Archives

GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has said the Bush proposal would add $5,000 to $6,000 to the cost of every GM vehicle. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/UPDATE/705040445/1148/AUTO01)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2007_Toyota_Camry_Hybrid2.jpgDavid Shepardson - Detroit News - May 5, 2007

Bob Lutz, have you considered today’s Toyota’s Camry Hybrid at (40/38), Prius (60/51), Corolla (32/41) and Yaris (32/40) achieving the supposedly “unattainable” 35 mpg average at a far lower cost then your made up $5,000 - $6,000 upcharge?

WASHINGTON -- A key Senate committee chairman unveiled a revised fuel economy proposal today that automakers described as "unattainable."

U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Commerce Committee, unveiled the 19-page bill that would force car companies to dramatically raise fuel economy standards to a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

In 1975, Congress told automakers they had to raise passenger car fuel economy from an average of 13 miles per gallon to 27.5 mpg. That standard has remained unchanged as automakers have vigorously lobbied to oppose increases.

Last year, the Bush administration said it would raise light truck fuel economy from 21.6mpg to 24mpg in 2012 -- or about 2 percent annually. Ten states led by California have filed suit, saying the increase was woefully inadequate.

The measure essentially merges proposals by U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. After 2020, vehicles would have to improve 4 percent yearly forever. The proposal comes amid growing concern in Congress about the impact of vehicle tailpipe emissions on climate change. U.S. automobiles account for about 5 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emission -- and about 20 percent of U.S. emissions.

"Basically, it is unattainable up until 2020 and unattainable afterward," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the trade group that represents General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG and Toyota Motor Co. "We think this is still going to be a big burden on Americans who need work vehicles" … http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/UPDATE/705040445/1148/AUTO01

I don't get it. How can that spokesperson for the AAM say it's unattainable when one of the companies she represents - Toyota - already has 5 cars in their line-up (Prius, Yaris, TCH, Corolla, Matrix) that do it today?

My aunt told me how she was able to get 27 mpg and more while travelling 70-80 mph in her '62 Studebaker Hawk on a trip to Oregon. It was a 3-speed manual with OD. It also had a V-8! If they could do it 45 years ago without fuel injection and computers, why can't(or should I ask why won't) they do it today?

Maybe he meant "unattainable using our current business model"

Hi Marc:

___I have no idea what these pronouncements are all about but the proof is right there in front of everybody … today :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

We purchased the exact car in the picture (2007 Toyota Camry) with a 5-speed!! transmission. It has a 4 cylinder 2.4 liter engine that we are averaging 37 mpg since new.

My Camry's cruise is set at 67 mph whenever I'm on the highway (2 mph extra for the speedometer error).

It has more than enough power to TRANSPORT PEOPLE. Obviously I could never tow anything with this automobile. This car is incredible!!! Quiet, comfortable, good looking, and efficient make this the best car I have ever owned.

And it's a 2007, not 2020 or 2040. Nuff said.

According to the Big Three, that blue lump in my driveway can't possibly exist, so I better not name it.

Someone needs to adjust their blinders: they can't see in any direction!

Harry

bs. they should look a little farther than their profit sheets.....which if they don't manage to change their ways, are going to get smaller in spite of their charges that it can't be done.

My father and his siblings have been car "nuts" all their lives.
He told me about a business he and his brothers started in the early 60's where they created and fitted a evaporative carburetor on a 1964 Galaxie 500 V8:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4234527.html

http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2002/hutchison/ford6401.JPG
A car like the one pictured above got almost 40MPG with their carburetor driven normally.

There was a factory which had an idle production line and after demonstrating their invention the factory agreed to provide production funding to produce these retro-fit kits. The factory produced many other auto parts- mufflers, gaskets etc.
Last minute they backed out, saying their other production line was at risk due to "external pressure" and the project fizzled out.

I don't know the emissions of such a device and don't advocate its use today, but is enough proof at least to me of some sort of conspiracy. I can only imagine the oil companies have some sort of pull when it comes to major automotive manufacture economy specifications. On the other hand if those MFG's produced a 50MPG Yukon or 70MPG Neon they'd sell like crazy. Could the oil companies deny them production (raw materials etc) and/or produce enough false negative press to stop sales?

On the other hand it seems the oil companies should be smart enough to realize that Dino is not limitless and be helping to weene us to alternatives. Since they're not doing that I'd say they are only greedy- thinking only of today's pot of gold but that's not how business's are ran.

I saw "Who killed the electric car" a few months ago and while I didn't like how they displayed (What I'd consider) far-fringe activists it made some good solid points.
There's allot of unanswered questions out there but clearly big economy improvements are available, even with petro-only technology.