. So you need to maintain two fuel tanks. You'll also need to heat the oil in colder climates.

And if you decide to make your own fuel (ethanol, bio, or veggie) make sure you understand the tax implications. You are still responsible for road use taxes.

I guess this means Wikipedia could be incorrect. <blink blink>

Not according to these articles:

http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000143060629/

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_f cv/dc_demo_050703.html

And they are not in sunny california, too bad for them.

Seems like everyone is trying for that brass ring. While others have mentioned that companies other than Honda have produced prototypes for vehicles and fuel cell tech, it doesn't seem like we're getting any closer.

So I'll add GM to the mix and a link to some of their stuff, including a working stationary fuel cell that is powering a large portion of a DOW plant in Texas.

http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/technology/vehicle_te ch/fuel_cell/stationary/

I dont know, maybe if the government would continue the $2000 tax exemption for hybrid cars, yak, which use about 50 mpg, and eliminated the $100,000 tax exemption for business buying SUVs, yeeps!, which use about 10-12mpg would be a BIG improvement. but you know, maybe now that they are coming out with hybrid trucks, c00lz ,they might be able to get the $100,000 tax exemption on those too. Still. its retarded. just my ~$8,750 worth (but hey, at least they still get the title fee w00t).

Yes, it's sad to see a symbolic engineering marvel like the EV1 go, but all this does is shift the pollution elsewhere. Not to mention not being very practical at all.

See here for energy densities of various materials.

Could there be a reason that gasoline is the energy storage mechanism of choice for vehicles?

Why not concentrate on GM's current hybrid timeline, or on vehicles that are actually useful and that normal people might buy, like GM's 2007 GMT-900 platform (Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/Yukon XL/Escalade) which will have a strong hybrid option, with a standard 5.7L Vortec V8, but with Displacement on Demand, disabling 2 or 4 cylinders as conditions permit, and featuring two 30kW electric motors housed in the standard Hydramatic transmission case that doesn't require major resigns and retooling entire truck production lines for use, but still yielding up to a 40% mileage improvement, instead of making ugly little cars on which it is apparently mandatory to have the rear wheelwells covered like hearses?

...in addition to references about, e.g., efficient lighting? But I'm talking about production. Just as the article summary was.

Many energy savings can be both significant and easy: isolate your home, use energy efficient lighting, replace that stupid SUV with a hybrid car, drive with 2 people from A to B instead of on your own, use public transport where possible, use natural gas instead of electricity for cooking and heating, use a water-saving (=heat-saving) shower head, etc. etc. All measures that don't affect your lifestyle much, but your energy consumption a lot.

I already do all these things. And what's with the SUV argument? That's just as stupid as the stupidity you're accusing my argument of. What about a hybrid SUV? Or does it only qualify as a "hybrid" if it looks like a complete utter pile of shit on wheels?

General Motors might not sell cars like Chevrolet and Pontiac in other countries, but they are there. GM owns Saab, Opel, and Vauxhall in Europe, is the majority shareholder in Daewoo in Korea, and is involved in the manufacture of lots of other foreign brands.
br> See this for more info.

Australia's not part of the rest of the world? It's Holden over there (cue post-war advertisment song: "Holdin' you in my Holden...")

Oh, and it's Opel, not Opal:

http://www.gm.com/automotive/vehicle_shopping/worl dwide_sites/

Oh, and a quick Google has the BBC dispelling the story of the Russian's naming their station phonetically after Vauxhall station:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/community/fun/entry _51.shtml

My day is ruined. :(

I know of at least one example of an assembly plant trying to lower it's resource consumption. Actually, after a quick google search, it appears there are at least four GM plants using landfill gas for energy.

Why do they do these things? Because in many cases, there actually is a cost savings in more "green" industrial methods.

I'm sure you didn't notice this... but when your power steering fluid is low your car makes a light, almost grinding sound. That means you're low on power steering fluid.

The GM Hywire is the only car I'm aware of with drive by wire, and yes they did it right. The Hywire however is only a concept car, not production. You'd have a hard time finding the hydrogen to drive it.

So what would be the solution. Simple, try to keep certain core industries and research in the country, and do moderate outsourcing which opens the doors for the wealth of everybody. But for heavens sake, keep some industries and research in the country or at least in the monetary zone.

Check out http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_n ews/global_research_111203.html. A relevant quote:

"The research lab in India provides an increased diversity of talent and resources to our global R&D network," said Alan Taub, Executive Director of the Science Laboratories for GM Research and Development. "We are able to tap into these science-rich societies and involve the world's best technical talent."

As announced in February, the Bangalore research lab will ultimately employ about 100 people with software, electronics and materials expertise.

It's already too late to keep the research and development in the US. Indian researchers are just as smart an innovative as those in the west, and they are much, much cheaper. I know about this GM research center because several of my Indian graduate student friends went there to work after graduation from the US graduate school we attend.

That's right, US academic institutions use US tax-payer money and government grants to fund the education of foreign nationals who then take that knowledge back to their home country and work at a research center built by a US corporation. The US citizens then pay for the research center too by buying GM cars (India prohibits cars not made by Indian companies).

There is no orifice through which we are not being fucked.

General Motors already had a hybrid truck available in the 2004 fleet division, and is releasing it in the public this year, as well. Or you can get a used 2004, but they are rare. Interestingly, the V8 Silverado uses it's motor and battery for idling and coasting, never to propel, so it works out as a trade off between the "fuller" hybrids, with about a 16% milage boost.

I believe this is the first:

According to this, the H2 has the same transmission as the Corvette and S10, and only one set of ratios is listed. Where's that Class 4 Corvette hitch?

My buddy is an off-roader, and I go with him occasionally. I've seen the H2 in action, and trust me, it can't get out of it's way. I've seen one basket ball player, and one foot ball player, each driving his own H2, on two seperate occasions.

We had to winch both of them out with his K5 blazer (which is now painted on the side "H2 RESCUE TEAM".)

The H2 has the same transmission as many many many chevy vehicles, geared identically. How come they don't get 10MPG? The H2 is designed to be a gas guzzling, curb sitting POS, so people with more money than sense can look down on the commoners.

American auto companies are outfitting their fleet customers with alternative fuel vehicles. The government even provides incentives for meeting a certain percentage of alternative fuel vehicles in a fleet. GM's page on the subject has more information, as does Ford's alternative fuel fleet page and Chrysler's.

Also, it would take very little to no modification to get a petrol car to run on grain alcohol.

More promising is using alcohol in fuel cells rather than gaseous hydrogen. Alcohol is not as good at combustion as gasoline, but it has more hydrogen and less carbon. If you use a Direct Methano Fuel Cell like the one that powered Daimler Chrysler's NECAR 5 on it's recent cross-country trek, you get roughly the same mileage on alcohol that you get on gasoline, but with a liquid fuel from a renewable source. Add it to the mileage improvements suggested by the mechanical changes from General Motor's AUTOnomy project, and automotive fuel cells become a viable option.

GM would never make transmissions for BMW and Range Rover. Or engines for Honda.