[PQ]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that automakers should have invested billions of dollars worth of R&D into fuel economy because ... umm ... why would they be doing it?

Yes. I suppose that exactly what I'm saying. How bout being ahead of the competition? Inovative? Advanced? That's what puts businesses out in front. But instead, they just looked at the next guy and figured status quo was good enough. Complacent. I bet there are plenty inside GM and some other companies who would even agree.

Plus, considering GM was "To Big To Fail" they should have been more mindful of it. If you're gonna end up needing taxpayer dollars, you better be more responsible.

And surely you aren't arguing that gas mileage was never important to buyers. HELL yes it was. And so what were the buyers doing? Buying, and falling in love with, the smaller foreign compacts. The love affair with the Toyotas out there stemmed partialy (edit: actually largely) from this.

I guess they probably could have made the progress curve a bit steeper by investing more into it. But doing that would take away from other things, like quality, performance, safety, and improving in-demand vehicles (like SUV's). They only have so much in the coffers. They invest the R&D money into the areas that appear to have the greatest payout. If the pay out is low, whats the point is putting a ton of effort into it? That holds true in every segment of every market for every product (or service) around the world.

As an analogy ... lets think of Hooters. The customers probably wouldn't mind if the waitresses had a masters degree ... but that sits pretty low on their priority list. They're more concerned about the girls being attractive and personable. If she is smart enough to not screw up the order, they're happy. It wouldn't make sense for Hooters management to sacrifice qualities important to the customer in favour of something they hardly care about. I don't think many would like it if all of a sudden they've got a homely looking girl who is socially awkward serving them, and they'd really be upset if the price of their food has just gone up specifically to pay her salary. They'd walk out and find some other place that gives them what they want.

It's actually a good analogy. My point is it seems like the car companies did just that. Took their employees with masters degrees and had them serving drinks.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Okay, I guess......I can't combat that sort of logic only because it's just too simple of reasoning...that's not how this all works. This is the sort of mindset that keeps the tinfoil flowing in this country, imho...

Does the competition make for an incentive to do better? Sure...but it's not like most of this stuff has just been sitting their collecting dust...

While "staggering technology" may have been available...how much did it cost when it was NEW? How much sense did it make to apply to cars before it was perfected?

Hey, even the tin foil people need job security.

But what I know is the computers in these cars aren't exactly Star Trek quality components. Most still have to pull their fuses after a low oct fill up. And they are still rolling off the assembly line as such.

Push rod V8. Fuel injected. Electronic.

I'm just saying that this could have been done years ago. And if a company really wants to be out in front, then do the R&D and make it happen. But looking to your right and left and just going along par with the other guy is lazy.

I'm not bashing GM here. But ALL of them. And if I'm not mistaken, GM has admitted to some of these mistakes.