Archives

“President Obama and I both share the goal of energy independence and a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren,” Mr. Dingell said in a statement. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/business/27fuel.html?ref=science):confused: (check his voting history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_David_Dingell,_Jr.#Private_sector_ties))

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/nocompete.jpgNick Bunkley - New York Times – Jan. 26, 2009

Times are truly difficult, but Detroit has always been saying they can't afford to make more fuel-efficient vehicles. So maybe just abolish CAFE and see what happens to what's left of Detroit when gas prices go to $5 a gallon? -- Ed.

Automakers said Monday that they were working toward President Obama’s goal of reducing fuel consumption, but rapid imposition of stricter emissions standards could force them to drastically cut production of larger, more profitable vehicles, adding to their financial duress.

Mr. Obama ordered the government on Monday to reconsider whether California and other states could regulate vehicle emissions to help control greenhouse gas emissions, a reversal of a position taken by the Bush administration.

The announcement came as General Motors and Chrysler are borrowing billions of dollars from the government to avoid bankruptcy, and as Toyota prepares to report its first operating loss in 70 years. Shortly after the president spoke, General Motors said it would cut 2,000 jobs at plants in Michigan and Ohio because of slow sales....http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/business/27fuel.html?ref=science

This was a picture from the NAIAS in Detroit.

GM assembled employees to stage a Pep Rally...I'll let you judge their "school spirit"

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/500/GM_Rally.jpg

Hi All,

I would not abolish CAFE, without instituting at least a $1.00 / ga gasoline tax to replace the effects of CAFE.

One approach is tuff on the car makers, the other on the rest of us. But its neccassary to reduce petroleum consumption by personal transportation. And either one or the other has to be implemented.

My sarcasm might have gotten lost.

What if the Feds (and more improbable - states like California) lifted all fuel economy standards? The government goes back to 1970 and lets fuel economy be completely unregulated.

Won't happen, but I'd predict if it did, Detroit would be happier than tonight's Super Bowl MVP, but within five years gas prices would surge like last summer, except up to $5.00 a gallon or more. At that point, this favor would look like a curse when the disparity between GM and Asian vehicles is wider than ever.

Yes, I think Detroit would be foolish enough to do it.

Just $5 per gallon? Wait till the speculators finish with it --- they were the ones who leveraged 25 to 30 percent of that last gas hike, and they'll be back on the band wagon this time, with a vengeance.

Fuel prices need to be 'rise' to redirect attention to more efficient transportation. What if a tax was placed on gas to get the price to $4/gal and then allow it to be a tax write off?

Pro: Pain at the point of purchase, while acting as a savings account/tax relief.

Con:
- Congress can't keep their mitts off of tax revenue and would weedle to grab it.
- Regressive tax - tough on the poor.
- Some paperwork overhead/enforcement/fraud costs.

It would work, if we had some of Obama's 'discipline in government.'

However, given the 'sooo-wee' calls coming out of DC right now, hope is dim.

One approach is tuff on the car makers, the other on the rest of us. But its neccassary to reduce petroleum consumption by personal transportation. And either one or the other has to be implemented.

One or the other? No, both!

The car makers should feel the pain of demanding standards, but these make no sense whatsoever if gasoline stays cheap. Consumers need to feel the pain of higher gasoline taxes, to motivate them to purchase the new, more fuel-efficient models.

I know, it's tough on low-wage earners. No problem, give them a partial refund of their increased gasoline taxes, based on either average miles driven, or some formula using their commute distance.

You have to have car makers making more fuel-efficient vehicles, and a receptive public buying them. Right now we have neither. Whatever it takes to change both parties is needed, and needed now. Now is not the time to be bashful.

Harry

Detroit needs to focus on building quality cars before they focus on fuel efficiency.

Detroit needs to focus on building quality cars before they focus on fuel efficiency.Are you aware that Consumer Reports says Ford cars are on par with Japanese cars? Even Chrysler is improved.

Granted, years of cars like the Vega and Pinto don't help, but their biggest problem is neglecting sedans and trying to brainwash everybody to get pickups and SUVs.

Profits in the passenger car industry of the early 21st century will come to manufacturers that produce innovative, high-quality, efficient, low-pollution vehicles. Those profits may come to US manufacturers, or to others. But they will come.

Do we have the slightest reason to believe that the domestic manufacturers would focus their efforts on that goal, in the absence of government intervention?.

Sometimes, children *need* to be told what to do, by their parents.

DAS

What I’m having a hard time understanding is why the US manufacturers are saying that they can not make a more fuel efficient vehicle in such a short time. Don’t they already have more fuel efficient vehicles across the pond? True the crash testing standards might be keeping some from making their way over here. Over there they not only look at the test vehicles crash standards but also pedestrian and CO2 emissions. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the US vehicle standards to allow some of these vehicles into our market. Then use the European model to tax fuel to help spur the buying of these vehicles. Why do I never hear about this option in all the bailout or options articles?

As pointed out in another post, Bubba gets to drive his 6.7 liter Hemi diesel dually (Don’t know if this really exists, just made it up as an example) as a commuter vehicle yet I can not get a 1.4 diesel for my Yaris.

Hi WoodyWoodchuck:

___You got it right for the most part but it is not the vehicles, it is the engines. GM still believes they need 170 HP + powered mid-size sedans vs. 120 HP ones that achieve 30% better FE. GM is not the only guilty one. All the manufacturers are guilty of this including Honda and Toyota. I would say especially Honda given the upsized Accord to Large size and adding a more powerful and fuel thirsty I4 to it from last years redesign.

___And of course screwed up gearing and oversized engines in the B and C-class sized vehicles :ccry:

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Just like hypermilers, it'll be very difficult for small fuel efficient vehicles to become mainstream.

Just like hypermilers, it'll be very difficult for small fuel efficient vehicles to become mainstream.

It'll only be difficult on their own. Helpful prodding, especially from high prices, had a monstrous effect last summer.

A little motivation is probably all people need.

Detroit needs to focus on building quality cars before they focus on fuel efficiency.

I know I will sound like a broken record here, but GM has already hit the mark on FE, but they let it slip through their fingers. They can easily do it again, but can add the quality to it as well.

The second best FE vehicle (mass produced) ever sold in America was the Geo Metro (XFi I think. 1.0L with MT). The only thing that has every beat it is the Insight I.