|
|
Post by arozanski on Oct 27, 2009 9:35:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Oct 27, 2009 13:36:39 GMT -5
This is a remarkable story
|
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Oct 27, 2009 13:39:25 GMT -5
This is a remarkable story In what way? |
|
|
|
Post by scissors on Oct 27, 2009 14:29:30 GMT -5
The reality is that what people say they want and what they actually want are two different things.
They say they want fuel economy.
What they really want is fuel economy, but not at the expense of anything else that they want. They prove this by voting with their dollars and buying up SUVs, Minivans, and Trucks.
|
|
bigbadboom
Full Member
Pay attention to me!!!
Posts: 151
|
Post by bigbadboom on Oct 27, 2009 17:51:01 GMT -5
Well this goes to the evidence of lack of foresight within American businesses. If this report was really done in the 90's the cars developed in that time would be in production and on the road today instead of GM going to the brink of death and having to play catchup with Toyota and Honda.
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Oct 27, 2009 17:58:17 GMT -5
I think that BIG businesses, like the auto industry, in the U.S. are reactive by nature. You don't see a lot of inovation coming out of a U.S. company unless there is a precipitating cause.
This is not all companies, of course, but even Microsoft has fallen prey to the monolith mentality as of late.
Detroit was just the best example of this.
|
|
bigbadboom
Full Member
Pay attention to me!!!
Posts: 151
|
Post by bigbadboom on Oct 27, 2009 18:02:53 GMT -5
Apple stays in front.
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Oct 27, 2009 18:17:26 GMT -5
Apple is a great example of innovation. |
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Oct 28, 2009 5:27:19 GMT -5
The reality is that what people say they want and what they actually want are two different things. They say they want fuel economy. What they really want is fuel economy, but not at the expense of anything else that they want. They prove this by voting with their dollars and buying up SUVs, Minivans, and Trucks. Were they given the option? Did the American automakers produce fuel efficient SUVs, minivans and trucks, only to have consumers pass them by? |
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Oct 28, 2009 8:04:00 GMT -5
This is a remarkable story In what way? Your quote says it all but the story expands it. Some guy didn't buy the research so he just made it up. Then everyone operates as if it is fact. |
|
|
|
Post by scissors on Oct 28, 2009 8:10:24 GMT -5
The reality is that what people say they want and what they actually want are two different things. They say they want fuel economy. What they really want is fuel economy, but not at the expense of anything else that they want. They prove this by voting with their dollars and buying up SUVs, Minivans, and Trucks. Were they given the option? Did the American automakers produce fuel efficient SUVs, minivans and trucks, only to have consumers pass them by? Because of the laws of physics, given equal technology, SUVs, Minivans, and Trucks will never be capable of fuel efficiency equal to that of cars. Therefore, yes, the choice between fuel efficiency and size/space did already exist. Consumers passed by the cars in favor of the SUVs, etc. Now we have hybrid SUVs and the like and people still pass by hybrid cars to purchase them--again choosing size/space over fuel efficiency. |
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Oct 28, 2009 8:55:08 GMT -5
Your quote says it all but the story expands it. Some guy didn't buy the research so he just made it up. Then everyone operates as if it is fact. In that light, yes it is remarkable. |
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Oct 28, 2009 8:57:55 GMT -5
Were they given the option? Did the American automakers produce fuel efficient SUVs, minivans and trucks, only to have consumers pass them by? Because of the laws of physics, given equal technology, SUVs, Minivans, and Trucks will never be capable of fuel efficiency equal to that of cars. Therefore, yes, the choice between fuel efficiency and size/space did already exist. Consumers passed by the cars in favor of the SUVs, etc. Now we have hybrid SUVs and the like and people still pass by hybrid cars to purchase them--again choosing size/space over fuel efficiency. I get that, but if the "SUV" had a more fuel efficient engine as an option, would that option have been purchased more? The consumer would still have the vehicle they wanted, with a more fuel efficient motor. For example, the Ford Explorer was not offered with a four cylinder engine, while the Ranger was. With proper gearing, the four cylinder engine should have returned higher fuel efficiency than the six cylinder. But that option was not offered (unless you went Japanese). |
|
|
|
Post by scissors on Oct 28, 2009 9:05:22 GMT -5
Because of the laws of physics, given equal technology, SUVs, Minivans, and Trucks will never be capable of fuel efficiency equal to that of cars. Therefore, yes, the choice between fuel efficiency and size/space did already exist. Consumers passed by the cars in favor of the SUVs, etc. Now we have hybrid SUVs and the like and people still pass by hybrid cars to purchase them--again choosing size/space over fuel efficiency. I get that, but if the "SUV" had a more fuel efficient engine as an option, would that option have been purchased more? The consumer would still have the vehicle they wanted, with a more fuel efficient motor. For example, the Ford Explorer was not offered with a four cylinder engine, while the Ranger was. With proper gearing, the four cylinder engine should have returned higher fuel efficiency than the six cylinder. But that option was not offered (unless you went Japanese). In that specific case, you have two groups: smart people and emotional people. Smart people generally note that they'll likely never make back in fuel savings what they spent on the hybrid option, so they give it a pass (except in places where there's a side benefit, such as HOV access). Emotional people might spend the extra for it; but they're still voting with their money that they don't truly care about fuel efficiency, because they're still in an SUV/Truck/Minivan. Looking at the engine/transmission combo, there are offerings from other companies so, again, people voted with their money. Those who cared more about fuel efficiency went with manufacturers who did offer a more efficient combination, and those who did not, well, didn't. Smaller, efficient engines were generally not offered here because Americans tend to vote with their money more for power than for efficiency. |
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Oct 28, 2009 9:07:33 GMT -5
In that specific case, you have two groups: smart people and emotional people. Smart people generally note that they'll likely never make back in fuel savings what they spent on the hybrid option, so they give it a pass (except in places where there's a side benefit, such as HOV access). Emotional people might spend the extra for it; but they're still voting with their money that they don't truly care about fuel efficiency, because they're still in an SUV/Truck/Minivan. Looking at the engine/transmission combo, there are offerings from other companies so, again, people voted with their money. Those who cared more about fuel efficiency went with manufacturers who did offer a more efficient combination, and those who did not, well, didn't. Smaller, efficient engines were generally not offered here because Americans tend to vote with their money more for power than for efficiency. In general, then, would you say the guy in the original article did no harm (other than coming off as a tool)? |
|
