GM to make $4000 Car, but you can't have one if you live in the U.S.

[James]

A $4,000 car from GM?

The company sees a market for an ultra-low-cost compact, a segment automakers are focusing on after the plunge in sales in North America and Western Europe.

[Related content: car shopping, GM, cheap cars, manufacturing, automotive]
By The Wall Street Journal

General Motors is targeting the emerging ultra-low-cost car market with plans for a compact for around $4,000, possibly producing it in Asia.
The segment is attracting increasing attention from manufacturers eager to keep sales momentum in developing markets following the sharp slide in car sales in North America and Western Europe.

"When Tata Motors in India came out with their $2,500 Nano vehicle, it put a lot of automakers on the spot," said Nick Reilly, GM's new executive vice president of international operations.

Tata Motors started shipping the much-promoted Nano to domestic customers in July, with a base price of just under $3,000, and executives have talked of selling versions of the car in other emerging markets and in the U.S. and Europe.

"We are not going to make cars that cheap because that is really a specific car for a very specific market that has different emissions standards and specifications than markets like the U.S. and Brazil," Reilly said at a media briefing Friday in Brazil, GM's third-largest market by sales, after China and the United States.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/4000DollarCarFromGM.aspx

[tu_holmes]

You expect otherwise?

You make a 4000 dollar car and every other car manufacturer goes out of business... Yeah... That would be great for the economy.

Not to mention it probably looks like ass.

[24KT]

You expect otherwise?

You make a 4000 dollar car and every other car manufacturer goes out of business... Yeah... That would be great for the economy.

Not to mention it probably looks like ass.

I saw a pic of the India Nano. I thought it looked like a car perfect for Dora the explorer. It looked like a cartoon car

Definately NOT a chick magnet, ...unless you're a paedo. 

[240 is Back]

honestly, why don't we have small, cheap cars here?

Does a person who just lost his house and doesn't have a job really deserve a $25,000 F-150 truck?

Car gets you from point A to point B.  Take away all the ego shit that comes with a nice car, it's just a tool to get around.

[Soul Crusher]

honestly, why don't we have small, cheap cars here?

Does a person who just lost his house and doesn't have a job really deserve a $25,000 F-150 truck?

Car gets you from point A to point B.  Take away all the ego shit that comes with a nice car, it's just a tool to get around.

The cost structure that the UAW imposes will not allow or permit for such a cheap car to be manufactured here. 

[tu_holmes]

honestly, why don't we have small, cheap cars here?

Does a person who just lost his house and doesn't have a job really deserve a $25,000 F-150 truck?

Car gets you from point A to point B.  Take away all the ego shit that comes with a nice car, it's just a tool to get around.

True, but the US was  built around automobile and style counts for a lot.

It always has... It's the culture of America.

[24KT]

The cost structure that the UAW imposes will not allow or permit for such a cheap car to be manufactured here. 

Actually, from what I heard, ...it's not so much the UAW that broke GM, ...it was the rising healthcare costs.
Apparently $1500 from every car, had to go towards employee healthcare costs. That's what broke GM, not the UAW

[240 is Back]

True, but the US was  built around automobile and style counts for a lot.
It always has... It's the culture of America.

See, with the recession, I think that's about to change.

The cost structure that the UAW imposes will not allow or permit for such a cheap car to be manufactured here. 

Unions may not have much of a say in the future.  They crippled the automakers by demanding bloated pension plans and $75 hourly salaries for high school grads to lean on an assembly line all day. 

I'm betting the next generation of "big 3"s find a way to prevent that from happening again.

[tu_holmes]

Actually, from what I heard, ...it's not so much the UAW that broke GM, ...it was the rising healthcare costs.
Apparently $1500 from every car, had to go towards employee healthcare costs. That's what broke GM, not the UAW

I wouldn't doubt that a bit. Healthcare costs are ridiculous.

[Soul Crusher]

Actually, from what I heard, ...it's not so much the UAW that broke GM, ...it was the rising healthcare costs.
Apparently $1500 from every car, had to go towards employee healthcare costs. That's what broke GM, not the UAW

Both did, but you are right about the health costs.  They simply were out of control. 

BTW - I have no propblem paying more for a good product.  Its not the cost so much as the perceived value by the customer for what they are getting.

I have a 2007 Seadoo RXT made by Bombardier.  Of course it wasnt cheap, and of course there were cheaper options, but I wanted quality, regardless of price.

so I did not mind spending more $$$. 

BTW - just for you - these are from this past weekend. 

[Soul Crusher]

Two more. 

[The True Adonis]

Actually, from what I heard, ...it's not so much the UAW that broke GM, ...it was the rising healthcare costs.
Apparently $1500 from every car, had to go towards employee healthcare costs. That's what broke GM, not the UAW

EXACTLY!

When I worked for UnitedHealth Care, I was given all GM and Ford employees and GM was actually paying retirees to NOT take Health Insurance by offering them a lump sum instead.  I would also see their balance sheets and the cost of Healthcare (what we billed them in Health Insurance) was WAY MORE than the entire cost of production of automobiles.

Ford went through the EXACT same problem.

[The True Adonis]

To put it in a bit of perspective.....
Last year
The Medical Cost of PRIVATE Health Insurance to GM was more than the Medicare cost of all of the following states:

Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

If that does not make you angry about the cost of Private Health Insurance, I have no clue what will.

[a_joker10]

Safety and pollution rules are the reasons cars cost so much.

Take out smog and pollution control.
Remove seat belts and air bags.

Bring back leaded gas and cars could be made for under $7,500.

True Adonis.
You know that Viagra was covered under the GM health Plan.
The coverage that GM employees get is remarkable and is matched in Canada.
Some of the stuff is covered under the health act the rest is private.

[GigantorX]

Yeah, it will be built in China by Wuiling Industries and exported to 3rd world and other developing nations. And guess what, it will have safety and emissions standards fit for those 3rd world nations. Add in the cheap "slave" labor over in China and 'presto'! You have a $4,000 car that if it was put on the road in the U.S. as is, it would crumple like an aluminum can the first time it got into an accident with a mid-size sedan.

In the 1st World there are tons of ever changing and ever increasing safety standards. There are tons of ever increasing and ever complex emissions standards. With the addition of the actual "Safety" testing companies like the NHTSA and others who make money off of this stuff, you have a car that  is expensive, heavy, complex and expensive and heavy and complex.

It's funny, because cars have to have so much safety equipment, so much emissions equipment (which kills power and economy) , crumple zones etc....all of this predestines a car to be very heavy, but then the govt. starts yelling at automakers to make for fuel efficient cars and then goes and dumps all of the safety and emissions BS on them.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Definately NOT a chick magnet, ...unless you're a paedo. 

Sorry but that absolutely cracked me up...   

[Hedgehog]

Yeah, it will be built in China by Wuiling Industries and exported to 3rd world and other developing nations. And guess what, it will have safety and emissions standards fit for those 3rd world nations. Add in the cheap "slave" labor over in China and 'presto'! You have a $4,000 car that if it was put on the road in the U.S. as is, it would crumple like an aluminum can the first time it got into an accident with a mid-size sedan.

In the 1st World there are tons of ever changing and ever increasing safety standards. There are tons of ever increasing and ever complex emissions standards. With the addition of the actual "Safety" testing companies like the NHTSA and others who make money off of this stuff, you have a car that  is expensive, heavy, complex and expensive and heavy and complex.

It's funny, because cars have to have so much safety equipment, so much emissions equipment (which kills power and economy) , crumple zones etc....all of this predestines a car to be very heavy, but then the govt. starts yelling at automakers to make for fuel efficient cars and then goes and dumps all of the safety and emissions BS on them.

you think safety standards are a bad thing?

[24KT]

Yeah, it will be built in China by Wuiling Industries and exported to 3rd world and other developing nations. And guess what, it will have safety and emissions standards fit for those 3rd world nations. Add in the cheap "slave" labor over in China and 'presto'! You have a $4,000 car that if it was put on the road in the U.S. as is, it would crumple like an aluminum can the first time it got into an accident with a mid-size sedan.

In the 1st World there are tons of ever changing and ever increasing safety standards. There are tons of ever increasing and ever complex emissions standards. With the addition of the actual "Safety" testing companies like the NHTSA and others who make money off of this stuff, you have a car that  is expensive, heavy, complex and expensive and heavy and complex.

It's funny, because cars have to have so much safety equipment, so much emissions equipment (which kills power and economy) , crumple zones etc....all of this predestines a car to be very heavy, but then the govt. starts yelling at automakers to make for fuel efficient cars and then goes and dumps all of the safety and emissions BS on them.

And a mid sized sedan would crumple like an aluminum can the first time it collided with a tank too. What's your point?

Without commenting on safety standards or equipment, I will say emission equipment does not kill economy. Emissions are nothing more than unburned fuel. If you are reducing emissions, you are getting more fuel economy...PERIOD! assuming we're talking about 4 wheel passenger vehicles. When you get into the class 8 commercial tractor trailor rigs and regen generators, or urea tanks, ...you might definately have a case there. Most often a shut down regen can cost you waaaay more money in down time than you could expect, and with the urea tanks, and additional 0₂ sensors, you're adding alot of weight, that will impact brokerage rates, and will probably chip away further at an operators profit margin.

Everybody is on a kick for personal freedom, ...and I can understand that, ...however, the impact exhaust has on the environment is one that MUST be limited. We ALL breathe the same air. If we can recognize that no smoker has the right to light up a cigarette in an elevator thereby polluting the air that other passengers have to breathe, ...how can we ignore the impact particulate soot has... both on the general public, but also the truck drivers themselves. No one should have to die, or develop life threatening or debilitating diseases, simply to earn a living and put food on the family table.  There's nothing wrong with mandating safety guidelines and protecting the health of both the general public, as well as the employee.

if you can acknowledge that waitors & bartenders shouldn't have to develop lung cancer from 2^nd hand smoke, from breathing it in 8 hrs a day, ...or that miners should not be sent deep into coal mines without ventilation equipment, ...surely you can  should MUST extend these protections to the truck driver? It's a moral obligation. If the technology is there to mitigate harm, ...it MUST be employed. An ounce of prevention is far superior and much more preferable to a pound of cure. And if you don't believe me, ...ask any healthcare insurance provider. They'll tell ya. They prefer healthy policy holders far more than sick ones needing treatment. 

[MRDUMPLING]

Both did, but you are right about the health costs.  They simply were out of control. 

BTW - I have no propblem paying more for a good product.  Its not the cost so much as the perceived value by the customer for what they are getting.

I have a 2007 Seadoo RXT made by Bombardier.  Of course it wasnt cheap, and of course there were cheaper options, but I wanted quality, regardless of price.

so I did not mind spending more $$$. 

BTW - just for you - these are from this past weekend. 

I just flew over New York last week(La Guardia) lady liberty is beautiful from the air.  Beautiful city from the air, I hope to visit one day.  (I was in Boston)

[GigantorX]

you think safety standards are a bad thing?

Totally missing the point of my post.

I was pointing out why cars are so heavy and how it directly contradicts the govt's, cries for better fuel economy. The whole spirit of the thread topic is based on a fallacy. In the U.S. we have the toughest emissions standards and the highest safety standards, It's one of the main reasons the vehicle weight keeps climbing and that we don't see as many diesels as we do in Europe.

[The True Adonis]

Totally missing the point of my post.

I was pointing out why cars are so heavy and how it directly contradicts the govt's, cries for better fuel economy. The whole spirit of the thread topic is based on a fallacy. In the U.S. we have the toughest emissions standards and the highest safety standards, It's one of the main reasons the vehicle weight keeps climbing and that we don't see as many diesels as we do in Europe.

Diesel is the most superior combustion engine to date, especially in terms of longevity/quality.

[Soul Crusher]

Totally missing the point of my post.

I was pointing out why cars are so heavy and how it directly contradicts the govt's, cries for better fuel economy. The whole spirit of the thread topic is based on a fallacy. In the U.S. we have the toughest emissions standards and the highest safety standards, It's one of the main reasons the vehicle weight keeps climbing and that we don't see as many diesels as we do in Europe.

You mean the USA does not resemble Dante's inferno like the libs say it does?

[GigantorX]

And a mid sized sedan would crumple like an aluminum can the first time it collided with a tank too. What's your point?

Without commenting on safety standards or equipment, I will say emission equipment does not kill economy. Emissions are nothing more than unburned fuel. If you are reducing emissions, you are getting more fuel economy...PERIOD! assuming we're talking about 4 wheel passenger vehicles. When you get into the class 8 commercial tractor trailor rigs and regen generators, or urea tanks, ...you might definately have a case there. Most often a shut down regen can cost you waaaay more money in down time than you could expect, and with the urea tanks, and additional 0₂ sensors, you're adding alot of weight, that will impact brokerage rates, and will probably chip away further at an operators profit margin.

Everybody is on a kick for personal freedom, ...and I can understand that, ...however, the impact exhaust has on the environment is one that MUST be limited. We ALL breathe the same air. If we can recognize that no smoker has the right to light up a cigarette in an elevator thereby polluting the air that other passengers have to breathe, ...how can we ignore the impact particulate soot has... both on the general public, but also the truck drivers themselves. No one should have to die, or develop life threatening or debilitating diseases, simply to earn a living and put food on the family table.  There's nothing wrong with mandating safety guidelines and protecting the health of both the general public, as well as the employee.

if you can acknowledge that waitors & bartenders shouldn't have to develop lung cancer from 2^nd hand smoke, from breathing it in 8 hrs a day, ...or that miners should not be sent deep into coal mines without ventilation equipment, ...surely you can  should MUST extend these protections to the truck driver? It's a moral obligation. If the technology is there to mitigate harm, ...it MUST be employed. An ounce of prevention is far superior and much more preferable to a pound of cure. And if you don't believe me, ...ask any healthcare insurance provider. They'll tell ya. They prefer healthy policy holders far more than sick ones needing treatment. 

Huh? Nice rant, but again, you are missing the point of my post. Not that it shocks me at all.

[GigantorX]

Diesel is the most superior combustion engine to date, especially in terms of longevity/quality.

Totally agree. They are also the best option for increasing F.E. across a broad range of vehicles for a decent price. GM makes great diesels in Europe, so does Ford and so does Honda. But the propaganda we get in the U.S. is hugely pro-Hybrid and people still think that diesels  are pouring out black soot into the air and sound like tractor engines, it isn't true anymore and hasn't been for some time.

But for VW or GM or whoever to bring over a Euro-diesel and bring it up to U.S. standards requires changes that cost money and decrease F.E.