Quote:
Originally Posted by rray200
You know, GM could make things a hell of alot easier for themselves if they got rid of a couple of those fat, big honking full sized SUVs from their lineup. Why not cancel the Yukon Denali or Tahoe? Getting rid of one of those big gas guzzlers would easily get them in line with the CAFE. It will cost people jobs. But at the end of the day, with $100 a barrel oil, the novelty of those guargantaun behemoths should wear off very quickly. Plus, modern muscle cars use alot less fuel and are much more enviromentally friendly than some big ass Escalade or Denali.
|
Well, there are reasons they don't get rid of them.
First, and foremost,....THEY SELL. Afterall, that's what GM's in business for....to sell vehicles. In order to do that, they have to build what people will buy.
People buy those SUV's that you (obviously) don't care about because they need them. As I've pointed out in other threads, we needed the bigger SUV's because of the 3 kids/car seats/etc. Other people have the family and a boat or a camper....sorry, but you aren't going to drag a trailer like that with your RSX (or any other fuel sipping economy car) and 3 car seats won't fit in there either.
So, GM then goes out and does something unheard of by the likes of Toyota and Honda. They build hybrids (no, not the answer, just a step in the right direction) out of the full-size SUV's and full-size trucks. Increase fuel economy in vehicles that people want...win-win...for GM and the consumers.
Actually, GM would be better off if they build more cars off of the more fuel efficient vehicles (Saturns, Cobalts, G6's,) and bring in those (as much as I don't like them) Ute's from Holden (more utility for people that need it, without the poorer fuel economy). That way, they have more of the fuel-sippers to average against the fuel-"guzzlers" and it will raise their numbers as needed.