Re: R.I.P. General Motors (1931-2006)

If you are going to call me a liar, you might at least make a feeble attempt to check my facts. Even a polite request for a reference would save you the embarrassment of my (once again) proving that you are blowing smoke.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rAtnUeuBs3oJ:

Big 3 fleet sales hid October retail collapse, helped to keep domestics afloat MARY CONNELLY | Automotive News Posted Date: 11/15/05

"GM's fleet sales generated 33.5 percent of its total October volume, up from 25.8 percent for the period a year earlier. Ford Motor's fleets also accounted for 33 percent of October sales, up from 24 percent a year earlier."

Honda, Toyota Sales Up; GM, Ford Sales Slide

By Dee-Ann Durbin AP

03/02/06 7:38 AM PT

"Paul Ballew, GM's executive director of market and industry analysis, said GM was pleased with its performance because it relied less heavily on incentives and fleet sales than in the past. Ballew said GM's incentive spending was down US$1,000 per vehicle from last February, while sales to corporate and government fleets fell to 25 percent of overall sales, down from 30 percent a year ago."

Feb. Sales: Chrysler, Japanese Strong GM and Ford slip slightly as sales stay flat. by Joseph Szczesny (2006-03-06)

"Ford, meanwhile, was forced to use fleet sales to prop up their February sales totals. GM and Ford also disclosed plans for modest cuts in production during the second quarter. George Pipas, Ford's sales analyst, said Wednesday fleet sales accounted for more than 40 percent of the company's sales total for February, surprising analysts monitoring the company's monthly sales call."

If you will take the time to actually read what you post you would realize when you said 25% of GM car sales are fleet purchases, you were incorrect. Since you obviously knew what you posted was not correct, that makes what you posted a lie. I was being kind when I called it a 'story' GM or any other manufacture would love to sell 25% of their cars to ANY one type of buyer. ;)

mike hunt

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rAtnUeuBs3oJ:

That's funny, coming from "Mike Hunt" the bald-faced liar.

It appears to me that his evidence proves his claim. Stop being a stupid, top-posting asshole and show EXACTLY where he is wrong instead of just ranting-away at the top.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rAtnUeuBs3oJ:

>

That's OK dizzy AKA Moron, Idiot, Stupid, Troll etc we did not expect you to find the discrepancy between what he posted and the actual facts. LOL

mike hunt

"dizzy AKA Mor>

What you write is simply not true. In fact it is utterly absurd. I've pointed this out to you in the past and I wish you would make an effort to understand it. Go look in the Consumer Reports owner surveys and you will find that, for example, the failure (problem) rate for a five year old Lexus (that is, in it's fifth year) is about 22 failures per 100 vehicles (a Lexus owner has a 1 in 5 chance of having a problem in year 5, on average). That is for just year 5, not a total of 5 years. Very different. For Mercedes Benz and Cadillac the failure rate is about 105 failures per 100 vehicles. The Merc and caddy owner has a 1 in 1 chance of having a problem during year

5, on average. Pretty bad for high priced spreads. The overall average failure rate for all cars during year five is about 75 failures per 100 vehicles. So the Lexus guy is much better off than the average, while the Caddy and Merc owners are significantly more likely to have trouble.

How you got a failure rate of 2% in five years is a profound mystery and something that is simply unbelievable. Even if you claimed it was a 2% annual failure rate that is still ridiculously low. Even Japanese cars do not do that well. My GM Yukon XL had at least five failures in five years, or a 100% chance of a single failure each year, on average. (Pretty close to what CR reports for year 5, actually.)

Mikey has never let truth and the real world intrude on his fantasies and he supports GM and company, never.

The devil is in the details Charles. The word "failure" is where Mike tends to leverage his position. His leaky intake gaskets didn't cause him to be stranded without a car, so it wasn't a failure. Likewise with the wheel bearings that wore out in less than 40,000 miles. Or the heater control resistor pack. He either drives through the problems, never having them fixed, or he gets rid of the car and lets the new owner deal with it. He's already told us how many cars he's owned and how often he turns them over so it only stands to reason that he's never "experienced" the "failures".

Re: GM is still number one Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Wed, Apr 12, 2006, 11:31pm From: snipped-for-privacy@CHARTERMI.NET (Charles=A0U'=A0Farley)

What you write is simply not true. In fact it is utterly absurd. I've pointed this out to you in the past and I wish you would make an effort to understand it. Go look in the Consumer Reports owner surveys and you will find that, for example, the failure (problem) rate for a five year old Lexus (that is, in it's fifth year) is about 22 failures per 100 vehicles (a Lexus owner has a 1 in 5 chance of having a problem in year

5, on average). That is for just year 5, not a total of 5 years. Very different. For Mercedes Benz and Cadillac the failure rate is about 105 failures per 100 vehicles. The Merc and caddy owner has a 1 in 1 chance of having a problem during year 5, on average. Pretty bad for high priced spreads. The overall average failure rate for all cars during year five is about 75 failures per 100 vehicles. So the Lexus guy is much better off than the average, while the Caddy and Merc owners are significantly more likely to have trouble. How you got a failure rate of 2% in five years is a profound mystery and something that is simply unbelievable. Even if you claimed it was a 2% annual failure rate that is still ridiculously low. Even Japanese cars do not do that well. My GM Yukon XL had at least five failures in five years, or a 100% chance of a single failure each year, on average. (Pretty close to what CR reports for year 5, actually.)

What make you believe the 2% failure rate is my opinion? What would make you think it applies to every single copy of any model? It is the RATE of failures, per hundred vehicles, as indicated in most every survey reported in automotive industry publications Those that take surveys never quantify problems in any event. If one wants to know the severity of type of the failures you need to pay them a fee to get that detailed information.

The majority of my vehicles are 'turned over,' as you call it, to members of my family or sold to friends. Most accumulate a lot of mileage before they are sold off again.

mike hunt

He's

No wonder you are confused, you need to go back to mathematics 101 and learn what is the AVERAGE failure rate when a survey shows the number of failures reported for all vehicles was 133 per 100 vehicles LOL

mike hunt

Or an excess of demand.

As for there being a real shortage of refinery capacity in NA, I have heard it both ways. If NA refineries are all running flat out, wouldn't that tend to depress the price of oil compared to what it would be if we had more capacity?

How much refined petroleum do we import into NA?

There IS a shortage of oil and it will get even worst in the next

10 years. Every day, thousands of new cars are sold in China and India. Those people that are buying those new cars in China and India have never before owned a car. That means that China and India will be buying thousands of barrels of oil every day. In other words, the oil now in ground will be used at an even faster rate than any of the experts predicted that it would be used.

Oil reserves are based on profitable recovery based on current oil prices. With the higher oil prices more oil is recoverable from current fields and new oil fields will be explored. An example of this is the huge reserves in Alberta's oil sands, where production is currently limited by available labor. At current oil prices recovery is very profitable. If the higher oil prices stick many newer fields will be explored in northern Canada.

It is true that the rapidly developing Asian countries will consume an increasing amount of oil, but unfortunately the west is consuming an increasing amount, particularly in NA because of our excessively large vehicles. In Europe much higher gasoline prices limit vehicle size. Obviously gasoline isn't expensive enough yet in NA.

There is a limited amount of oil in the ground. Each year, millions of gallons of that oil are pumped out of the ground. Some of the oil experts are of the opinion that the amount of oil in the world has now "peaked". On a bell curve, the peak is the very top center of the bell curve. In other words, we are now on the wrong side of the bell curve. Only God knows when the last barrel of oil will be pumped out of the ground. We can only hope that alternative fuels are developed within the next 20 years. It's my opinion that we have enough oil to last at least 20 to 40 years--I am only guessing. Jason

Yes you are guessing and so would anyone because the amount of oil we get out of the wells is related to the selling price of oil. It has to sell for a profit or it won't be pumped out. The more difficult it is to pump out the higher the delivered price must be.

The alternatives you mention will happen. Looking at the history of fuels the alternative has become more common well before the current fuel has run out. Lots of coal for fuel left in the ground!

So let the price of gasoline rise and we will have fuel for some time. Tough on the big three automakers who did so well selling those monster SUVs.

They will probably change their minds when the eventual lack of energy impacts their ability to live their lives as they want to. That's a big variable as some people can live with less energy than others, but it will eventually impact everyone if alternative fuels are not developed. As for when that will happen, I don't know.

BTW, I agree that fuel prices in NA are still actually very low vs world standards. I'm not saying I like them where they are. I'm just facing the reality that we've been getting off easy for a long time. That's part of the reason that people continue to buy those big SUV's in NA when the rest of the world doesn't due to the MUCH higher fuel proces.

Many of the folks I know that own an SUV also own smaller vehicle for when they do not need the capability of their SUV. The folks that must cut back on their fuel consumption as prices rise are the folks that can only afford to buy little cars or used cars. I doubt the folks that a laying out $75,000 or more for a new Lexus or $55,000 for a Cadillac SUV are concerned too much a about $2,000 more a year for the fuel to run them. I personally would not ride around in an unsafe underpowered little car just to save $2,000 a year ;)

mike hunt

Underpowered and unsafe are your opinions. Here's mine: Many people who drive SUV's don't really need them. They might be trendy and offer some level of serviceability (capacity and possibly off-road) not as obvious in smaller vehicles -- and although it's certainly an individual choice of course, actual need is what I'm talking about. Of course, people who own $75,000 cars don't actually need them either.

So what am I saying? I'm saying that SUV's are not really needed by many who have them ... and with fuel costs being what they are and are moving toward, they may not be a prudent choice. I'm also saying that as many people grow more and more tired of the high fuel costs and eventually become unable to pay them, the US auto manufacturers will lose even more market share -- making an already bad situation worse.