Jump to content
Create New...
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Marchionne Comments On U.S. Fuel Economy Standards

      Sergio Marchionne Chimes In On The Upcoming Fuel Economy Standards

    FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne is known to speak his mind and tell it like it is. During the Automotive News World Congress, Marchionne questioned the U.S. Government's mandate of 54.5 MPG by 2025.

    "There is not a single carmaker that cannot make the 54 number. The question is, at what a price?" said Marchionne.

    A possible reason for the CEO of FCA to bring this up is gas prices around the nation are hovering around $2.00. Also, sales of hybrids and electric vehicles have been declining, partly due to gas prices. Now many executives say that low gas prices will pass and that they will continue in investing in newer technologies.

    Now Marchionne does agree automakers can meet that deadline, but questions the timeframe of when it will be implemented.

    "The question is whether 2025 is a realistic date for which to achieve it," Marchionne said. "Fifty-four will not change. The date of implementation might."

    Marchionne also went on to rail the Government's plans for subsidizing electrification technology.

    "Let the automotive industry get there. We'll find a way to get there in the most cost-efficient way. Don't tell me that I need to have electrification as the answer. It's improper."

    Source: The Detroit News, Detroit Free Press

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I think most of us would agree that we hate the Gov mandating MPG for Auto's.

     

    One place I do not agree with is subsidizing new technology. For a limited time using tax dollars to prove alternative concepts work is a good thing. But now that we know EV's can be done, time to get rid of the subsidizing and let the market play out.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Not just "at what a price", but "at what cost".

     

    One way to increase economy is to lighten the vehicle.  Lighter vehicles do less well in real-world collisions than heavier ones (insert physics here).  How may lives would lighter vehicles cost when they come against, say, a current-model Tahoe?

     

    Another is electrification.  Okay, so that adds how much to the weight and cost of the car?  How about the environmental impact to the areas around all those battery factories?  Lost of nasty chemicals in batteries.  Has anyone ever done a net environmental impact study on a hybrid/electric vs a traditional internal combustion?  Not sure these "modern" vehicles are near as clean as the enviro-nuts would want us to believe.

     

    The government should stop creating new subsidies, period, then curtail existing subsidies.  Might have to lay off a few bureaucrats, but we'll get a much better idea of what works, what doesn't; what's efficient, what's not; and what's too damned expensive to survive.

     

    There's more to look at here than JUST economy numbers, and the government either doesn't get that, or doesn't care.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If the government can legislate scientific change with actual fuel economy in automobiles, then why stop there?  Why don't they pass a law to have the flux capacitor, warp drive, and cold fusion to become a reality?

     

    Enough with the snark, here are two points that need to be addressed.

     

    1.  The industry will invest a LOT of money to comply with this mandate but what ever solutions that are found will not be the final answer.

     

    2.  You cannot force the public to buy all options.  Eventually a few or one solution will be determined by the market and there is just no way to predict in the next 10+ years what that might actually be. 

     

    This will be the VHS v. Beta battle only at a much LARGER scale of risk.

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think anyone who frequents this board knows my position on this issue.  It is intrusive, destructive and unnecessary to mandate fuel economy standards.  People should have the freedom to choose what they want to drive.  Let the customer decide!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • google-news-icon.png



  • google-news-icon.png

  • Subscribe to Cheers & Gears

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001 we've brought you real content and honest opinions, not AI-generated stuff with no feeling or opinions influenced by the manufacturers.

    Please consider subscribing. Subscriptions can be as little as $1.75 a month, and a paid subscription drops most ads.*
     

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I'm pulling back hard on spending. My vehicles are weeks (300c) or months (Avalanche) from being paid off. The LLC that owns C&G got some new contracts recently and I'm going to be writing off every last thing I can. Both of us may be putting a lot of expensable miles on soon and we might find a cheap EV lease to take advantage of the situation and keep the miles off the ICE vehicles.
    • All of that waste is reprocessable back into fuel again, but due to outdated regulations and fear mongering dating back to the 1970s, it is only waste because we say it is waste.  Breeder reactors can extract additional energy out of those nuclear byproducts and turn it back into useable fuel in another type of reactor.  The only reason we don't do that is because it could be used to make bomb quality isotopes.  But if WE are the ones doing it, why are we afraid we might accidentally make the bomb isotopes? The remaining radioactive material left over from those next two steps in the process, if we got out of our own way and did them, would condense the entire container seen above down to a relatively benign thimble size. 
    • Scary times ahead folks, watch your spending, debt load and be cautious as we are in for a crazy 4 years. 'Flashing a warning': Economist says Trump's plans leading to 'a terrible outcome'
    • Considering the number of folks that have had their life cut short in Hanford here due to what was supposed to be storage for life of radioactive Liquid, I would say this will fail and contaminate the earth, animals or humans in a new and destructive way. Honestly, I remember this from the news and the science behind it that it is the best way to store Nuclear waste, as a glass solid and then put it into an underground bunker like the old salt mines in the SW. SRS - Programs - Waste Solidification QUOTE: The largest radioactive waste glassification plant in the world, DWPF converts the high-level liquid nuclear waste currently stored at the Savannah River Site (SRS) into a solid glass form suitable for long-term storage and disposal. Scientists have long considered this glassification process, called “vitrification,” as the preferred option for immobilizing high-level radioactive liquids into a more stable, manageable form until a federal repository is ready.
    • ummmm yeah... Deep geological disposal... Away from where humans live deeeeeep down bee-low. Away from the top soil deep in the earth's core.  Sealed in containers that wont leak, sealed in chambers that will contain the leakages, if there is a such a leakage to begin with, that themselves wont leak deeeeeeeeep down bee-low with nuclear waste that has been neutralized.   All nice things when spoken but what IS the reality and the TRUTH about this storage? Colour me just a tad skeptical.  And why? We cant seem to stop a freakin' faucet from leaking with attempts and trials and errors that span a millennia. We cant seem to stop ANY liquids from escaping their containment, again, a practice that we have tried to do spanning a millennia or two or three.   Even four and five...  So know, we wanna poison the earth from deeeep inside as we are NOT content of killing our planet from above.   My my!!!   We are quite the destructive little shytes we are!!!   
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search