RLSH700

This person is clueless. The Model T is a stupid example as it doesn't have the regulations, the safety equipment, or anything that modern cars have to deal with. Also it is a failure to observe how much far the Big Three have come in fuel efficiency in the models THAT MAKE THE LARGEST IMPACT. Take a look at what fuel economy trucks got just ten years ago. The new Silverado gets 21mpg with the same sized 5.3L V8 engine as its 1999 model that got 19mpg (under the new standards). The Hemi powered Ram gets about 20 in the 2WD model vs. the 1999 Ram's 5.9L getting 16mpg. Ford posts similar numbers with their 2WD 5.4 models between the same years. Then look back ten years before that. Dodge's 5.9L only got 12mpg in 1989. Ford's 5.8L only got 12 as well as they like Dodge didn't have an overdrive automatic yet for that engine (though in 1990 they did get one and it still only mustered 15mpg). Chevrolet was able to get 18mpg with their 5.7L V8. Chrysler & Ford have had very significant improvements by achieving a close to double mpg gains in a matter of 20 years on the models that consume the most fuel. GM has always done well and continues to improve.

The issue is that the Big Three didn't make these cars because the low fuel prices that we had at the time when they were testing such models were making people abandon fuel efficient models and going for trucks. I believe less criticism is deserved for the government deciding that it's role was not to use our tax dollars to build models that were not profitable, and more is deserved for allowing politics to come first over keeping fuel affordable. Even if the big three had built models like the Intrepid ESX, they probably would not have sold anyways. No matter if they had been able to achieve close to 80mpg, not enough people are not going to pay $37-90K to achieve that while losing acceleration, convenience issues, and while having to pay a higher price for fuel as diesel generally costs more, not to mention that it is questionable if they could have sold them in all 50 states because of emission rules.

The GM EV1 was a failure as the battery technology that they had to work with was inadequate so I fail to see how this would have worked. On top of this, had GM, Ford, and Chrysler built hybrid models back in the early 2000s, it could have further damaged their image. The Neon engines were never the best quality design and combined with the fact that the press doesn't cover up the their problems like they cover up Honda and Toyotas problems, it could have been a reliability disaster. The same could have happened with a Cavalier hybrid with the fact that the Cavalier engines were even worse and the idea that GM should use more electronics on their models from back then shows how ignorant this person is. GM electronics are horrible. Ford's I4s are alright, but the Focus had some safety problems which could have damaged their attempts and added more fuel to the fire that such models are unsafe. The Neon and Cavalier would not have worked very well with the safety part either.

What this person also fails to understand is that GM and Ford have done a lot of what Lee Iacocca did to turn Chrysler around in terms of the models he produced, what is different is there is much stiffer competition in the segment than their was back in the 1980s. On top of this, the K cars were very basic vehicles and that is exactly what the Big Three have offered in that segment since the 80s. It doesn't work the same way in every situation. The problem is the Big Three need to create efficiencies, cut certain models, become more diverse in some areas and less in others, and continue to work on their image.