Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 10:20 AM
Sat Nov 14
29 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/27/09
If our country was interested in revitalizing our auto industry here is what would happen:
1. CAFE standards would disappear.
2. Automotive EPA requirements would be reduced to the mid-eighties levels, which are still extremely clean. (I would get rid of them entirely, but that is more than impossible)
3. Get rid of onerous regulations dealing with car safety, let the consumer decide what he wants. The fear of lawsuits will still enforce safe cars.
4. Repeal the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and other restrictive laws which only serve to freeze up capital markets.
The effect of this would be lowered cost for new ideas to enter the automotive market place. Currently the federal regulatory requirements to build an automobile are so stifling, that it is impossible for a new company to get a new start without massive capital infusion. There are few entities which have the ability, or the financial incentive, to provide this kind capital. This is why there has been virtually no new car companies created in this country in the last eighty years. Plants have been built, but only by companies that already exist in foreign lands. If the cost were severely reduced, there would be an explosion of new car technology and design in the auto loving USA.
What I have proposed will never happen, because as a nation we live a life of fear of the unknown. The real men have died. #fisker
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
and a heart click
10/27/09
There have been quite a few smaller, specialized auto makers (Saleen, Tesla), which make high end sports cars. The idea is to start small, and then grow large. Extravagant spending right off the bat is a recipe for a failed business.
That being said, the idea of things like CAFE, EPA, and safety regulations is supposed to be a "step forward". Nobody wants to go back to the 70's where there was acid rain caused by sulphur, and standard safety features means we get them at a low cost (and no matter how good of a driver you are, it won't save you if the teenager texting on her phone decides to smash into you at a stop light), and CAFE standards means that vehicles are making more power with less fuel (just compare older malaise era cars with today's vehicles).
The US is not a nation of fear... or at least, it wasn't back when all these standards were enacted. Back then, the US was a nation of progress, where people used to do things because they had high hopes for the future (just look at all the things that have happened in the 60's). Nowadays the US is a nation of "Get off my lawn" or "The terrorists will attack the local mall". #fisker
10/27/09
Of course there will still be allowances for small and minor variations tailor suited to individual markets but as a whole the process will be much better than now. #fisker
10/27/09
Supposedly Sarbanes-Oxley was passed to keep another Enron from happening, but the hearts of men being what they are, it will and has. After Sarbanes-Oxley was passed many companies that were about to go private, decided not to, and some public companies even reverted back to private because of the onerous regulations. There are some good parts to the bill, but some of its oversight provisions have been very damaging in regards to the cost afflicted on this nation. I used it as an example of a bill which is inhibiting a number of small companies access to capital markets.
They should have called it the Lawyer and Accountant Employment Act. #fisker
10/27/09
By the way, acid rain is caused primarily by the burning of coal. #fisker
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
Disable the auto-closing feature on the sunroof - check
Disable the auto-closing windows because the pinch protection (which is there) doesn't meet US standards - check
Provide new front and rear bumpers because they don't meet US standards (5-star Euro NCAP vehicle) - check
Change the tail-lights so the turn signals aren't amber - check
Remove the rear fog light - check
Only provide the 138 hp gas engine because people in the country prefer automatic transmissions and don't like diesels (mine is a manual btw)
I guess at least they brought the hatchback instead of the coupe and sedan. #fisker
10/27/09
10/27/09
They used everyone's tax money to purchase this plant and are using everyone's tax money to come up with a vaporware car with literally no business case.
And if they do come up with a car who exactly is going to buy them in any great number?
This throwing millions at every claimed "green" startup car maker is ridiculous. #fisker
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
@TriShield:
Listen this isn't about making Fisker into a viable car company, no what this is, is a smart investment by the Gov't to potentially double the manufacturable goods needed to produce cars like the Volt. What that'll end up doing is drive the price down and make the car more affordable for people to get into. I can almost guarantee that theres a provision in the deal with Fisker to purchase electrical components from the same supplyers as GM. #fisker
10/27/09
10/27/09
It's hard to understand your writing, but GM went bankrupt on June 1 and on July 10, 2009, a new entity, NGMCO Inc purchased the ongoing operations and trademarks from GM with an infusion of $50 billion from the government. An outright liquidation of GM in the depths of the recession would have been utterly ruinous for the economy.
The loans for Fisker and Tesla come from the 2007 Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program. Time will tell if they're sound loans. I think it's better investment than just paying the big three for research partnerships that didn't produce cars for sale and only created a few jobs. #fisker
10/27/09
Darn. #fisker
10/27/09
10/27/09
However, if the car delivers...and can retain its value better than traditional ICE vehicles, then it won't be long before 10-year financing is available and depreciation doesn't drop off like a cliff.
I have a dream that one day the cycle of "30% value retention at five years" will be broken, and cars will hold their value more like aircraft--or to a lesser degree, boats. #fisker
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
And yes, I agree that if the car delivers and can retain it's value that it could be affordable to the minions. But that's a big if. With the amount of mileage that the public puts on cars these days, the reliability and service life of these cars will keep the possibility of 10-year financing just that, a possibility. Finance company's will be asking for records from your old car to see how much you drive it just to confirm that your 40k hybrid won't be in a scrap pile with 200k miles on it before the loan is paid off. #fisker
10/27/09
10/27/09
It could be argued Fisker is running before it can walk, not having built or sold a single production PHEV yet, but I guess there is something to be said for prudent planning.
One wonders if it would have been a better idea for GM to develop their PHEV as a Cadillac or upper-crust halo model first (like the Karma) instead of trying to compete with the Prius head-on with still outlandishly expensive (and unprofitable) tech.
The Volt will be neither fast and luxurious nor cheap and utilitarian, and the styling already looks a generation behind the rest of Chevy's new product.
Oh well, hindsight's always 20/20. #fisker
10/27/09
10/27/09
Delaware, I seem to remember that there's a politician with national stature from that place. coincidence? Unfortunately, there seems to be zero interest on GM's part to restart Solstice production, so better the factory can be used for something. #fisker
08/21/09
08/21/09
Who (k)new?
/Syntax nazi
08/21/09
This is a thoughtful feature, but, from an engineer who occasionally designs user interfaces, this seems to be another case of 'user interface designed by an engineer'. 'On' and 'Off' aren't very descriptive of what's going on here, you turn headlights on and off, but you don't convert them on and off, you convert them from right hand to left hand or some such... and if you've got a fancy digital readout able to show whatever you please, don't make me dig out the manual just to translate 'on' and 'off' to something tangible.
Dilbert's head turned inside out from too much time on a UI designed by an engineer. I try to remember this while I'm working, Audi should do the same.
Neat feature though.
08/21/09
as far as i know, euro code headlights have a very distinct horizontal cut-off with a tiny amount of light directed up and to the side to illuminate signs but not blind people.
whereas the US headlights just have the driver's side turned down a bit and a small amount of light is still directed above the car's driving plane to illuminate overhead signs. (not just to the side)
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09