General Motors urges higher petrol prices

[Nikked]

THE boss of the world's biggest car marker, General Motors, says the chances of his company surviving the automotive industry crisis is good, but "it's not 100 per cent".

In an interview with journalists overnight, Rick Wagoner, said the current dip in the cost of fuel was making it difficult to force motorists into more economical vehicles,

Artical

WTF? Lets see, SS, Corvette, Big trucks etc...this is one of the wierdest things i've heard...

GM just likes a Whinge eh.

[Lynch'd]

They're spending mega-bucks on investment in greener vehicles and need to be able to charge a premium on these vehicles to recover the R&D. Without high petrol prices who's going to pay a $10k or $15k for a green car when the petrol ones are still economical? The comment makes a fair bit of sense given the current direction the car makers are heading.

[ebxr8240]

Yep who's going to pay $40.000 for a Prius [Pri ***] when you can buy a real car for $35,000
Maybe that hand out should go to green cars..
That'll change the way they go about it..
Other than F series Fords engines have been smaller in most cases..

[TUF_302]

GM= Worlds biggest whingers!!, They are the only people to complain about lower fuel prices! :

[Spanrz]

Maybe if GM did their R&D right, they might have averted such a disaster!

But the typical capitalist mind still prevails.

[vanman_75]

the aussie dollar should collapse out of sight ,so there is no possible way we would buy their crap . morons

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Yep who's going to pay $40.000 for a Prius [Pri ***] when you can buy a real car for $35,000

Yep, Hybrid sales have dropped to the lowest in 6 yrs in the US. But then again the FC wouldn't be helping.

[Burnout]

Sounds like some desperation coming through here in these comments, imagine staking your future & the companies future on a bunch of shoe box semi- green half Korean rubbish so you can survive.

I mean if petrol was say 50c to 90c US dearer he would feel a whole lot better.

[Stefan]

Doesn't sound like a whinge to me simply a commentry from the man at the top of GM.

I tend to agree that GM are relying in higher fuel prices in order to see some gains from their green R & D costs. The cars they have are not fuel friendly which is bad for sales and their "green cars" are not yet viable as the fuel price is not high enough to justify the expense. Makes sense to me.

GM are in a lose lose situation.

[Molloy]

low price fuel FTW :

[XRtowcar]

GM should be rapt. They can design and build another oversize SUV that has no relationship to anywhere but the US, and then be surprised again when fuel prices peak and they get stuck with thousands again.

[slo_crossflow]

Its cause GM locked the buyers into fuel caps!.

[ltd_on20s]

i dont understand GM's reasoning for this. every car maufacturer has known for 35+ years you can run a car onn just about anything. cooking oil,water,hydrogen, mini nuke reactors etc etc. why all of a sudden they need to recoup their money thru higher petrol prices? all car manufacturers put themselves in this mess by hiding tech advances, keeping R&D till the HAVE to bring it out. GM killed public transport in the US by buying it out and letting it rot, maybe this is just karma?

[XR6_190]

Isn't this something a good PR department wouldn't want to let out to the public,

"Yes we know you all love this whole lower fuel prices thing, but we don't care about your bank balance, we only care about ours, now buy some of our cars to help us please"

[snappy]

Going by that article he is asking the goverment for more help . Subsidising research or icreasing petrol taxes so people will by the econimical cars .

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

i dont understand GM's reasoning for this. every car maufacturer has known for 35+ years you can run a car onn just about anything. cooking oil,water,hydrogen, mini nuke reactors etc etc. why all of a sudden they need to recoup their money thru higher petrol prices? all car manufacturers put themselves in this mess by hiding tech advances, keeping R&D till the HAVE to bring it out. GM killed public transport in the US by buying it out and letting it rot, maybe this is just karma?

Cooking oil - In our winter climate times this stuff would solidifiy. Not good on a big enough scale to make this affordable.

Hydrogen - There is still no infrastructure.

Mini-nuke reactors - Enriched uranium not available at drug stores yet. (Back To The Future reference)


Sometimes people don't think about the logistics of certain technologies.

What GM is speaking in reference to is the Government's requirement that GM concentrate their efforts on hybrid/alternative fuel and smaller, high fuel mileage cars that the Government believes more people want, but the market demonstrates the opposite now while fuel prices are low. Sales of larger vehicles are recovering, as a percentage of the vehicles that are being sold, since fuel prices have come down, and sales of smaller cars have dropped in relation.

If GM is required to concentrate on high fuel mileage, small cars there needs to be a real market for them. This only happens when fuel prices are high.

GM has at least 6 vehicles that get 30 mpg or more, so it cannot be said that they ONLY have gas guzzlers.

Also, Toyota came out with the Tundra (15/19 mpg), the Landcruiser (13/18 mpg), FJ Cruiser (16/20 mpg), and Sequioa (14/17 mpg) yet no one gets on them about making gas guzzlers. WHY IS THAT???? Hypocrisy, that's why.



What GM is saying is that if they are going to be required to build the types of cars that ARE NOT SELLING right now then those that are making this requirement (Federal Government) must make the market for those cars by increasing gasoline costs, most likely through a tax. The idea is that if a tax is imposed that is high enough to cause people to buy mostly fuel efficient cars then it would also be high enough to stabilize the price of gasoline and the market for the cars that GM is being REQUIRED to shift to.

I am not for taxes but I understand this line of thinking.

Bob Lutz of GM said ....

"At $1.50 a gallon, the American public is not willing to pay for fuel-saving technology. And at a certain point, those who make the rules are going to have to recognize that fact."


In 2007 he said...

....said legislating strict fuel economy targets, as the US government has done, in order to turn buyers away from thirsty vehicles, was like “trying to solve the obesity epidemic by only making small clothes”.


He is right about these statements. While gasoline is cheap Americans want bigger vehicles. Once it hits about $3.75/gal. they want more fuel efficiency, and right now gas is cheap.


Steve

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Going by that article he is asking the goverment for more help . Subsidising research or icreasing petrol taxes so people will by the econimical cars .

Here is the FULL article....

http://carsguide.news.com.au/site/ne...n_gm_be_saved/


Here's the sentence that sums up the article....

Wagoner said the government needed to create customer incentives for economy cars – and disincentives for gas guzzlers.





Steve

[dom_105]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

Also, Toyota came out with the Tundra (15/19 mpg), the Landcruiser (13/18 mpg), FJ Cruiser (16/20 mpg), and Sequioa (14/17 mpg) yet no one gets on them about making gas guzzlers. WHY IS THAT????

Because Toyota isn't on their needs in Washington DC asking for taxpayer cash.

[JADED6]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

Wagoner said the government needed to create customer incentives for economy cars – and disincentives for gas guzzlers.
Steve

They already do.
The disincentives for me driving my V8 gas guzzler
Registration $720 per year
Fuel usage 14L/100km and the government taxes the crap out of our fuel.

Incentives for driving a 4cyl economy car
Registration $520 per year
Fuel usage 8L/100km thus avoiding a bit of the tax rort with less fuel used.

Perhaps in a few years the government can scrap the $2,000 LPG conversion bonus and bring in a $2,000 "economy car" bonus.

[axeray]

I think the PR department should be having a little chat with the 'ol boss.

[Lukeyson]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

(Back To The Future reference)

Back to the future references FTW !!!

[burnz]

cant blame the american public.

at 40cpl for premium in a V8 or should they be driving a prius.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

Cooking oil - In our winter climate times this stuff would solidifiy. Not good on a big enough scale to make this affordable.

Hydrogen - There is still no infrastructure.

Mini-nuke reactors - Enriched uranium not available at drug stores yet. (Back To The Future reference)


Sometimes people don't think about the logistics of certain technologies.

What GM is speaking in reference to is the Government's requirement that GM concentrate their efforts on hybrid/alternative fuel and smaller, high fuel mileage cars that the Government believes more people want, but the market demonstrates the opposite now while fuel prices are low. Sales of larger vehicles are recovering, as a percentage of the vehicles that are being sold, since fuel prices have come down, and sales of smaller cars have dropped in relation.

If GM is required to concentrate on high fuel mileage, small cars there needs to be a real market for them. This only happens when fuel prices are high.

GM has at least 6 vehicles that get 30 mpg or more, so it cannot be said that they ONLY have gas guzzlers.

Also, Toyota came out with the Tundra (15/19 mpg), the Landcruiser (13/18 mpg), FJ Cruiser (16/20 mpg), and Sequioa (14/17 mpg) yet no one gets on them about making gas guzzlers. WHY IS THAT???? Hypocrisy, that's why.



What GM is saying is that if they are going to be required to build the types of cars that ARE NOT SELLING right now then those that are making this requirement (Federal Government) must make the market for those cars by increasing gasoline costs, most likely through a tax. The idea is that if a tax is imposed that is high enough to cause people to buy mostly fuel efficient cars then it would also be high enough to stabilize the price of gasoline and the market for the cars that GM is being REQUIRED to shift to.

I am not for taxes but I understand this line of thinking.

Bob Lutz of GM said ....

"At $1.50 a gallon, the American public is not willing to pay for fuel-saving technology. And at a certain point, those who make the rules are going to have to recognize that fact."


In 2007 he said...

....said legislating strict fuel economy targets, as the US government has done, in order to turn buyers away from thirsty vehicles, was like “trying to solve the obesity epidemic by only making small clothes”.


He is right about these statements. While gasoline is cheap Americans want bigger vehicles. Once it hits about $3.75/gal. they want more fuel efficiency, and right now gas is cheap.


Steve

Good Post Steve, going by your location you probably know alot more than us on this subject.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

Cooking oil - In our winter climate times this stuff would solidifiy. Not good on a big enough scale to make this affordable.

Hydrogen - There is still no infrastructure.

Mini-nuke reactors - Enriched uranium not available at drug stores yet. (Back To The Future reference)


Sometimes people don't think about the logistics of certain technologies.

What GM is speaking in reference to is the Government's requirement that GM concentrate their efforts on hybrid/alternative fuel and smaller, high fuel mileage cars that the Government believes more people want, but the market demonstrates the opposite now while fuel prices are low. Sales of larger vehicles are recovering, as a percentage of the vehicles that are being sold, since fuel prices have come down, and sales of smaller cars have dropped in relation.

If GM is required to concentrate on high fuel mileage, small cars there needs to be a real market for them. This only happens when fuel prices are high.

GM has at least 6 vehicles that get 30 mpg or more, so it cannot be said that they ONLY have gas guzzlers.

Also, Toyota came out with the Tundra (15/19 mpg), the Landcruiser (13/18 mpg), FJ Cruiser (16/20 mpg), and Sequioa (14/17 mpg) yet no one gets on them about making gas guzzlers. WHY IS THAT???? Hypocrisy, that's why.



What GM is saying is that if they are going to be required to build the types of cars that ARE NOT SELLING right now then those that are making this requirement (Federal Government) must make the market for those cars by increasing gasoline costs, most likely through a tax. The idea is that if a tax is imposed that is high enough to cause people to buy mostly fuel efficient cars then it would also be high enough to stabilize the price of gasoline and the market for the cars that GM is being REQUIRED to shift to.

I am not for taxes but I understand this line of thinking.

Bob Lutz of GM said ....

"At $1.50 a gallon, the American public is not willing to pay for fuel-saving technology. And at a certain point, those who make the rules are going to have to recognize that fact."


In 2007 he said...

....said legislating strict fuel economy targets, as the US government has done, in order to turn buyers away from thirsty vehicles, was like “trying to solve the obesity epidemic by only making small clothes”.


He is right about these statements. While gasoline is cheap Americans want bigger vehicles. Once it hits about $3.75/gal. they want more fuel efficiency, and right now gas is cheap.


Steve

i was using those as examples of what they have known about for more then 30+ years. you say there is no infastructure, but thats their fault for not investing in it when they had the chance

petrol is just refined oil
oil is just dead organic matter that has been compressed under heat to put it simply
oil can be made out of any dead organic matter. grass clippings, dead animals etc
why should the taxpayer subsidise more bailouts?

its up to the private sector who own these companies to make sure they balance budgets and look for new resources as they are the ones making most of the profits

that includes petrol companies and car companies

[Lightning Strike GT]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

He is right about these statements. While gasoline is cheap Americans want bigger vehicles. Once it hits about $3.75/gal. they want more fuel efficiency, and right now gas is cheap.
Steve

It is still cheaper than here in Aust
4 litres to a gallon and at our going rate at the moment for standard unleaded at about $1 a litre = $4 a gallon less for the E10 and a lot more for the 95 / 98 oct fuel so in the US at $1.50 a gallon that is about $.38 cpl but I have not taken into account the current exchange rateof 1 AUD = .62 USD

[LTDterri]

Lots of complaints about their 99c per litre campaign...I'd be dirty if this had influenced me into a Crapadore

[Bossxr8]

GM have basically staked a massive amount into the Chevrolet Volt. If it flops they are in even deeper do do. Low oil prices will gaurantee its failure. They are worried.

But in saying that the US Government should do something to help hybrid sales if they want them so badly. Reduce sales tax on them as an incentive to buy, but taxing petrol so everyone suffers is just STUPID. In the end it would hurt GM even more cause buyers would stop purchasing GM's SUV's and pick ups, and probably buy Priuses instead.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

GM have basically staked a massive amount into the Chevrolet Volt. If it flops they are in even deeper do do. Low oil prices will gaurantee its failure. They are worried.

But in saying that the US Government should do something to help hybrid sales if they want them so badly. Reduce sales tax on them as an incentive to buy, but taxing petrol so everyone suffers is just STUPID. In the end it would hurt GM even more cause buyers would stop purchasing GM's SUV's and pick ups, and probably buy Priuses instead.

My point exactly in my first post (#8), there must be some desperation here in his comments. Who's going to buy a Volt/Watt/Ampre or whatever when fuels 40c US per L.