Class Warfare and the Automobile
Jan. 5th, 2003 10:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
petermarcusGM Introduces $250,000 V-16 1000-Horsepower Cadillac.
I like Bob Lutz, but I think he's a bit off on this. I'm pretty sure it will be successful, and such oddball prestige might actually be a shot in the arm for Detroit auto manufacturers, who have been on the defensive since Japan got serious about cars 30 years ago. But, I wish Detroit would take one further step....
Here's a list: Automobiles, AM radios, FM radios, television sets, telephones, CD players, VCRs, DVDs, microwave ovens, calculators, digital wristwatches, cable TV, satellite TV, computers, internet access, video games, hot water heaters, air conditioning/central heating...I could go on.
What do these items have in common? When each was introduced, each was so pricey that only the rich could afford one. Today, over 50% of US citizens the government considers living in poverty have most of the items on this list. (Poverty is, of course, wildly inaccurate, simultaneously more and less prevalent than what the government claims...but I'm not going to go there.)
One of the most solvable engineering puzzles in this decade is the "green" automobile. No pollution -- either hydrogen powered, or pure electric. The problem is, the technology is still expensive. So auto manufacturers lose all sorts of money trying to figure out how middle-class hippies can afford to buy a green car, and are forced to use corner-cutting like the gas/electric hybrid. What they really need to be doing is making a green Cadillac or Town Car. Really expensive, like $75-100k. But usable -- say, a 500 mile radius, with a top speed of 100 MPH (though not, of course, simultaneously.) Trying to make the technology initially affordable to any but the wealthy is walking upstream during a flash flood -- it goes completely against the trend of any major consumer good in the last 100 years, and fighting that trend will just cost more money and time. Keep it expensive until the kinks are worked out and the technology matures. Go for the conscience of the wealthy and the sense of privilege. The rich already get bad press for having Ferraris and Jags in the first place...make a green luxury car that is actually useful, and it will sell.
I like Bob Lutz, but I think he's a bit off on this. I'm pretty sure it will be successful, and such oddball prestige might actually be a shot in the arm for Detroit auto manufacturers, who have been on the defensive since Japan got serious about cars 30 years ago. But, I wish Detroit would take one further step....
Here's a list: Automobiles, AM radios, FM radios, television sets, telephones, CD players, VCRs, DVDs, microwave ovens, calculators, digital wristwatches, cable TV, satellite TV, computers, internet access, video games, hot water heaters, air conditioning/central heating...I could go on.
What do these items have in common? When each was introduced, each was so pricey that only the rich could afford one. Today, over 50% of US citizens the government considers living in poverty have most of the items on this list. (Poverty is, of course, wildly inaccurate, simultaneously more and less prevalent than what the government claims...but I'm not going to go there.)
One of the most solvable engineering puzzles in this decade is the "green" automobile. No pollution -- either hydrogen powered, or pure electric. The problem is, the technology is still expensive. So auto manufacturers lose all sorts of money trying to figure out how middle-class hippies can afford to buy a green car, and are forced to use corner-cutting like the gas/electric hybrid. What they really need to be doing is making a green Cadillac or Town Car. Really expensive, like $75-100k. But usable -- say, a 500 mile radius, with a top speed of 100 MPH (though not, of course, simultaneously.) Trying to make the technology initially affordable to any but the wealthy is walking upstream during a flash flood -- it goes completely against the trend of any major consumer good in the last 100 years, and fighting that trend will just cost more money and time. Keep it expensive until the kinks are worked out and the technology matures. Go for the conscience of the wealthy and the sense of privilege. The rich already get bad press for having Ferraris and Jags in the first place...make a green luxury car that is actually useful, and it will sell.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-06 06:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-01-06 07:36 am (UTC)A lot of the technology, though, is from other industries. Hydrogen fuel-cell is developed by government contractors for the space shuttle and space station. Batteries are private sector -- laptops, cellphones.
I dunno, it's a thought, but it's not easy to retool a multi-billion dollar industry. If bad press doesn't change the auto industry, and the government is unwilling or unable (politically and economically) to guide them green, it's probably easiest to lead them by money.
Re:
Date: 2003-01-06 07:50 am (UTC)but maybe i watched too many episodes of the x-files back in college...
no subject
Date: 2003-01-06 08:57 am (UTC)Which, from an outside view, is kinda silly. Oil companies are hell on earth right now, you think they'd jump at the chance to be seen as environmentally pure. Their stock prices alone would make it worth it. But, there's a tremendous amount of inertia trying to get a multibillion dollar industry to lurch off in a new direction.
no subject
Date: 2003-01-08 02:03 pm (UTC)Don't ever expect the High Road from the auto industry!
On a lighter note, though, have you seen the new version of the Smart Truck they're debuting at this week's International Auto Show here?
WEIRD!!
Date: 2003-01-12 12:48 am (UTC)Re: WEIRD!!
Date: 2003-01-15 05:40 pm (UTC)