PDA

View Full Version : The Blame Culture



LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 02:00 PM
I am once again baffled. This tends to happen a lot lately so I'm thinking the problem is with my brain. But let me continue without any neurological issues in question. For now.

I come across, from time to time, news articles, tv reports, and editorials about the current state of oil/gas consumption in this country in conjunction with our vehicles. (This is the U.S. I'm talking about)

Most of these complain about our car comanies not providing us with efficient, small vehicles and some even blame the "big three" with the state of our increasing fuel costs.

Bunk. Complete utter total shifting of blame to "them" (the car companies) while completely ignoring supply and demand.

Why do you think "they" have been building big, gas-guzzling vehicles?

Go to Europe and see how small, efficient, typically diesel-powered vehicles are equally ingrained as our gigantic over-powered hogs. Who is to blame? We are. The American culture. You can sit around and say "GM can't build an efficient car" when my 1994 Saab (GM owned) has been getting 32mpg since it was born. It angers me. Do you *really* need a Suburban or Excursion? Do you *really* need that v-8 or even v-6? Or does this tiny 4-banger with a turbo get equal power with better mileage?

Don't get me started on diesel. We missed that boat in the 80's. And now its catch-up time. Here in NY diesel prices far exceed gas prices. Why?

I say all this as an experienced and certified master technician. It really baffles me. WE are to blame.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-15, 02:29 PM
Notice that "blame" is a common thing in our culture on all grounds...

I read an article about a woman that ran out of gas.
She wrote a nasty letter to the Highway patrol in the area, claiming she felt "victimized" because:
It was a long time before a highway patrolman pulled in behind her.
He didn't get out of his vehicle, she had to get out and go to him.
He didn't offer to bring her gas, he only offered to call a tow truck (Who could bring a gas can for a fee)

Ok, so she's the bonehead that couldn't put gas in the tank, but the California Highway Patrol was at fault? How?

Our culture seeks to blame anything, everything and anyone.

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-15, 02:39 PM
Do you *really* need a Suburban or Excursion? Do you *really* need that v-8 or even v-6? Or does this tiny 4-banger with a turbo get equal power with better mileage?

I don't need one - that's why I never bought one. Some people do need them, perhaps because they have large families or the need to tow stuff. It's arrogant to presume the needs of others, especially when you don't know them. Sure, some people bought the road monsters as status symbols or for their presumed safety. They made their decision and now have to live with the consequences such as high fuel bills and excessively rapid depreciation (SUVs are flooding the used car market so the prices are falling rapidly).

American auto companies are like all other companies - they want to make a profit. For years, they offered small cars but few people bought them. For years, the money was in larger vehicles like SUVs and big pickups. Now the market demand has shifted rapidly in favor of more fuel efficient vehicles. That leads to lay-offs and factory shut downs at the plants that produced the SUVs and pickups but you can't simply open the valve to start producing more small vehicles (even if you had models that people wanted to buy). There's a huge supplier chain that has to be factored into the process.

As for your second question, sometimes there's no substitute for cubic inches (or ccs). Sure, you can hook a turbo to a 4 cylinder engine and get good horsepower but torque is likely to still fall short of a bigger 6 or 8 cylinder engine. When it comes to towing power, torque beats horsepower.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 02:48 PM
Turbos usually offer up more torque. It depends on a lot of factors but primarily you get gobs and gobs of torque throughout the rev range.

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-15, 04:54 PM
When it comes to low end pulling power - as needed for towing - you need torque at low RPMs. You're a lot more likely to get that from large displacement. Most small engines get their power when turning at high revs, not at the low end. You also have to consider long term reliability under work conditions. A bigger, slower turning engine will often last longer than a boosted engine turning high RPMs.

cjl
2008-Jul-15, 04:59 PM
Turbos usually offer up more torque. It depends on a lot of factors but primarily you get gobs and gobs of torque throughout the rev range.
Not for towing the way a V8 can.

Yes, turbos can be fast, and they're great at higher RPM ranges, but they will never match a large displacement engine for off the line torque because they have to spool up.

pghnative
2008-Jul-15, 05:08 PM
Ok, so she's the bonehead that couldn't put gas in the tank, but the California Highway Patrol was at fault? How?Slightly off topic, but according to an NPR story (~ 1 month ago), the State of California has a program where the state provides 1 gallon of gas for free if you run out.

I'm not trying to get political, but sometimes in my most cynical moods, I think that all altruism (including personal) is foolhardy -- give one person a fish and two more throw away their fishing rods.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 05:16 PM
When it comes to low end pulling power - as needed for towing - you need torque at low RPMs. You're a lot more likely to get that from large displacement. Most small engines get their power when turning at high revs, not at the low end. You also have to consider long term reliability under work conditions. A bigger, slower turning engine will often last longer than a boosted engine turning high RPMs.

This is largely wrong. You are correct that for towing you need a lot of torque and "off-the-line" torque is where its at. The point of a turbo on a smaller engine is typically to broaden the torque range and bump it up to levels you can't achieve otherwise. As an example Saab's 2.3l Aero or Viggen engine makes 258lb feet starting at 1900 rpm. Spool times nowadays are next to zero and what most people consider "spool" is in fact "threshold". Threshold being the point at which the turbo CAN be spun fast enough to produce boost. So at 1000 rpm you can't get boost because you simply aren't pumping enough air. Every turbo, no matter its size, has a threshold. The larger it is the more mass is spinning, the slower its climb to speed.

Small turbos are near-instant in their spool speed and thus can start producing boost really early. And MOST small engines with turbos are used to take advantage of their torque - NOT high-rev horsepower. And in fact most production turbos get asthma at high revs.

Torque and low-end grunt is NOT just a factor of displacement despite common entrenched beliefs. A diesel for example is pretty weak without being force-fed. Also diesels have longer lives as they are seriously overbuilt to withstand the strain. I agree that high-revving (read: Ferrari's V-8's et al) break faster. But they are also required to be very light and in a sense fragile in order to rev so high in the first place.

So to sum up: dieiels make very little power without forced induction. After than they make very little horsepower but gobs of torque. Most production small engines with turbos are made to take advantage of the bumped up and low-end torque. It is not common to have a production turbo use high-revs. Displacement gets you so far and then is useless. it is also incredibly inefficient to keep going up in engine size without feeding air into the motor using a turbo or super-charger. There is a reason top-fuels force the air.

The use of small-blocks and so on in trucks is more due to market traction than anything practical. Gas naturally aspirated v-8s simply *do not* get the kind of torque a turbo diesel or even a modestly boosted smaller engine is capable of.

Stuart van Onselen
2008-Jul-15, 05:18 PM
The saying actually goes
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Give him a fishing rod, and he'll bore you all day with fishing stories."

At least, that was Dogbert's version. :)

NEOWatcher
2008-Jul-15, 05:29 PM
...Why do you think "they" have been building big, gas-guzzling vehicles?
Because it's easier to hide poor workmanship, over-building, and ineficiencies in a bigger more expensive vehicle. The "big three" have been concerned with volume over design.

The "big3" have been whining about their sales being eaten up by foreign makers. Why? because they didn't offer what the importers had. So; in that respect, the automakers failed to foresee the investment they needed. There's a reason Toyota is getting to be number one.

Part of the culture is the advertising. The makers have been stressing power, safety, roominess, etc. It's not until recently that I've been hearing fuel economy statements.

So; there is plenty of blame to go around. I prefer not to blame, because the situation is reactionary. Nobody seems to have had the foresight and the clout together to see this coming and do something about it.


Slightly off topic, but according to an NPR story (~ 1 month ago), the State of California has a program where the state provides 1 gallon of gas for free if you run out.
That story was virtually everywhere, and discussed the scammers.
Freeway Con Artists Find Free Way To Fuel (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/03/eveningnews/main4151198.shtml?source=RSSattr=CBSEveningNews_41 51198)

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-15, 05:34 PM
LotusExcell, here's a research project for you. If the benefits of using a small 4 cylinder turbocharged engine are so great, which work trucks produced anywhere use that engine as opposed to a larger displacement engine? By work trucks, I'm talking about something in the 3/4 - 1 ton range. If the small engines were such a superior solution, why aren't they being used? Could it be they aren't better for that application? Or perhaps they're more expensive to produce? Or maybe they wouldn't be as reliable? I'm not talking about diesel engines, just gas burners.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-15, 05:38 PM
Most turbocharged engines get most of their power at high revs because were designed that way! If you want low end torque from a turbo one can be designed for that to. It is basically a matter of matching the size of the turbo to the size and intended use of the engine. The low RPM high torque engine won't match the high RPM high horsepower engine at the top end, but the converse is also true!

ETA: LotusExcelle beat me to it.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 05:44 PM
That is a bit of a complex question for a number of reasons: 1) the market does not always use what is "best" hence my thread and why we are in this situation in the first place. 2) Yes turbo engines cost more to produce. 3) As there is a wide range of needs (not WANTS but NEEDS) for trucks the market and manufacturers play to the lowest common denomenator - which is how the V-10 trucks got made in the first place. Rather than just pony up for the more efficient and more powerful diesels people bought the gas-guzzling and crummy v-10s to approach their torque needs.

I'm not trying to notch a 4 cylinder into a large turck and get away with it. I'm saying big v-8s are not the solution and their use in that market and many others is due to market traction rather than design abilities. i DO think a small 4 cylinder could be developed to fit most people's light duty truck needs. I think it would take a v-6 diesel or a v-6 gas to take up the 3/4 ton market and I think that putting a gas motor in anything that actually makes use of a one-ton and above chassis is like power gas on the ground and watching it evaporate.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 05:45 PM
Most turbocharged engines get most of their power at high revs because were designed that way! If you want low end torque from a turbo one can be designed for that to. It is basically a matter of matching the size of the turbo to the size and intended use of the engine. The low RPM high torque engine won't match the high RPM high horsepower engine at the top end, but the converse is also true!

There are very few production turbo engines designed to make use of the top end. The market is mostly low-to-mid rev range.

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-15, 05:46 PM
Perhaps you can. Name the work trucks that are powered by such an engine. Engineers around the world who design these vehicles appear to be going for larger displacement engines. If the small turbocharged engine is such a superior solution, why isn't it being used? I'm not just talking about US trucks. For example, the Toyota Tundra uses a V6 or V8. Toyota has excellent engineers and yet they still went for displacement over turbochargers.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-15, 05:55 PM
There are very few production turbo engines designed to make use of the top end. The market is mostly low-to-mid rev range.

True! And those that are (racing engines) have very narrow power bands.

korjik
2008-Jul-15, 05:56 PM
Because it's easier to hide poor workmanship, over-building, and ineficiencies in a bigger more expensive vehicle. The "big three" have been concerned with volume over design.

The "big3" have been whining about their sales being eaten up by foreign makers. Why? because they didn't offer what the importers had. So; in that respect, the automakers failed to foresee the investment they needed. There's a reason Toyota is getting to be number one.

Part of the culture is the advertising. The makers have been stressing power, safety, roominess, etc. It's not until recently that I've been hearing fuel economy statements.

So; there is plenty of blame to go around. I prefer not to blame, because the situation is reactionary. Nobody seems to have had the foresight and the clout together to see this coming and do something about it.


That story was virtually everywhere, and discussed the scammers.
Freeway Con Artists Find Free Way To Fuel (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/03/eveningnews/main4151198.shtml?source=RSSattr=CBSEveningNews_41 51198)

I think that to some degree, you have put the cart before the horse. I dont think that we have been all duped by the automakers to buy big, but that the desire for larger vehicles created a feedback loop. As long as gas was cheap, mileage was less important.

Now that loop has changed. With gas much more expensive, it is a much bigger factor in the equation for what car you buy.

But wait there is more. Add in the fact that legacy costs make car production more expensive for the big three over the imports means that smaller cars were far less profitable to make. When that was added to the lagging demand, it made sense to focus on larger vehicles.

Admittedly, it should have become apparent a couple years ago that the big three would have to go tooth and nail against Toyota in the small car market as the price for gas started to rise. I think that was the biggest mistake.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 05:57 PM
Toyota built that truck to compete with american-designed trucks - and the market again is where the issue is there. Let me give you an example of what I mean:

Chevy Silverado's smallest engine: Vortec 4.3L V6 with 195 hp and 260 lb.-ft. of torque. 14-18mpg. They sell a pretty good number of these low-spec engines for light duty work.

I can name a number of 4 cylinder engines that would walk all over that motor all day long and not sweat. Cost is part of the reason, yes. But if every 4.3NA was replaced with a smaller and more efficient engine the cost of ownership would work out (in much the same way it takes years to pay off the additional cost of a hybrid now).

Their larger engines aren't much more impressive and don't get much better mileage.

NEOWatcher
2008-Jul-15, 06:14 PM
I think that to some degree, you have put the cart before the horse.
Did I imply a cause and effect? Your feedback loop statement is more what I was thinking.

One issue I see though, is that the automakers are in the position that they need to think forward. They can't respond instantly to changing values, so having some ideas in the wings waiting to go at the right time is what they need to have done all along.

For the foreign guys, it was easy, they had plenty of test markets. For the US guys, they kept trying to go global, yet do it with vehicles made for the US taste.

I saw a great effort by the US when the CAFE requirements really hit them hard. In fact, I remember around that time reading an article about the billions that Ford put into the Escort re-design, and how they still ended up selling each one for a loss. But; they still made money because they sold a Lincoln for big bucks for each 3 Escorts.
Unfortunately, that's a case of the Government having the foresight and forcing the planning by the automaker. Again... complicated.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-15, 06:17 PM
All of the following are true:

1. It's the US car-makers fault for pushing bigger as "better" vehicles in the late 90s and early 00s. Excursions, Yukons, etc.

2. It's the US government's fault for failing to agressively wean us off fossile fuels and move towards (no, not a "hydrogen economy... - if I hear that one more time I swear I'm going to light a match...") an "electric" economy. Nuclear. Reinforcing the grid. Perfecting nanowhisker capacitors.

3. It's OPEC's fault for jacking prices to the point where that's all the market can bear. I hope the entire world goes electrical NOW and leaves those who would be greedy at everyone else's expense to wither in their own deserts.

4. It's our fault for a) trying to keep up with the Joneses by buying bigger vehicles, b) falling victem to simple marketing ploys used by the big car makers, c) failing to hold our government's feet to the fire beginning with the first crisis in the 1970s, d) failing, even now, to do the same, e) failing to educate ourselves so that we can actually discern the difference between the 10% of what will work, long-term, and the remaining 90% "that sounds like it will work" nonsensical fluff that will bankrupt us even further and severely delay the rollout of what will actually make a difference while continuing to line the pockets of the oil barons and other fossil fuel suppliers.

"Blame game?" It's no game, as we're all to blame, and we're all paying the price for our ignorance, laziness, ineptitude, greed, indecision, and gullibility.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 06:20 PM
I saw a great effort by the US when the CAFE requirements really hit them hard. In fact, I remember around that time reading an article about the billions that Ford put into the Escort re-design, and how they still ended up selling each one for a loss. But; they still made money because they sold a Lincoln for big bucks for each 3 Escorts.
Unfortunately, that's a case of the Government having the foresight and forcing the planning by the automaker. Again... complicated.

Very complicated. The Lincolns you are referring to are the "panther" chassis vehicles which were developed back in the early early 80's if I'm not mistaken. It is, as you can imagine, long in the tooth. GM suffered through the J car issue for far too long before they figured it was time for a redesign. By the time they killed the J car it was too late - even the Koreans change car platforms quicker and more effectively.

But in that example is a microcosm of one of the major issues here: outdated vehicles being sold against new-tech, cheaper, more efficient, etc.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-15, 06:20 PM
Don't get me started on diesel. We missed that boat in the 80's. And now its catch-up time. Here in NY diesel prices far exceed gas prices. Why?

Because diesel is used primarily in heavy-hauling trucks. Taxes are higher because, on a per-gallon basis, road damage is that much higher for the average diesel-user. Higher taxes --> higher prices at the pump.


WE are to blame.

Yep.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 06:23 PM
1. It's the US car-makers fault for pushing bigger as "better" vehicles in the late 90s and early 00s. Excursions, Yukons, etc.

Disagree here. If I offer 3 cars one of which is super-huge and you buy 10 of them and none of the others... which one am i going to keep making and selling?

2. It's the US government's fault for failing to agressively wean us off fossile fuels and move towards (no, not a "hydrogen economy... - if I hear that one more time I swear I'm going to light a match...") an "electric" economy. Nuclear. Reinforcing the grid. Perfecting nanowhisker capacitors.

I partly agree with you here. We've had oil issues before. Both the consumer and the government have responded poorly and had short attention spans/memory with regards to this.

3. It's OPEC's fault for jacking prices to the point where that's all the market can bear. I hope the entire world goes electrical NOW and leaves those who would be greedy at everyone else's expense to wither in their own deserts.


Waayyyy to complex to get into.

On your 4th point I think you hit everything.

NEOWatcher
2008-Jul-15, 06:28 PM
Disagree here. If I offer 3 cars one of which is super-huge and you buy 10 of them and none of the others...
...and the small car buyers by someone elses car...
There are two choices.
1) Keep my head in the sand and keep making profit on the big ones.
2) Figure out why the others are selling over ours, and see if anything can be done to get my piece of the pie.

Guess which is short term, and which is long term. :lol:

Ilya
2008-Jul-15, 06:30 PM
The saying actually goes
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Give him a fishing rod, and he'll bore you all day with fishing stories."

At least, that was Dogbert's version. :)

There are many many variations on this. My favorite is:

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fich, and he will eat all his life.
Convince him he needs repeat fishing lessons, and you are set for life too.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 06:31 PM
You DO have a good point with the short term/long term concern there. but also remember we (americans) have been buying over-sized and inefficient vehicles for rather a long time no - it was not really in the cards for these companies to predict, expect, or have any reason to stop producing them (too late, yes, but that is the point)

NEOWatcher
2008-Jul-15, 06:39 PM
...but also remember we (americans) have been buying over-sized and inefficient vehicles for rather a long time
I'm not disagreeing with you, but you keep sounding to me like there has never been a market for the small efficient car.
That's the point that I was trying to make. There was a market there. Even though it was small, it was ignored in favor high margins rather than steady growth. Toyota and Honda didn't gain market share overnight.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 06:42 PM
Oh we are in agreement then, NEOWatcher. I think we were just passing each other on this point - using different terms here.

I do agree with you and that is why things like VW GTI's took off (sometimes literally - trust me I've done it) in the early 80's. Also why Saabs had a niche and why the STi/EVO thing is happening now... and finally. And don't forget things like the Insight and even the ill-fated and questionably executed EV-1.

RalofTyr
2008-Jul-15, 06:52 PM
This thread's an excellent example of the blame culture. Everyone's trying to figure out who's at fault.

I'm not at all concerned about who's fault it is, but rather, finding ways I can drive my 8 mpg truck less and ride my bike more.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-15, 06:55 PM
Here I am lucky - I live 1.5 miles from work and regularly ride my bike (Incidentally a Lotus Excelle - hah!) to work. My car regularly gets 32mpg so when we go on trips that's what we take. Finding ways to avoid using gasoline is the key now, I think.

Tinaa
2008-Jul-15, 07:44 PM
Because it's easier to hide poor workmanship, over-building, and ineficiencies in a bigger more expensive vehicle. The "big three" have been concerned with volume over design.

The "big3" have been whining about their sales being eaten up by foreign makers. Why? because they didn't offer what the importers had. So; in that respect, the automakers failed to foresee the investment they needed. There's a reason Toyota is getting to be number one.




The plant here is shutting down for a few months but Toyota is still going to pay them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25628050/

mugaliens
2008-Jul-15, 08:19 PM
The plant here is shutting down for a few months but Toyota is still going to pay them.

That's awfully nice of Toyota!

Since they have the lead in hybrids (Prius), that move will go a long way towards leveraging their lead even further.

Looks like someone at Toyota has been thinking towards the future, instead of merely toward's next quarter's bottom line.

mfumbesi
2008-Jul-16, 02:47 PM
I blame the media!

Moose
2008-Jul-16, 03:05 PM
*shrug* In terms of oil prices, there's plenty (and I mean plenty) of blame to go around, all in the name of profiteering. Other than the individual station owners (I suspect), there aren't very many clean hands out there.

I'm pretty sure the Illuminati is involved, somehow. And the Grays.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-16, 03:21 PM
Station owners make next to no profit on gasoline sales.

Moose
2008-Jul-16, 03:44 PM
Station owners make next to no profit on gasoline sales.

Yes, that's what I mean by them being probable exceptions. I say probable because I haven't audited their books. I've seen a lot of FUD thrown around over the past decade or so. Too much for me to be willing to take anybody's word for it.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-16, 03:45 PM
i completely misread the post - my apologies

EricM407
2008-Jul-18, 08:00 PM
Not for towing the way a V8 can.

Yes, turbos can be fast, and they're great at higher RPM ranges, but they will never match a large displacement engine for off the line torque because they have to spool up.

Go into your local Big Three dealership and tell them you want the pickup with the most off the line torque and the best towing/hauling package, and I guarantee they'll sell you something with a turbo.

cjl
2008-Jul-18, 09:04 PM
Turbodiesel specifically, and not because the turbo boosts anything off the line. Instead, the turbo helps the diesel burn more efficiently at higher RPM, making it get better gas mileage and easier once cruising. Off the line is unaffected by the turbo though.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-18, 09:18 PM
That is utterly untrue. They aren't running full boost off the line but modern turbo diesels do make boost essentially just of idle. That is what the VGT design is for (partly).

Drunk Vegan
2008-Jul-18, 10:24 PM
Blame Canada.

Van Rijn
2008-Jul-19, 12:02 AM
Blame Canada.

Oh, I like it. :lol:

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jul-20, 03:34 PM
1. It's the US car-makers fault for pushing bigger as "better" vehicles in the late 90s and early 00s. Excursions, Yukons, etc.

Disagree here. If I offer 3 cars one of which is super-huge and you buy 10 of them and none of the others... which one am i going to keep making and selling?
You're discounting that it was the big one that was pushed in the commercials.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-20, 04:01 PM
You're discounting that it was the big one that was pushed in the commercials.

I think you may be putting the cart before the horse there - or at least discounting supply and demand. I'll try to find some numbers on this but if people bought more trucks than cars you would put more truck commercials on, would you not? Granted some percentage would see a truck commercial and that commercial would sway them from buying a car but few and far between.

Moose
2008-Jul-21, 12:29 AM
I think you may be putting the cart before the horse there - or at least discounting supply and demand. I'll try to find some numbers on this but if people bought more trucks than cars you would put more truck commercials on, would you not?

You run commercials to influence people to buy a product. Not in reaction to what they've already bought.

As I've said earlier, there's plenty of blame to go around without having to ration it. Yes, people who market large vehicles are complicit. So are people who buy them. So is Big Oil and their shareholders. So is OPEC. So are commodity speculators. So are politicians, both for and against regulation of the industry. And the list goes on.

The question, in my mind, isn't "whose fault is it most"? No sense wasting effort and resources trying to close the door to that barn, the horsepower is long gone.

The question is: "What are we going to do about it?"

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-21, 01:47 AM
FWIW, the local Toyota dealers are advertising $12,000 off the price of Tundras. My first reaction was "If you can knock 12 grand off the prices, they were overpriced in the first place"!

My second reaction was "I bet those who paid near list price earlier, when the market was boiling are more than a little upset"!

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-21, 01:51 AM
Yes an no on the overprice thing. I don't think the average person understands how much money a car or truck makes in terms of profit. They may even be taking a substantial hit. This is not as rare as you may think - there are several vehicles out there that literally lose money on every one sold. I'll look up some numbers on production costs for Tundras. I think the Tundra was a horrible idea to begin with but anyway - deep discounts mean they are not selling and they need to move inventory.

Neverfly
2008-Jul-21, 02:05 AM
Yes an no on the overprice thing. I don't think the average person understands how much money a car or truck makes in terms of profit. They may even be taking a substantial hit. This is not as rare as you may think - there are several vehicles out there that literally lose money on every one sold. I'll look up some numbers on production costs for Tundras. I think the Tundra was a horrible idea to begin with but anyway - deep discounts mean they are not selling and they need to move inventory.

Yes, they would rather sell it at a loss than not sell them at all.

In addition, most of the profit comes from Services, not from vehicle sales.

Moose
2008-Jul-21, 11:46 AM
FWIW, the local Toyota dealers are advertising $12,000 off the price of Tundras. My first reaction was "If you can knock 12 grand off the prices, they were overpriced in the first place"!

When Tundras were selling, they could have knocked off quite a bit. Not 12 grand, though, surely. No, marking them down heavily is recognition that they have way too many of them in stock for what the market will support.

It would cost them so much more to get stuck with them than to let them go at a loss.

EricM407
2008-Jul-21, 04:30 PM
Turbodiesel specifically, and not because the turbo boosts anything off the line.

GM's turbo diesel makes 660 ft-lb @ 1600 RPM. That's not off the line?

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-21, 04:34 PM
International's 6.0l (aka VT365 aka Ford's 6.0l).. which is no longer produced... specifically could make 3.5psi literally at idle. It wasn't programmed to do that but it could - and certain applications had a more aggressive boost ramp-up than others.

Anyway the point is the turbo is the key factor in gobs of torque in a diesel application and same holds true for gas engines.

The only gas turbo engines I'm aware of that are designed to make use of high-end stuff are racing applications. For example Saab's psychotic Pike's Peak climb. That was a stock head, even. Complete dog at low rpms but capable of over 700 horses up near redline. And that is where they wanted their peak boost.