Archives

Lutz called on the Union of Concerned Scientists to visit GM, talk to his staff and show them the gasoline-saving technology the group says is readily available but ignored by automakers.

"This is a challenge I want to put out to people who think they have a solution, and are so much smarter than we are," Lutz told the Wall Street Journal.

David Friedman, head of the Clean Vehicle Research program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Lutz discussed the group's contention that with off-the-shelf technology, the automaker could build a minivan that would reduce tailpipe emissions by 40 percent -- and cost just $300 per vehicle.

Friedman noted, "I think we will have to build a driveable vehicle" to convince GM the technology works. "We didn't change any minds."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070418/AUTO01/704180349/1148

GM (as well as Ford and other makers) can either provide the market with truly fuel-efficient vehicles or not.

If they don't then someone else will. Er, make that "did".
Any maker who doesn't support the need for fuel efficient transportation will suffer the consequences that the marketplace will enforce. You want capitalism and free makets? You got it!

Unfortunately we can't only view the auto industry as a "they". The industry's failures affect all of us, as millions of individuals and groups are shareholders, plus those who are direct or indirect employees.

Hi All:

___In this case, I believe the UCS is out to lunch but GM continually saying it takes $5K to receive a 30 + % increase in FE is absolutely and totally BS.

Toyota Head to Head - 07 Camry LE vs. 07 Camry Hybrid - Cost and features analysis. (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3047)

___If GM cannot make a HQ, 40-mpg capable, fully equipped mid-sized sedan for $25K like that above, they may as well close up shop today :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Unfortunately so much of the current emphasis is on the technology and not enough is on driving habits. Until most people change their driving habits and adopt at least some of the hypermiling techniques laid out by experts here, the full benefits of any fuel-saving technology cannot be realized. No matter what technology one uses, driving vehicles very fast and/or using rapid accel and decel costs energy - period.

We could get quite a bit better FE just by going back to the performance standards of the 1970s. My previous car (a `78 Malibu) weighed 4000 lb and had a monstrously powerful 305 V8 which generated...120 horsepower. My current compact weighs only 2500 lb and has a "wimpy" 1.8l 4 that makes...120 horsepower. I doubt I ever use a third of that horsepower in a given day these days, but a more appropriate engine with correspondingly better FE is unfortunately not an option.

Cars from the 1970s provide acceleration as acceptable in today's traffic as it was when they were new...so why do we need more powerful cars just to get to work?

I think I'd be just as happy with a turbocharged lean-burn 350-500cc engine, and it'd get a heck of a lot better FE.

This is the deep-seated societal problem we need to fix,
but you've heard that rant already...
.
_H*

Bruce & Hobbit,

We have a nation of pampered, spoiled brats that never grew up. :(

For instance, tonight I was at an intersection that just screamed for a traffic light in a huge shopping center - an angry SUV behind me practicly booted me into incoming traffic. :mad:

For instance, tonight I was at an intersection that just screamed for a traffic light in a huge shopping center - an angry SUV behind me practicly booted me into incoming traffic. :mad:

And ironically, the Google ad that came up with your message was for 4x4offroads.com. :(