Locate an Auto Repair Shop in University Place, Washington

University Place, WA Car Consumer Discussions

What’s Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army

by rockylee on Mon Nov 17 20:10:18 PST 2008

AMERICA'S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington's intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative. When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that America's greatest strength wasn't its military, but its economy, he must have had companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy. During the 1950s, advances in aviation, missiles, satellites and electronics made Detroit seem a little old-fashioned in dealing with the threat of the Soviet Union. The Army's requests for new trucks and other basic transportation usually came out a loser in budget battles against missile technology and new modifications for the latest supersonic jet fighter. Not only were airplanes far sexier but they also counted as part of our military "tooth," while much of the land forces' needs were "tail." And in those days, "more teeth, less tail" had become a key concept in military spending. But in 1991, the Persian Gulf war demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armor-protected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers. In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn't have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met. More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles — necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need. Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production — which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications — depends on a vibrant car industry. To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit's goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the country's transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad. This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security. Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles. -Rocky

To be clear

by boaz47 on Mon Nov 17 14:07:36 PST 2008

Shouldn't the worst car be, Ugly, have poor sales, and be rated as unreliable? The Reno fits all three. Right now universally the Element and xB are ugly. But are somewhat dependable. The Prius is very ugly but dependable as well and sells better than average. The only thing rated less dependable than the Suzuki is the Land rover and they are not considered ugly by most. I would also agree the Smart earns a place on the list due to its failure to meet even one of the promises it offered when it was introduced. It cost more than several bigger vehicles in its class. It doesn't get better fuel mileage than some less expensive vehicles in its class. And its cuteness wore off rather quickly. It has been in the red in Europe almost from its first introduction. The Kia Reo isn't a stunner and is down there with VW and Suzuki in dependability. It would seem that the worst cars would have to come from the least dependable vehicles we could buy or if we are voting for ugly the Element, Prius, and xB are in a class all by themselves.

Re: Worst looking... [guss]

by saablcp on Mon Nov 17 11:15:41 PST 2008

Title of the thread was "worst car" not worst looking or ugliest.My opinion is: based on pre-sale hype and how poorly it fit it's perceived niche and almost universally negative reviews from any journalist who drove the car for more than a day;the winner IS "THE DUMB",oops pardon me,I meant to say "THE SMART CAR". Short of being,in fact "short", the car comes up short in every objective category you judge a car on.and "cute" don't count!

OK vs NOT OK?

by dave8697 on Mon Nov 17 10:08:13 PST 2008

liar loans 434k fat cat weekend for golf after bailout received (good use of bailout money) 250 million tax abatement to Honda to put plant in Indiana (We are bailing out Japan) 700B bailout to AIG, Fannie, Freddie retiring after 30 years to immediate pension and medical care universal health care (bail out the non-working) bailout loan to Big3 UAW workers take pay cut to $18 an hour anyone who owes more than their house is worth has debt released down to 90% of value of house, especially if they took out a 2nd mortgage, and especially if they spent the 2nd mortgage on a Lexus SUV. Unrelated: The real world pays about $450 a month to buy my medical, dental, and life insurance from their employer in 2009. A little taste of reality outside the UAW. When Delphi went into bankruptcy, the judge refused to do anything to the UAW. All he said was you 2 work it out. Nothing ever came of it. Where does the UAW get any motivation to make concessions? The average American would rather buy a Japanese car and then pay taxes for unemployment and health care for ex us auto workers and the 1.5x effect beyond the auto industry. US senators have finally came out and actually said that buying an american car makes the buyer look unintelligent. If I were a japanese auto executive, that would be on my 'dream list' of things to happen in america.

Re: has anyone [Mr_Shiftright]

by circlew on Sat Nov 15 19:35:31 PST 2008

Well, I will agree that there could be a finite design universe to some extent even as personal transportation evolves but I don't think we've found an end. I do think technology in the form of materials designed to add performance from nano-tech will stretch that universe. But I do agree I'd rather see a preference change to Working Good from Looking good. Perhaps that's one of the strengths the new paradigm for US Auto needs to pursue because the other global competition are far ahead here. just in build quality alone and mechanical integrity. In terms of status from that perspective, the lines in the sand were drawn years ago. Yes, the Prius and the Bangle designs are tough on the eyes but the hybrids appeal is a new status. But don't you think we have a way to go on the looks side of things? Regards, OW

Re: has anyone [circlew]

by Mr_Shiftright on Sat Nov 15 17:55:39 PST 2008

My point was that retro is the result of the End of Design. That's the Last Stand in a sense. I don't see how a computer is going to fit pieces of plastic and steel and glass together any more imaginatively than before. Remember, this is a finite universe. We are not talking about thoughts or ideas or undiscovered technology, but doors and windows and fenders in 3D space. The combinations are limited. If anything, computers merely accelerated the End of Design. So I'm betting that new technology will have the same appeal that "design" used to have. Instead of "looking good" we will be "working good". Electronics will become a status symbol rather than fashion being status. Don't you think that this, in a sense, explains the success of Toyota Hybrids and BMW 3-Series cars? Toyota's Prius and Mr. Bangle's trunk lids certainly can't be called "pretty".