GM fights Energy Department funding for Aptera?
No funding for innovation and out-of-the-box thinkingSo, the government has pumped tens of billions into GM. Likewise, GM has requested at least an additional $10 billion in loans from the Energy Department.
However, GM has been opposing new legislation moving through Congress that would make companies like Aptera eligible for Federal loans because they aren't big enough according to AutoWeek.
So, it's alright for the government to give GM tens of billions of dollars - much of which will never be paid back according to experts - for failing as an innovative automaker, but providing $75 million to an innovative start-up is wrong?
Maybe if GM focused more on innovation rather than lobbying Congress, they could have pulled a Ford and stood strong during this recession.
Labels: aptera electric vehicle, Congress, GM
posted by Dahcredyns at
10:40 AM
23 Comments:
That's why I'll never support GM by buying their products. I believe in the US auto industry, that's why my next car will be from Fisker, Telsa or Ford, but never GM.
I would still buy a GM product. All of the GM products I have ever driven were really very nice vehicles.
Still, they don't have anything I want to buy. The Volt will be the first one, but it only makes sense with the tax credit. And even then, it's more about ego and vanity than cost-effective reality.
Nonetheless, one of these days GM is going to prove me wrong, and I'll be the first one there buying, at least I'll keep hoping that.
Until then, I'm going to be very critical, and this Aptera stuff really gets on my nerves.
GM for years have ran a inefficient company. I believe in good pay, but the Union pushed it too far. They have slacked off for many years on developing a car that got better mileage. Cars like Aptera are the future. Get with the program GM. Lets see, you took how many dollars from the American people, then when that wasn't enough, you filed bankruptcy to shed debt and to get more. The whole idea of the bailout was to save American jobs!!! Look at all of the GM plants that closed and put people out of work. Get a life GM!! The only reason you don't want the government to help other companies is because it is a direct threat to your company because they are putting more innovative cars out than you are. I don't think that any car manufacturer should of gotten a bailout in the first place. If people want your cars, they will buy them. If they don't, then I think we all know what happens. With that said, if a company wants money to borrow to develop cars with higher MPG, I say go for it. The money that went to GM isn't going to do anything except to go toward big Bonuses. So go blow yourself GM!!!
I've never been a big fan of GM.
In the 1970's they lost all of their quality and style, and they never really got it back.
This has been the culture at GM for nearly 40 years now.
Today's executives have 30-40 years of experience at seeing how to produce poorly made vehicles that lack style.
We need some new blood at GM, probably from outside the company, who can bring in a new culture, and get them out of this pattern of failure.
This tactic should not surprise us as it has been GM's modus operandi for over 40 years. God and GM forbid that people use mass transit or drive alternate energy vehicles. Ultimately, GM is against choice for the consumer.
There is such a ground swell for producing alternate energy vehicles that if we are patient, none of us need ever buy GM again.
I happen to like the Aptera - oh sure it's not perfect but I would like to have one anyway. I looked at this story from two different perspectives.
1. The law is the law and they should get nothing [$], or;
2. You are just trying to protect the good-old-boy-club [GM].
So how do you feel? Should we encourage creativity or follow the law?
OR should we have a #3. which bends the truth. We could put two smaller tires in the same space as the one big tire so we can get the funding?
Tom G
Tom-
Well, the laws for Energy Department funding were created by Congress, and as Congress has done many times, Congress has the power to amend those laws, especially as the times change.
And, I'd say, the times are a changing, and people are ready for alternatives to the good old boys way of doing things.
Likewise, as Enigmatic notes, there is a "ground swell" of interest growing in alternative vehicles.
However, simply replacing the engine of current vehicles with batteries might not be enough to convert this 'ground swell' of interest into consumer-purchasing reality because of costs.
Ultimately, just changing powertrains might not be enough, we might have to rethink the box we put that powertrain into.
Along those lines, companies like Aptera are pushing the envelope of automotive design, and I believe that's a very good thing.
Dahcredyns said... in part:
'Ultimately, just changing powertrains might not be enough, we might have to rethink the box we put that powertrain into.'
Tom Responds:
I couldn't agree more. The reason I like the Aptera is it's aerodynamic styling. Would I drive it from Arizona to California at Interstate or Freeway speeds with 18 wheelers and SUV's? Not to sure about that aspect of it until I see more crash test data. However, I do know that composite construction is very strong.
I do however have some hope for our society. We are finally starting to pay attention to how much energy it takes to push a vehicle through the air. Some vehicle manufacturers are even starting to streamline their undercarriages to reduce wind resistance but we have a long way to go.
Maybe it's just me but I am really getting tired of the same old boxes every year. It seem like all we ever do is change the grill, the headlights and tail lights and call that a new vehicle. To me that is still just a box.
Tom G.
i couldn't agree more tom.
not to sound to repetitive, but i couldn't help it.
still, and i know aptera is considering it, but i'd like to see the design converted to a 3-seater, or at least offer that as an option.
for a pure commuting vehicle, 1 seat is probably enough. however, if you have a family and you might have to pick up the kids, 3 seats would provide the necessary capacity for a commuter to pick up the average 1.5 kids in an emergency when the family vehicle was tied up.
geeze guys.. hasn't the hit on GM been that they paid more attention to style than functionality and reliability and that's how the foreign econo-boxes had them for lunch?
Unlike Dahc - I found few GM cars that scored high on quality and reliability in the Consumer Reports or J.D. Power - over the longer term.
Many GM products would score well on initial quality on the JDP survey's but over a few years most models would do much worse that their competitors.
I know that's why I chose Toyota - not for it's style - but for it's reputation for quality and reliability.
and to be perfectly honest. - style is a turn off for me it it is done INSTEAD of quality and reliability - which - has been the complaint about American cars - the thing that lost them sales and let the foreign cars outsell them?
no?
larry,
i'm only talking about the GM vehicles that GM has invited me to drive, such as the Malibu and Tahoe hybrids.
the tahoe and escalade hybrids are simply fantastic. however, does their utility really make any sense for most Americans? likewise, who cares anyway, their cost-effectiveness for most americans is ridiculous.
besides, my impressions would only qualify as "initial quality". i'm not standing up for their long term reliability and quality, just my impressions after a few test drives and rides.
nevertheless, as you point out, there is still a legacy issue with GM regarding quality. decades of such gimmicks, as you suggest, coupled with a lack of quality hurts GM today, whether true or not.
moreover, it will probably hurt GM for many years more, even if untrue.
thus, i would say gm should just shut up. lead by example, with products AND sales, not just talk and hype.
unfortunately, gm's products and future products lack the innovation to make such a statement any time soon, including the Chevy Volt, at least in terms of the 'sales' criterium.
so, do they have a choice other than lobbying and marketing hype?
Larry G said..in part:
'geeze guys.. hasn't the hit on GM been that they paid more attention to style than functionality and reliability...'.
Larry G has of course hit on one of the reasons. Here might be some other considerations.
In the 80's, 90's and early 2000's almost all American cars were considered junk by many buyers. Of course that may not have actually been true but that seemed to be the prevailing belief by many buyers.
But let's fast forward to today. If I look at GM today they seem to be making some pretty good automobiles. What do I base my opinion on? Well I just recently rented one and it was rattle free, comfortable and the 4 cylinder engine had surprisingly good performance. Now is that enough to make me run out and buy one - don't think so.
As a Quality Engineer by profession, the failure of a product to meet it's long term quality objectives can be caused by many different failure modes. However, if you know anything at all about Quality Engineers we seldom if ever guess about anything LOL. But in this one instance I will make an exception just for all my friends on this blog.
The primary failure mode of GM to become a world class car company is their corporate culture. Will GM change? I sure hope so because WE have a whole bunch of OUR money riding on it.
Tom G.
yet, according to most observers, gm's corporate structure has changed very little, even since bankruptcy.
that's a little scary.
moreover, even if GM's current vehicle quality is on par with the best, is their innovation?
and, hasn't that always been the problem with their corporate culture, an inability to see intelligently into the future?
isn't that still lacking?
Dahcredyns said..in part. "and, hasn't that always been the problem with their corporate culture, an inability to see intelligently into the future?
isn't that still lacking?"
and Tom responds with a big YES.
And that is just one additional reason for me to like the Aptera. It's new thinking, fresh ideas, new technology and cool looking; I guess that's 4 things isn't it LOL.
Do I think the Aptera is the total answer - of course not. But it sure beats the heck out of whatever is currently in second place.
For my darling wife to go to the grocery store it's perfect. For us to go see a movie or go out to dinner it would be fine. For us to go to Vegas it could be a fun trip. For us to take the two grand kids to Disneyland - not so much LOL. So for me it would be an 80% car. Works for about 80% of what I need a vehicle to do. Now if it was priced at 80% of the value of a standard vehicle I would buy one in a heart beat.
Tom G.
"Now if it was priced at 80% of the value of a standard vehicle I would buy one in a heart beat."
And, the more we think outside of the box, the better are our chances for such economics, Tom!
I'd just like to point out that the article you linked to said, "General Motors Co. has been critical of the bill." Doesn't say why. I looked and looked for the fighting and did not find it. It also said a GM spokesman declined to comment. I personally would not want to make a lot of assumptions based on just that.
nenslo said..in part. I'd just like to point out that the article you linked to said, "General Motors Co. has been critical of the bill." Doesn't say why.
Tom G. responds.
I copied the following from the linked Auto Week article. Does this help explain things?
"The legislation would overturn department rules that limit funding to any four-wheeled vehicle that meets certain emissions and fuel economy requirements.
The measure would expand eligibility for the loan program to fully enclosed vehicles that are designed to carry at least two adults and that average at least 75 mpg."
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091002/CARNEWS/910029993#ixzz0T7LlujY1
nenslo-
ever heard of Debbie Dingell, GM lobbyist for decades and - coincidentally - wife of Congressman John Dingell, for instance?
every month GM spends a few million keeping a stable of Congressional lobbyists.
So, GM has made it known to AutoWeek that it doesn't agree with this potential legislation - legislation that could affect their $10 billion in loan requests - but GM's Washington lobbyists aren't lobbying Congress in any way?
what are they getting paid for then?
GM's future is significantly hinged to this money, yet you think these lobbyists are just quietly watching these proceedings despite GM's beliefs and self-interests?
One thing American car companies lack, in my opinion, is variety of vehicle across the full spectrum.
They offer maany many models of large vehicles with lots of style and cargo space, but they do not offer any small economical commuter vehicles.
Some of the blame is on the consumer, but much of it is on the manufacturers because they simply do not make such a vehicle.
How would we know if a US made commmuter vehicle would become popular if no one makes it?
I personally, have always liked the idea of a commmuter vehicle. I know I'm not alone......
following along your statement, smurf, i would add quality across the whole spectrum of vehicle segments.
gm has put some effort into smaller vehicles over the years, but the vehicles always fell far short of the Japanese.
interestingly, while the big 3 are making some strides in the small car segment - as close to commuter vehicles as we'll get from the big 3 anytime soon - Honda and Toyota, even Hyundai, seem to be significantly ramping up their small hybrid efforts, in addition to novel approaches to micro-cars.
it just seems so hard for the big 3 to think outside of the box when it comes to the american market, and outside of anything that doesn't automatically include nice profit margins.
Controversial indeed
***FLASH NEWS****
GM has just made the move to cancel health care benefits for all retired employees that have Medicare.
My Aunt received her letter in the mail yesterday....
Post a Comment
<< Home