buyacargetacheck

No doubt there are guesses involved. But there are also guesses used to support the official line. That's why OPEC hasn't changed its reserve figures since at least 1986 when it was agreed that the individual OPEC nations would export the same percentage of total production as each had in total reserves. In other words, "reserves" suddenly spiked so members could export more. As far as Exxon is concerned, the big global oil companies' reserves are falling big time. That's because the reserves lie mostly in countries where peak production has already occurred (e.g., lower 48 USA in 1971). Their own reserves are shrinking and they are becoming more and more buyers of OPEC crude and finished products. Exxon (and the rest) don't set the price of either oil or gasoline; the global market does. The huge consolidation in companies over the last 20 years (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Gulf-Texaco-Unocal, Conoco-Phillips, BP-Amoco-Arco, Total-Elf-Fina) has been an effort to keep reserves up and costs down. But the politicians will milk this for all it's worth. The science behind peak oil is real. The proof is in the fact that the formulas are reproduceable and the peak curves are easily observable in countries where its already happened (USA and North Sea to name two). Iran is but a political symptom of a bigger depletion problem. Remember, crude was around $25/barrel in 2000, way before there was any talk of invading Iraq or stopping a nuclear Iran. You ain't seen nothing yet.

By the way, the whole "liberal" versus "conservative" thing is a distraction. It's not real.

Here's what Dick Cheney (talk about a liberal:) said in a speech while he was still CEO of Halliburton http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf: By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day. GW Bush advisor Matthew Simmons agrees and has further stated that he believes Saudi Arabia's reserves are much lower than publicly stated. Peak is real. Ford seems to understand this as Mark Fields has made some public reference to it. Surely someone at GM understands as well, but this understanding isn't reflected in their product strategy.

As I write this light sweet crude oil has topped $75 a barrel. Hear me out. As I've said before Global Peak Oil Production is going to hit the industrialized world like a ton of bricks in the face. It's already begun. The smallest rumors in petroleum or gasoline disruption magnify themselves many times in price increases. Gasoline will be over $5 a gallon nationwide soon. Meanwhile, GM is making investments in large SUVs, crossovers, V-8 powered RWD sedans and mending its "performance" and "luxury" nameplates because that's where the profit is. For now. Soon, these vehicles will be languishing on the lots with HEAVY incentives despite their goodness. GM would do well to think ahead a few more years and start positioning Pontiac as another value brand much as it was (and actually has been) for many years. Same with Saturn. Dealers will soon be screaming for 4 door and wagon versions of a "Pontiac" Cobalt and/or Aveo. A G5 sporty coupe is not enough. GM should also think about installing a 1.8 L or smaller engine in the Deltas. Folks, performance is dead. Long live performance.

Global Peak Oil production will make $5-6/gallon gasoline a reality by the end of the decade, just as GM is bringing out its V-8 Zetas. Believe me, we'll all be driving little hybrids soon (or we'll want to be driving one). Meanwhile, the economy will suck, we'll be bogged down in more wars, and chances are our government will stage another 9/11 to keep us all in line. Get ready to give up your Camaros for good.

I like the Autoextremist, but I'm getting a little tired of his moodiness. When he was working for Chrysler it seemed his tone on Chrysler issues went down a notch. Then, when the Chrysler gig ended it seemed like he ranted like mad about Chrysler and its people. Now, according to him nearly everything about GM is gold despite his years of complaining about GM. And sure, Volkswagen makes some below average quality vehicles. But is he so blind as to not see that any name besides "Golf," combined with lower pricing and (hopefully) better quality will do nothing but raise sales for the 5-door version of the Jetta? It's all about cutting through the marketing clutter (as he's written on several occasions), and "Rabbit" does that very well. You could argue that the move is not unlike when Chevy brought back the "Malibu" name on a brand new platform long after buyers stopped caring about "Corsica." Me thinks he had a bad experience with a Rabbit in his younger days.

GOOD MOVE VW!!! Golf, in the US and Canada, is a terrible name for a compact car. Do people who drive a golf golf? Get real. Rabbit, on the other hand, is an awesome name especially for those of us who remember the original groundbreaking car. Were it not for VW's sullied reputation for quality-challenged cars this would have been a monumentally hot move. Now, it'll merely keep this new car in the game. Glad they did it and did it right by bringing back the logo too. Nice.

The article isn't clear as to whether Wang Dazong's responsibilities at GM were global or related only to the Chinese market. In any case, the Chinese will pilfer talent like the Japanese did many years ago in the US (who do you think built the US Sales Ops for the Japanese? Hint - former GM, Ford and Chrysler execs). Only this time, the rising star (China) has lots of money while the former heavyweight (GM) has lots of assets on the block for sale (not just talent).

As I've said many times before, I see GM selling parts of itself off to the Chinese eventually. Maybe it's brand names, personnel, factories, tooling, or some combination of some or all. But this is the next step as sure as it was for MG Rover. If Saturn's new Opel strategy fails and GM is still running red, a buyer like SAIC would have a pretty nice dealer network already in place. The same could be said for Saab or Hummer or Buick or Pontiac. The Chinese are now the world's largest foreign holders of dollars. Something must be done with these dollars, and the Chinese want to become respected auto players on the world market. 2 + 2 equals 4. Don't think breaking GM up into smaller pieces can't be done. It can and at rock bottom prices. http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/05/saic-wago...artner=yahootix

It's clear that our political leaders are CLUELESS when they propose these types of "solutions" that put the onus on the manufacturer while ignoring how our free market system works. People have in the past, do so now, and will always vote with their pocketbooks. GM making fuel efficient vehicles in lieu of Tahoes won't make anyone want to buy them. Further, the proposal (if serious) is simply flawed if the end-result is to keep GM moving while decreasing our reliance on foreign oil. Even if everyone in America drove a Prius, our reliance on foreign oil wouldn't change a bit because of the worldwide effects of Hubbert's Peak. And because of Jevon's Paradox (which states "as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease" -ref Wikipedia) our resource consuption of crude would likely increase faster than if we were all emptying our personal wallets driving thirsty Escalades. The only thing that's within the power of our leaders (regarding our addiction to oil) that respects the laws of supply and demand is the ability to increase gasoline taxes. Our leaders are weak, but they know consumer consumption is the only thing keeping our economy afloat. Because our know-nothing Congress insists on playing these stupid games we can expect to be unprepared for a number of crises coming our way (GM's problems being one of the smaller ones believe it or not). At that point, we'll all be introduced to an executive dictatorship for the first time, and we'll all demand it (a discussion for another message board). Welcome aboard.

As hard as this would be to imagine, I could see GM being forced to sell "soft assets" like brand names along with entire factories should it be forced into bankruptcy. Who's got lots of US dollars??? The Chinese. Who keeps talking about breaking into the US market??? The Chinese. I could easily see a judge allowing a Chinese buyer (SAIC most likely) to pick up the Saturn, Pontiac and/or Buick brand names along with franchise agreements and selected tooling from any number of plants. The tooling would get shipped back to China and the cars made there. GM might continue to build LaCrosses and Ions for the Chinese while they design their own stuff. This could happen. Remember IBM sold off its PC division to Lenovo of China? In fact, just the other day the Chinese passed the Japanese for the first time as largest holders of US paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/business...ess/29yuan.html Seriously, would you rather buy something called a "Geely" or a "Pontiac?"

What steps would GM management take if all labor and franchise agreements were relaxed under a GM bankruptcy?

Ouch. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/content/1...10883/index.php

Yes, nearly every auto company now uses a form of the Toyota Production Method. However, not every auto company practices kaizen. Part of kaizen is thinking wholistically while eliminating waste. GM, especially at the very top, has a hard time with both. A FIAT debacle or allowing soap salesmen to torch your brands would never happen at Toyota because of the kaizen discipline. The fact that Womack's book (which was "old" news to industry people at the time) was published nearly 15 years ago yet GM's management is still running up down escalators says it all. The part of Toyota's philosophy that GM has adopted apparently is applicable in their minds only to the shop floor. That's really the problem. By the way, I like the new Impala and LaCrosse, but it's somewhat surreal that the pitiful failures of GM-10 are outlined in this 15 year old book.

This is no Buick. It's a very bland design much like the GTO was.

I was actually surprised to see Larry Kudlow and 2 of 3 of his guests proudly say that they drive GM vehicles. The admissions came on his show on CNBC on Tuesday while they were discussing the auto industry. GM stock was a buy according to one of the guests. Wow, that's 3 Eastern banking and finance types all driving GM vehicles (Escalades I bet) all in one setting. Maybe this means that NY money men/women statistically prefer GM. How's that for irony!

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/060329/autos_isuzu_gm.html?.v=1

Nevermind, I remember now. It was called "Moments." http://www.darnellworks.com/rps/cadillac.html

Does anyone have a link to this Cadillac commercial from 2002? It was the one that had a very surreal feel to it that showed some of Cadillac's classics in black and white along with period personalities like Ali. This was all before the Led Zep "Breakthrough" stuff. I think it was actually called "Dreams," but I'm not certain. Probably the best Cadillac commercial in recent years.

I swear that's me in the spot with the kid on the bike:) My dad even had a '79. There was real excitement about those cars.

Mass/NH border huh? I grew up in North Hampton, NH in the '80s. I was probably the only kid before then or since who tooled around town (winters too) in a BRE Mulholland-suspensioned, Minilite-mag'd Datsun 240Z. Those were great days. Rust was a constant battle, but I had help from a good body guy. That straight six was a terrific engine - even better with FI I'm sure.

Here's an old Supra Mk III commercial for all the Toyota haters: http://users3.ev1.net/~hmillerjr/1987_Supra_Commercial.avi

Do yourself a favor and read The Machine That Changed the World by James Womack. He explains why the Toyota System is superior and why every auto company in the world has copied it to one degree or another (including GM). Unfortunately, according to people who should know, GM's internal executive culture is still stuck in another time. GM's product is good and has come a long way. That's not the problem. The problem is GM's inertia, something that Toyota's culture does not permit.

What you don't read the news? A majority stake in GMAC is on the block buddy: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060315/gm_finance_arm.html?.v=6 This is in addition to the KKR commercial mortgage deal and the recent $20B in GMAC consumer loans sold to Scotia Capital (GM initially yields $3B). I hope they are successful and are able to use the cash to strengthen their NA Auto Ops position. However, if the past is indication (cash blown from EDS, Hughes, Delphi, Detroit Diesel, Electromotive sales among many others) I would not be a betting man. I have been waiting for GM to "turn the corner" for 25 years. I would never have fathomed back then that GM would sink so low as to unload GMAC. These are moves of desperation from a position of weakness. Take off your cheerleading skirt and develop a healthy sense of skepticism.

Brings back memories from a great time when advertisers really knew how to do it. As soon as anyone over 35 watches these they will immediately remember Datsun's theme. You won't be able to get it out of your head for the rest of the day. Enjoy. http://www.ttzd.com/ (click on mpgs)