GM

[Bill M.]

Re: GM

Gas is on its way up. Our Comander In Chief has said that we must keep gas at 4 to 5 $ a gallon with tax increases this way the money is not going to the evil oil company's and encourage us into fuel efficient viehicles ( like the 22 person bicycles that you see in Vietnam even a spot for your goat). The electricity that will power all of our new cars just comes out of the wall like magic.

[Chuck S.]

Re: GM

What the hell is everbody worrying about? the majority voted for change and the change is here, there, everywhere even our pockets. Our President wants no American (illegal or otherwise) driving a typical american car. Don't be surprised if we finance a plant in Kenya!! 01-19-13 if there is anything left of us.

I didn't like "change" when it came the first time (Remember, "Time for a change" was also Clinton's mantra.) This time, after voting my conscience, I'm pretty much ignoring whatever happens...that prayer that you see framed for display pretty much sums up my attitude:

"Lord, give me patience to deal with the things I can't change,
The courage to change the things I can change,
And, the wisdom to know the difference".

[Martin N.]

Re: GM

I didn't like "change" when it came the first time (Remember, "Time for a change" was also Clinton's mantra.) This time, after voting my conscience, I'm pretty much ignoring whatever happens...that prayer that you see framed for display pretty much sums up my attitude:

"Lord, give me patience to deal with the things I can't change,
The courage to change the things I can change,
And, the wisdom to know the difference".

AMEN Chuck, AMEN!

Marty

[Duke W.]

Re: GM

GM has no one to blame but itself for these costs as they caved into the UAW contract after contract.
Stu Fox

I disagree. For the last 50 or more years the UAW has "targeted" one of the big three to strike (usually every three years) if they could not get their way, and a number of strikes happened over the years.

After 60 days dealers run out of cars, and they have to lay off staff. The longer the strike the more customers defect to other brands, and they may not come back.

The only way to "break" the UAW would have been for one of the big three to never settle and basically go out of business, but management has a fiduciary responsibly to shareholders, and they can't sacrifice the company.

The basic problem is that policy in this country allows monopoly labor to form and put a stranglehold on business. A monopoly on any other commodity or service is illegal under various laws passed since the early twentieth century and would not be tolerated - both under the law and in public opinion. It's death by a thousand cuts - like a parasite that eventually kills its host.

IMO the current negotiations are all about saving the UAW, and it's not clear to me if the "new GM" labor costs will be competitive with the overseas transplants.

The current Corvette will likely stay in production for a few more years - as long as volume is sufficient for it to be profitable. The government will have to provide most of the capital for GM to redesign and tool its product line to meet the new 2016 fuel economy/emission standards, and I don't think that will include a new low volume two-seater, so I don't see a C7 on the horizon.

At best the current model will be produced through 2015, then the Corvette will disappear.

Duke

[Ridge K.]

Re: GM

Gas is on its way up. Our Comander In Chief has said that we must keep gas at 4 to 5 $ a gallon with tax increases this way the money is not going to the evil oil company's and encourage us into fuel efficient viehicles ( like the 22 person bicycles that you see in Vietnam even a spot for your goat). The electricity that will power all of our new cars just comes out of the wall like magic.

The new family car?

[Edward C.]

Re: GM

How long do you think it will take the UAW to escalate the costs on the New GM and Chrysler and of course Ford to price themselves out of the business again? They have the new owners of GM and Chrysler the UAW and the White House on there side now so it should not take more than five years. Both companies should have filed for chapter 11 without government involvement and really changed things. From what I understand GM cannot make any new models outside North America. Why would anyone want to buy a bond in any American Company when the government can change the rules in the middle of the game and the bond holder is screwed like in both GM and Chrysler socalled bankruptcies. Ed

[Stuart F.]

Re: GM

My understanding is the UAW only wants to parlay their shares into funding for their Healthcare, etc., and not to have much to do with operating the company. Don't know the details yet as to whether they will sit on the board, but you can bet they have promises from the Government that they will be able to get back everything they gave up.

Duke; I guess you're right. GM was between a rock and a hard place. Such a situation should have never been allowed to materialize;, giving the UAW so much power. They were one of the main reasons we couldn't compete with GE in the Locomotive market. GE's union labor costs (electrical workers) were significantly less than ours. Then too, we made "Cadillac's" and they made "Chevy's" for many years. They always had a big price advantage over us and when push came to shove in the 80's on large orders, our quality advantage and delivery schedules could not compete with their pricing.

Stu Fox

[Mark K.]

Re: GM

At best the current model will be produced through 2015, then the Corvette will disappear.

Duke

This is the part I disagree with on a few counts:

1. There is a GM team looking into a new Corvette that will get high fuel economy (they're looking at 34mpg for the advanced prototypes they are working on).
2. Since Americans will ALWAYS be facinated by speed, the Corvette will always be a combination technological tour deforce (not that it has always been) and a way to showcase how even bland (if that's what the technology turns into) technologies can be made to be more fun.
3. GM is little likely to turn its back on a profitable and image generating car. If anything, the Corvette has always been a statement of what the company COULD do if it only applied the same energy across the full line-up.

Unless America fundamentally changes in the next few years (and I mean REALLY changes), we'll continue to see Corvettes. As for the current generation, it could very well last as long as the C3s - 15 years or longer. The car is not exactly long in the tooth.

[Dick W.]

Re: GM

My understanding is the UAW only wants to parlay their shares into funding for their Healthcare, etc., and not to have much to do with operating the company. Don't know the details yet as to whether they will sit on the board, but you can bet they have promises from the Government that they will be able to get back everything they gave up.

Duke; I guess you're right. GM was between a rock and a hard place. Such a situation should have never been allowed to materialize;, giving the UAW so much power. They were one of the main reasons we couldn't compete with GE in the Locomotive market. GE's union labor costs (electrical workers) were significantly less than ours. Then too, we made "Cadillac's" and they made "Chevy's" for many years. They always had a big price advantage over us and when push came to shove in the 80's on large orders, our quality advantage and delivery schedules could not compete with their pricing.

Stu Fox

And then there was the AC vs DC issue

[Stuart F.]

Re: GM

Yes Dick;

If you are talking about the AC technology developed by the two manufacturers, I believe we had the better equipment. We were first to demonstrate to BN out at the Test Track in Pueblo, Colorado. We put on one hell of a show on draw bar pull. I was there to document an AC truck removal/teardown/rebuild and re-trucking on an SD60MAC test locomotive. My most memorable experience was when the unit ran over a bull snake that had just swallowed it's fill of rodents. It stunk so bad we had to stop the demo and bury it. When we ran up the road that parrallels the test track to position for photos, we darn near hit a white tail deer that raced us, then cut right across our nose. We were fearless in our Chevy suburban company vehicle.

[Duke W.]

Re: GM

GE got into the locomotive market in the mid-sixties as an OEM (Prior to that they supplied electrical equipment to other builders.), and seriously went after GM, which had about 80 percent of the market at that time. Those early U-boats were relative junk and are long gone while many GP9s are still working, but GE didn't give up.

When GM began having trouble in the mid-seventie they started offloading non-automotive businesses like Terex, and over the next 20 years let EMD languish. Meanwhile GE was putting resources into the locomotive business and eventually came up with better products and started taking market share, but GM never responded. Their "solution" was to put EMD on the block, but it took over ten years to get a buyer.

AC traction motor locomotives are a small part of the market because they are more expensive than DC, and the AC advantage is only evident below about 15 MPH, so they are pretty much limited to 15,000 ton coal drags at places like the Powder River basin in Wyoming.

GE uses one inverter/traction controller per axle versus EMD's one per truck, and it seems to me that the GE design will deliver more continuous tractive effort at low speed on less than perfect rail, which is usually the case.

Regarding the C7, unless GM is willing to build a small V8 engine - something in the range of 3-5 liters - for the next generation of smaller more fuel efficient light trucks, the C7 will probably be closer kin to the Solstace with a four or six-cylinder engine than the current Corvette.

Without a V8 engine, they ought to just retire the name and call it something else.

There will be V8-powered vintage Corvettes around for decades to come.

Duke

[Michael A.]

Re: GM

The firm that bought EMD from GM is a private equity firm as I recall. My guess is that, if they survive, they are being "tidied" up for resale. There is a lot to tidy up, from union issues to environmental.

What I can't fully understand is how they will make future emissions regs using the 710 engine. The two cycle, 1930's vintage technology is amazing to behold but is going to be hard to make Tier 3 and Tier 4 regs. They have a modern 4 cycle that has been developed (the H series) and in operation for at least 10 years but I don't believe they've really made an effort to push it into their mainstream locomotive business.

EMD is an interesting case study. My guess is GE wants them to stick around to keep the antitrust folks off of their back. In the mean time they keep pluggins along.

[Clem Z.]

Re: GM

GE got into the locomotive market in the mid-sixties as an OEM (Prior to that they supplied electrical equipment to other builders.), and seriously went after GM, which had about 80 percent of the market at that time. Those early U-boats were relative junk and are long gone while many GP9s are still working, but GE didn't give up.

When GM began having trouble in the mid-seventie they started offloading non-automotive businesses like Terex, and over the next 20 years let EMD languish. Meanwhile GE was putting resources into the locomotive business and eventually came up with better products and started taking market share, but GM never responded. Their "solution" was to put EMD on the block, but it took over ten years to get a buyer.

AC traction motor locomotives are a small part of the market because they are more expensive than DC, and the AC advantage is only evident below about 15 MPH, so they are pretty much limited to 15,000 ton coal drags at places like the Powder River basin in Wyoming.

GE uses one inverter/traction controller per axle versus EMD's one per truck, and it seems to me that the GE design will deliver more continuous tractive effort at low speed on less than perfect rail, which is usually the case.

Regarding the C7, unless GM is willing to build a small V8 engine - something in the range of 3-5 liters - for the next generation of smaller more fuel efficient light trucks, the C7 will probably be closer kin to the Solstace with a four or six-cylinder engine than the current Corvette.

Without a V8 engine, they ought to just retire the name and call it something else.

There will be V8-powered vintage Corvettes around for decades to come.

Duke

GM like to be different like with the 2 stroke diesel truck engines.

[Stuart F.]

Re: GM

Both Michael and Duke pretty well tell EMD's story. I have tried to forget as much of it as possible, but you are bringing me back a little. I worked extensively on the "H" engine the last couple years there; writing the service manual and maintenance instructions. Not a day went by that I wasn't out in the shop to view different stages of assembly. It was a design that didn't lend itself well to assembly line processes, rather was built something like the new Corvette C-7 engine - a dedicated team/crew on each individual engine. Therein may lie the problem unless they have resolved these issues since I left. I know they thought it crucial to bring the 12 cylinder version to market to address emissions concerns (specially in California).

One reason I have lost touch there is so many of the engineers have been let go by the new owners. I can't imagine how they are able to operate without these key people. The people that they have moved up to replace them are those that I thought would never amount to much as they were the types that always reinvented the wheel instead of checking the archives. They tend to waste a lot of time solving problems that had already been dealt with years ago (we all know the type). They also look to gain recognition by cost cutting in critical areas such as piston rings (big recent problem).

About GM's attention to EMD in years past, the most recognition we could hope for was 3 paragraphs and a photo in the Annual Report. Actually, we liked to think of it as non-interference. Besides, our main competition with GE was with Jack Welsh. We used to tape his picture to the wall and throw darts at it, Ha! He was a shrewd business man.

Regarding the AC locomotives, on paper it may look like GE's individual Inverters would be better, but EMD chose to go with proven European Technology to be first to the market. I also believe we had the better trucks with the articulated axles which performed better in low drag service on irregular track surfaces and curves. Combined with the flange oiling system, we also had addressed a high cost maintenance concern of the railroads - that of wheel wear. That was then, this is now. I imagine they have fallen significantly behind GE in recent years.

Thanks for the memories guys. Off to California tomorrow for a week with old friends - wonder if I should take my walker.

Stu Fox

[Dick W.]

Re: GM

GM like to be different like with the 2 stroke diesel truck engines.

And those engines went the way of the Pterodactyl.