Lutz: GM to rethink product plans if 35 mpg CAFE passes

[Oracle of Delphi]

Rick Kranz

Automotive News

December 7, 2007 - 10:33 am ET

SAN DIEGO — A massive change to General Motors’ future product plans is expected if the 35 mpg CAFÉ fleet average favored by Congress is enacted into law.

“The minute we have confirmation of the 35 mpg rule, that is the point where we go through all of our forward product plans and probably introduce, frankly, massive restructuring of the product plan,” said GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz. “A 35 mpg fleet mix means there is a bunch of stuff out there that is going to have to be 40 and 50 mpg.”

The House bill passed last month calls for a 35 mpg nationwide fleet average by 2020, roughly a 40 percent increase from today’s CAFÉ standard. A key provision allows an automaker to trade credits between its car and truck fleets.

“We will have to take a look at everything because we’re going to have to come up with a plan which gets us to 2015, 2017, gets us part of the way there, and with clarity on how we’re going to get the rest,” said Lutz, interviewed Dec. 5 at a Saturn event in San Diego. “Then we will have to start raising prices as we introduce the new technology.”

He estimated a $6,000 to $7,000 increase in the price of vehicles requiring new technology. GM is offering a two-mode hybrid power system in the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon, although it has not said what the price of the option will be.

It is developing a series hybrid vehicle based on the Chevrolet Volt concept that would run solely on electric power, recharged by a small gasoline engine. A production version is expected to arrive in 2010.

Earlier this year, many industry figures said the 35-mpg CAFÉ plan would hurt automakers, suppliers and workers. But the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, of which GM is a member, endorsed the House bill.

“I think one of the reasons that everybody said, ‘Yeah, yeah, we’re in agreement with this,’ is because anything, even a horrible alternative, is better than the constant uncertainty,” he said.

While such vehicles as 2008 Saturn Astra, which goes on sale later this month, gets 32 mpg on the highway and could be tweaked to reach 35 mpg, he said “there is no way that we’re going to get pickups and sport utilities to anywhere close to 35 mpg.” The two-wheel-drive Tahoe with a two-mode hybrid system gets 21 mpg city/22 mpg highway.

Lutz said it is impossible for GM’s Lambda-based crossovers, such as the Buick Enclave, to achieve 35 mpg, he said. GM’s plans for larger rear-wheel-drive vehicles like a Chevrolet Impala replacement remain uncertain, Lutz said.

[ocnblu]

No doubt, CAFE has put a major chill on the whole industry. I am interested in seeing how Flex-Fuel vehicles will be counted... if ethanol can prove to be a nationwide, viable source of fuel to mix with gasoline... why in the world can't we have the Zeta RWD large cars we yearn for? Why can't Alpha sit under Cadillac, Chevy and its natural home, Pontiac, as well as Holden and around the world?

[buyacargetacheck]

Hardly anyone really NEEDS a Tahoe or a Lambda except for towing. So it may just be that the days of trailer-towing boats, RVs and other lifestyle vehicles is coming to an end. No one but the very rich will be able to afford them anyway in the coming years of very high fuel prices and tight credit for the average joe. I'm sure that a Tahoe sized vehicle will still be offered, but the demand will be so limited that likely only one manufacturer will be offering it (kinda like when Ford ceded the full-sized wagon market to GM).

[Camino LS6]

Hardly anyone really NEEDS a Tahoe or a Lambda except for towing. So it may just be that the days of trailer-towing boats, RVs and other lifestyle vehicles is coming to an end. No one but the very rich will be able to afford them anyway in the coming years of very high fuel prices and tight credit for the average joe. I'm sure that a Tahoe sized vehicle will still be offered, but the demand will be so limited that likely only one manufacturer will be offering it (kinda like when Ford ceded the full-sized wagon market to GM).

That is an unacceptable answer.

[buyacargetacheck]

You're not alone. This country is full of corn-pone fatties who think they're ENTITLED to the standard of living their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. These same people don't worry either because "technology will save us." 35 mpg? Easy. Why? Because that's the way it's always been.

Bank on this - prepare yourself for a different way of living that will include forced sacrifice.

That is an unacceptable answer.

[Camino LS6]

You're not alone. This country is full of corn-pone fatties who think they're ENTITLED to the standard of living their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. These same people don't worry either because "technology will save us." 35 mpg? Easy. Why? Because that's the way it's always been.

Bank on this - prepare yourself for a different way of living that will include forced sacrifice.

Seems to me that the country is full of Surrender Monkeys that are willing to accept decline as

their fate.

[ocnblu]

How ironic that "buyacargetacheck" is a "Super Sport" member. I wonder what he drives.

[buyacargetacheck]

I don't know why I am listed as a "Super Sport" member. I don't own one.

How ironic that "buyacargetacheck" is a "Super Sport" member. I wonder what he drives.

[ocnblu]

Dude, I know it's not a Super Sport... that designation has to do with your number of posts.

[buyacargetacheck]

Surrender??? To whom? To what?

You clearly don't realize what's been required to allow the U.S. with 5% of the world's population to use 25% of the world's fossil fuels. I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and lots to do with killing a ton of people and subjugating the rest. Just ask the citizens of our oil "partners" in Nigeria, Equador, Iraq, and Colombia. We import nearly 3/4 of what we use now (and growing). Ever wonder why our military is so large or why we have 700 bases around the world? We might as well fill our tanks with blood. And your little world is rocked because you can't have a V-8? Welcome to reality.

Seems to me that the country is full of Surrender Monkeys that are willing to accept decline as

their fate.

[Camino LS6]

Surrender??? To whom? To what?

You clearly don't realize what's been required to allow the U.S. with 5% of the world's population to use 25% of the world's fossil fuels. I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and lots to do with killing a ton of people and subjugating the rest. Just ask the citizens of our oil "partners" in Nigeria, Equador, Iraq, and Colombia. We import nearly 3/4 of what we use now (and growing). Ever wonder why our military is so large or why we have 700 bases around the world? We might as well fill our tanks with blood. And your little world is rocked because you can't have a V-8? Welcome to reality.

You know nothing about me or my position on such things- you'd be surprised if you did.

However, I feel absolutely no guilt about the fate of the rest of the world and will not dumb-down my expectations in some PC illusion of fairness.

[-Camaro-]

Oh yeah 35 MPG fleet is really going to change things.

Sounds like a lame way to make the people of the U.S. think the government is doing something.

[Camino LS6]

Oh yeah 35 MPG fleet is really going to change things.

Sounds like a lame way to make the people of the U.S. think the government is doing something.

That is the sum total of its value. Yet, the consequences make a long list.

[Camino LS6]

Surrender??? To whom? To what?

You clearly don't realize what's been required to allow the U.S. with 5% of the world's population to use 25% of the world's fossil fuels. I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and lots to do with killing a ton of people and subjugating the rest. Just ask the citizens of our oil "partners" in Nigeria, Equador, Iraq, and Colombia. We import nearly 3/4 of what we use now (and growing). Ever wonder why our military is so large or why we have 700 bases around the world? We might as well fill our tanks with blood. And your little world is rocked because you can't have a V-8? Welcome to reality.

Read this:

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...showtopic=21765

Then at least you can attack me for the positions I actually advocate.

[Drew Dowdell]

Surrender??? To whom? To what?

You clearly don't realize what's been required to allow the U.S. with 5% of the world's population to use 25% of the world's fossil fuels. I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and lots to do with killing a ton of people and subjugating the rest. Just ask the citizens of our oil "partners" in Nigeria, Equador, Iraq, and Colombia. We import nearly 3/4 of what we use now (and growing). Ever wonder why our military is so large or why we have 700 bases around the world? We might as well fill our tanks with blood. And your little world is rocked because you can't have a V-8? Welcome to reality.

Who said that the V8 had to run on dino-fuel?

To quote me:

I think the issue is that we as a society are so used to not having to pay for what we use in terms of the environment. Our use of gasoline has been artificially cheap at the pump for years. I hear so much against ethanol as a fuel but none of it makes sense when you look at the big picture. Sure corn based ethanol is one of the worst in terms of production efficiency but it's still cheap compared to gasoline. Don't believe me? Consider these points:

1. The most common argument against ethanol is that it takes government subsidies to make it affordable. How much did Iraq war v. 1.0 and v. 2.0 cost us? What if we had used all of that money to develop a pure ethanol infrastructure not based on corn? Why is it wrong to subsidize our farmers yet perfectly fine to send money to Shieks in Saudi Arabia or dictators in Venezuela? How much did the wars cost us in lives? How much did the wars cost us in global esteem? Osama Bin Laden's original motivating factor for attacking the US was his observations of US soldiers in Saudi Arabia during the original Gulf War; Would 9-11 even have happened? These are all costs that don't get factored into the $3.05 per gallon that people are complaining about today.

2. The second most common argument against ethanol is that it is less efficient per gallon than gasoline. This is true when you're running ethanol through an engine originally designed for gasoline. Why is it such a stretch of the imagination to consider that when you run the engine with a fuel that it was not originally designed for, you're not going to get optimum performance? If you were complaining because your turbo charged Saab wasn't getting great mileage and you were filling up with 87 instead of the manufacturer specified 91, people would call you an idiot. The compression ratio of the Impala Flex Fuel is a relatively lazy 9.8:1. Ethanol is over 100 octane. Brazillian Chevies run at a compression ratio of 12:1 on pure alcohol. The Impala Flex Fuel is literally wasting energy in order to maintain compatibility with the gasoline infrastructure. Dial up the compression on the 3.5 V6 and you'd likely not only get more power out of the engine but would probably also return mileage similar to a gas only version. Worked for the Saab BioPower.

3. The third argument against ethanol is that it stresses the food supply. This is true if you base your ethanol infrastructure on corn. The beauty of ethanol is that it can be made from a wide variety of sources. Brazil based their alcohol infrastructure on sugar. There is no global shortage of sugar. In fact sugar producers in the U.S. are doing everything in their power to keep cheaper Brazilian sugar out of our market. Among many other sources, Ethanol can be made from alge and kelp. We have a LOT of coastline in the US and kelp grows along all of it. That is all fuel out there waiting to go into your V8.

4. The fourth argument against ethanol is that it takes oil to produce ethanol. I'm not quite sure what kind of logical defect is at work with this one but it's a duesy. Sure it might take oil to get the ethanol infrastructure in place, but once up and operating, the infrastructure is self sustaining. Why can't the farm tractors, tanker trucks, in fact the entire network be powered by some sort of bio-fuel? Some might argue that it would take more energy input than you'd get with output. While this might be true with corn <the worst source>, it is not true with other ethanol sources, especially those derived from waste products.

In short, if you want to keep your V8 and not drive an Aveo, support ethanol and don't by into the hype against it.... because all it is, is hype.

Raise your hand if you don't want a big American car with a big American V8 with a 13:1 compression ratio that burns 100 octane fuel grown by Americans that costs around $2.35 a gallon and at the same time not have the U.S. participate in more mid-east wars?

*crickets chirping*

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

You're not alone. This country is full of corn-pone fatties who think they're ENTITLED to the standard of living their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. These same people don't worry either because "technology will save us." 35 mpg? Easy. Why? Because that's the way it's always been.

Bank on this - prepare yourself for a different way of living that will include forced sacrifice.

And why the f@#k should we NOT be entitled to the standard of living that our fathers enjoyed? OR BETTER?

It's pretty sad that america is now full of bleeding hearts that are willing to sacrifice their way of life (Excuse me; the way of life of their fellow americans, because the changes likely won't affect these people, which is why thy're endorsing it in the first place) for the sake of some bull&#036;h&#33; propaganda war.

We, as americans, are to sacrifice our lifestyles. our jobs, our industry, our STANDARD OF LIVING even for the sake of WHAT exactly?

I don't know about the rest of them, but this "corn-pone fattie" is getting mighty damn tired of sacrifice and there will come a point where I will not sacrifice anymore.

Fact is; technology WILL save us. It always has, always will. Luckily not all americans are so self defeatist as to roll over and die like many of you would have us do.

Surrender??? To whom? To what?

You clearly don't realize what's been required to allow the U.S. with 5% of the world's population to use 25% of the world's fossil fuels. I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with "freedom" and lots to do with killing a ton of people and subjugating the rest. Just ask the citizens of our oil "partners" in Nigeria, Equador, Iraq, and Colombia. We import nearly 3/4 of what we use now (and growing). Ever wonder why our military is so large or why we have 700 bases around the world? We might as well fill our tanks with blood. And your little world is rocked because you can't have a V-8? Welcome to reality.

And what exactly is wrong with that? We fought our way to the top and unless they can take us down, then so be it. THAT'S RIGHT! I am a part of the growing group of people in this country who really don't care who they step on to get what they want. It's really too bad our V8s don't run on blood, because I can think of MANY places we could 'mine' throughout the world to quench our thirst.

[Camino LS6]

Gotta love FOG - so skilled at going over the top to drive a point home.

The way I see it is that we can innovate and take ourselves to a higher level, or roll over and die.

I'll take the former,thank you.

[buyacargetacheck]

Terrific. Let me know how it goes with your high school Armed Services recruiter.

And why the f@#k should we NOT be entitled to the standard of living that our fathers enjoyed? OR BETTER?

It's pretty sad that america is now full of bleeding hearts that are willing to sacrifice their way of life (Excuse me; the way of life of their fellow americans, because the changes likely won't affect these people, which is why thy're endorsing it in the first place) for the sake of some bull&#036;h&#33; propaganda war.

We, as americans, are to sacrifice our lifestyles. our jobs, our industry, our STANDARD OF LIVING even for the sake of WHAT exactly?

I don't know about the rest of them, but this "corn-pone fattie" is getting mighty damn tired of sacrifice and there will come a point where I will not sacrifice anymore.

Fact is; technology WILL save us. It always has, always will. Luckily not all americans are so self defeatist as to roll over and die like many of you would have us do.

And what exactly is wrong with that? We fought our way to the top and unless they can take us down, then so be it. THAT'S RIGHT! I am a part of the growing group of people in this country who really don't care who they step on to get what they want. It's really too bad our V8s don't run on blood, because I can think of MANY places we could 'mine' throughout the world to quench our thirst.

[ocnblu]

Ohhh... somebody's about to get a "check", the kind people get in hockey when they become annoying.

[mustang84]

We have so many problems internally in this country that worry about the rest of the world should be our last concern right now. The world can handle itself...the US doesn't and shouldn't have to be the babysitter.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Instead of band-aid moves like CAFE, close all our military bases outside US territory and cut the military budget in half at least, then reinvest that substantial savings in MASS TRANSPORTATION. Restore a national rail network so that people won't have to drive everywhere. This way we have options, but we still have the choice to purchase what we can afford. Unfortunately, our government moves at a snail's pace and they have priorities in the wrong place, so I doubt we'll ever see anything like that happen even though it is the obvious solution. Europe has an extensive, fast, and efficient railroad network that works beautifully...why can't we have the same?

The "innovators" in this country are few and far between these days. People would rather heap on industry-crippling regulation than actually tackling the source of the problem with obvious solutions. We pulled ourself out of the Great Depression for Christ's sake and this is the best our government can do?? Laziness on behalf of the population and total lack of competence within our politicians is why countries like China will probably knock us off our pedestal within the next 20 years.

Benevolent corporate leaders that funded the great public works in this country at the turn of the century no longer exist. And those in government that had a vision of what America should be have been replaced with puppets who do the bare minimum to keep themselves in office and satisfy the puppetmasters who fund them.

-------------------------------

Technology is the solution. It has always been the solution; all great empires rose because they innovated to solve problems. These same great empires fell from incompetence at the state-level, internal division among the population, and most of all, lack of innovation (sound much like the United States?) No amount of government bureaucracy is going to change the fact that people will still drive as much as they did before with more efficient cars.

Fine, cripple our industry and regulate our lives so that we can "repay" the rest of the world for our consumption; make us drive cars that cost more with less content in order to comply with some dubious regulation. The Al Gore's of the world are reaping from this environmental push while the quality of life for the average American goes down the &#036;h&#33;ter. If that's what this country is going to become, then I would much rather live elsewhere. Canada is looking mighty nice these days.

[Camino LS6]

We have so many problems internally in this country that worry about the rest of the world should be our last concern right now. The world can handle itself...the US doesn't and shouldn't have to be the babysitter.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Instead of band-aid moves like CAFE, close all our military bases outside US territory and cut the military budget in half at least, then reinvest that substantial savings in MASS TRANSPORTATION. Restore a national rail network so that people won't have to drive everywhere. This way we have options, but we still have the choice to purchase what we can afford. Unfortunately, our government moves at a snail's pace and they have priorities in the wrong place, so I doubt we'll ever see anything like that happen even though it is the obvious solution. Europe has an extensive, fast, and efficient railroad network that works beautifully...why can't we have the same?

The "innovators" in this country are few and far between these days. People would rather heap on industry-crippling regulation than actually tackling the source of the problem with obvious solutions. We pulled ourself out of the Great Depression for Christ's sake and this is the best our government can do?? Laziness on behalf of the population and total lack of competence within our politicians is why countries like China will probably knock us off our pedestal within the next 20 years.

Benevolent corporate leaders that funded the great public works in this country at the turn of the century no longer exist. And those in government that had a vision of what America should be have been replaced with puppets who do the bare minimum to keep themselves in office and satisfy the puppetmasters who fund them.

-------------------------------

Technology is the solution. It has always been the solution; all great empires rose because they innovated to solve problems. These same great empires fell from incompetence at the state-level, internal division among the population, and most of all, lack of innovation (sound much like the United States?) No amount of government bureaucracy is going to change the fact that people will still drive as much as they did before with more efficient cars.

Fine, cripple our industry and regulate our lives so that we can "repay" the rest of the world for our consumption; make us drive cars that cost more with less content in order to comply with some dubious regulation. The Al Gore's of the world are reaping from this environmental push while the quality of life for the average American goes down the &#036;h&#33;ter. If that's what this country is going to become, then I would much rather live elsewhere. Canada is looking mighty nice these days.

I haven't thrown in the towel just yet... but it is a close thing.

[carman21]

You're not alone. This country is full of corn-pone fatties who think they're ENTITLED to the standard of living their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. These same people don't worry either because "technology will save us." 35 mpg? Easy. Why? Because that's the way it's always been.

Bank on this - prepare yourself for a different way of living that will include forced sacrifice.

Wow, that is just pathetic. Technology will prevail are our standard of living will dramatically increase due to those very technologies. Only hard-line Stalinists call for forced sacrifice.

We are a Capitalist society, in the course of human history, no other system has lifted masses out of 6,000 years of Socialist servitude to the State and into the greatest period of human prosperity ever.

Capitalism built the comfortable world that you are spoiled to live in if you think for a second to count your blessings.

Do you not realize that when a government can dictate how to live and where you live that they are not too far off from telling you how to think what is acceptable to say, and whom to vote for, regardless of what is right or to your own benefit?

If you kill or weaken Capitalism you are in fact killing or weakening Democracy.

The two are linked and cannot be separated.

Oh and by the way, technology will save us, why? Because free markets will urge the development of the technologies.

Do us all a favor and stop sleeping with Karl Marx.

[mustang84]

Wow, that is just pathetic. Technology will prevail are our standard of living will dramatically increase due to those very technologies. Only hard-line Stalinists call for forced sacrifice.

We are a Capitalist society, in the course of human history, no other system has lifted masses out of 6,000 years of Socialist servitude to the State and into the greatest period of human prosperity ever.

Capitalism built the comfortable world that you are spoiled to live in if you think for a second to count your blessings.

Do you not realize that when a government can dictate how to live and where you live that they are not too far off from telling you how to think what is acceptable to say, and whom to vote for, regardless of what is right or to your own benefit?

If you kill or weaken Capitalism you are in fact killing or weakening Democracy.

The two are linked and cannot be separated.

Oh and by the way, technology will save us, why? Because free markets will urge the development of the technologies.

Do us all a favor and stop sleeping with Karl Marx.

Excellent post.

[buyacargetacheck]

We'll be forced to make sacrifices in the coming years because of circumstances (we've mortgaged our future to foreigners and we're importing almost 3 of every 4 barrels of crude we use while world production declines because of natural depletion) NOT because of governments. Longer term Washington will become impotent as power devolves from the center.

Capitalism and democracy are not linked. They are near polar opposites. What makes you think we live in a democracy??? Because we are privileged to vote for 2 wings of the same faction: rich powerful interests?

If you study U.S. history a little more deeply you'll find that the Founding Fathers organized government to benefit the wealthiest members while giving just enough rights and privileges to the free white working class (the ones just above indentured servantry) to keep them on the rich man's side. Unlike we've all been taught, the Revolution was not about freedom and equality for all men. It was a struggle between two privileged classes, American and British, fought mostly by poor whites promised various tokens of upward mobility.

Look out when the upper class (bankers, financiers, industrialists) can no longer keep the prosperity flowing to the middle classes. All hell will break loose. It happened in the 1930s and can happen again.

Please, I'm no Marxist. But even I can say that Marx's analysis of capitalism had quite a bit of it right.

Wow, that is just pathetic. Technology will prevail are our standard of living will dramatically increase due to those very technologies. Only hard-line Stalinists call for forced sacrifice.

We are a Capitalist society, in the course of human history, no other system has lifted masses out of 6,000 years of Socialist servitude to the State and into the greatest period of human prosperity ever.

Capitalism built the comfortable world that you are spoiled to live in if you think for a second to count your blessings.

Do you not realize that when a government can dictate how to live and where you live that they are not too far off from telling you how to think what is acceptable to say, and whom to vote for, regardless of what is right or to your own benefit?

If you kill or weaken Capitalism you are in fact killing or weakening Democracy.

The two are linked and cannot be separated.

Oh and by the way, technology will save us, why? Because free markets will urge the development of the technologies.

Do us all a favor and stop sleeping with Karl Marx.

[thegriffon]

Capitalism is not the same as a free market economy, in fact the two are quite different. Although there are a few capitalists out there (especially in growth economies), by and large we are in a post-capitalist global economy. We have not done away with Capital, but it is no longer primarily controlled by "capitalists", but rather various investment vehicles which consolidate the savings of millions of regular people from all levels of society. We are more of a mix between a "retail economy" (production and investment controlled by retailers—economic "gatekeepers" who control what will be sold) and a true market economy (production and investment controlled purely by consumer demand—the market).

[loki]

we (USA) don't live in a democracy. it's a republic. the federal government has become more fascist since ~60s or 70s, and more socialist since the ~20's

we were intended to be a free society, having free markets. when government ...directly and indirectly intervenes it's no longer a free market. monopolies can be bad, but look at how well the Zamboni company does, supposedly they have >85% share around the world. no one complains about that monopoly.

[Newbiewar]

Hardly anyone really NEEDS a Tahoe or a Lambda except for towing. So it may just be that the days of trailer-towing boats, RVs and other lifestyle vehicles is coming to an end. No one but the very rich will be able to afford them anyway in the coming years of very high fuel prices and tight credit for the average joe. I'm sure that a Tahoe sized vehicle will still be offered, but the demand will be so limited that likely only one manufacturer will be offering it (kinda like when Ford ceded the full-sized wagon market to GM).

hardly anyone really needs a tahoe? have you ever been to LA, or any city with a large hispanic presence... have you ever seen a household that has over 10 people in it, and that likes to go on trips or take the whole family to the mall or theater or wherever... maybe i'm just stupid, maybe its because i worked at a dealership that i understand the demand for large vehicles, do i feel sorry for families that cram 6,7 maybe even 8 people into a mid size sedan? You might be right about one thing, its not as needed as it is sold... does it need to be outselling the number one car of the year? probably not... does the tahoe & suburban need a 50% market share of full size SUV's sure why not?

But people DO NEED SUV's and CUV's and vehicles that fit more people...

[thegriffon]

Ah, so you want a CAFE that is measured in passenger-miles per gallon?

[thegriffon]

we (USA) don't live in a democracy. it's a republic. the federal government has become more fascist since ~60s or 70s, and more socialist since the ~20's

we were intended to be a free society, having free markets. when government ...directly and indirectly intervenes it's no longer a free market. monopolies can be bad, but look at how well the Zamboni company does, supposedly they have >85% share around the world. no one complains about that monopoly.

Technically the US government was more fascist prior to the end of WWII, when among other measures (primarily relating to war efforts), the federal government went so far as to dictate the what locomotive manufacturers would build and what railroads it would be assigned to. Private enterprise becomes an extension of government, with major expenditures and business decisions approved by the government in order to further government policy, particularly with regard to employment and economic growth. This is what many of the anti-corporate, anti-globalization protesters being courted by Edwards are demanding. Congress is now in a mood to dictate what prices companies can charge for products and services if there are complaints about lack of competition. Imagine GM having to co before a Commerce board for approval to set a certain price for the Suburban, or to get approval to build a diesel C1500.

[bowtie_dude]

Technically the US government was more fascist prior to the end of WWII, when among other measures (primarily relating to war efforts), the federal government went so far as to dictate the what locomotive manufacturers would build and what railroads it would be assigned to. Private enterprise becomes an extension of government, with major expenditures and business decisions approved by the government in order to further government policy, particularly with regard to employment and economic growth. This is what many of the anti-corporate, anti-globalization protesters being courted by Edwards are demanding. Congress is now in a mood to dictate what prices companies can charge for products and services if there are complaints about lack of competition. Imagine GM having to co before a Commerce board for approval to set a certain price for the Suburban, or to get approval to build a diesel C1500.

*shudders*

[Robert Hall]

hardly anyone really needs a tahoe? have you ever been to LA, or any city with a large hispanic presence... have you ever seen a household that has over 10 people in it, and that likes to go on trips or take the whole family to the mall or theater or wherever... maybe i'm just stupid, maybe its because i worked at a dealership that i understand the demand for large vehicles, do i feel sorry for families that cram 6,7 maybe even 8 people into a mid size sedan? You might be right about one thing, its not as needed as it is sold... does it need to be outselling the number one car of the year? probably not... does the tahoe & suburban need a 50% market share of full size SUV's sure why not?

But people DO NEED SUV's and CUV's and vehicles that fit more people...

People with families that large need to learn about birth control....

[Oracle of Delphi]

People with families that large need to learn about birth control....

Why is that? If I make a lot of money and don't ask the government for a handout, who's business is it to determine how many children I have? Certainly not yours! :AH-HA_wink:

[Robert Hall]

Why is that? If I make a lot of money and don't ask the government for a handout, who's business is it to determine how many children I have? Certainly not yours! :AH-HA_wink:

They world is overpopulated the way it is now...the masses shouldn't be allowed to breed indiscriminately, IMHO.

[Oracle of Delphi]

They world is overpopulated the way it is now...the masses shouldn't be allowed to breed indiscriminately, IMHO.

:rotflmao: Sounds like something Hitler said in 1939!

Edited January 2, 2008 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Robert Hall]

:rotflmao: Hitler 1939!

Nahh, I'm just a bit of an elitist..

[Oracle of Delphi]

Nahh, I'm just a bit of an elitist..

I just find your whole statement funny coming from you! Are you breeding now?

[gm4life]

I hate to rant but I will anyways. This mister "Buy a Car and Get a Check" is really getting on my nerves, he needs to check his worthless a$$ outta here. Anyways now that is off my back...

Yeah I know we have a small portion of the population and use more than are fair share of resources. *Do I really care?* Nope. Other countries aren't economically developed and we are one the lucky ones that are. So tough. What is the matter with these tree huggers in our goverment who want to shove another freaking mandate up our asses. This is freaking nuts. And why are we going after the automotive industry? Thats right because there easy to blame and cars use the most fossil fuel right? Not. What about changing we use to heat our homes or run our stoves? I see no reason for even a gas tax nor cafe regulations. The more things the goverment touches the more that gets screwed up. What in the hell is the matter with people? This is not the goverments problems, we actually have real problems in the world. Like world hunger (this is Christian in me coming out), or poverty, and to continue to fight terrison. Those my friends are real problems, what about social security? Or how about health care, and yet we find time to slap the auto industry on the hand. Not only will GM be screwed and different even the beloved enviormental Toyota (the greatest car maker ever will be screwed too) even Honda with no true truck will be hurting. Not only is 35mpg too high but to lofty of a goal at this point in time. (Of course anything can be done with money...) The cost of vehicle performance scares me too, no longer a 0-60 time of 8 or 9 seconds will be normal it will be hovering around 10 or 12. This bill must be stopped, for ever automaker and for the sake of common sense. When did the goverment regulating something ever do us any good. Like my grandfater would say the more you can keep the goverment out of your business the better off the common man is. Is there a website or group we can join? Or someone I can write a bitchy letter at? Someones head is going to get bit off real soon.

Edited January 2, 2008 by gm4life

[ehaase]

The cost of vehicle performance scares me too, no longer a 0-60 time of 8 or 9 seconds will be normal it will be hovering around 10 or 12.

Having received my driver's license in 1980, I can assure you that the world will not end if the average car takes 13 seconds to go from 0 to 60. I remember driving a late 1970's Malibu with a 3.3L V6 that took about 20 seconds to go 0 to 60. It wasn't fun, but you can survive and be happy.

[Robert Hall]

Having received my driver's license in 1980, I can assure you that the world will not end if the average car takes 13 seconds to go from 0 to 60. I remember driving a late 1970's Malibu with a 3.3L V6 that took about 20 seconds to go 0 to 60. It wasn't fun, but you can survive and be happy.

True enough..I remember driving in the late '80s in my '84 Escort diesel..52 hp, 0-60 in about 18 seconds. And 55mpg at 55 mph, around 45mpg around town.

What's amazing is there is nothing in the US today that gets mileage anywhere close to that, and it was a solid little car, not a sh*tbox like the Geo Metros..

Edited January 2, 2008 by moltar

[Duncan]

Technically the US government was more fascist prior to the end of WWII, when among other measures (primarily relating to war efforts), the federal government went so far as to dictate the what locomotive manufacturers would build and what railroads it would be assigned to. Private enterprise becomes an extension of government, with major expenditures and business decisions approved by the government in order to further government policy, particularly with regard to employment and economic growth. This is what many of the anti-corporate, anti-globalization protesters being courted by Edwards are demanding. Congress is now in a mood to dictate what prices companies can charge for products and services if there are complaints about lack of competition. Imagine GM having to co before a Commerce board for approval to set a certain price for the Suburban, or to get approval to build a diesel C1500.

1) Do you have a source for the locomotive story? Because as far as I know, the fortunes of companies building locomotives were decimated and whittled down more by the onset of the Depression and Americans' growing preference for the automobile than by any government mandate. Railroads began to steadily (and then rapidly) decline from the 1920s and onward due mainly to these factors. There was no serious intervention from Washington until 1971, when Richard Nixon - certainly not what you'd call a "big-government" guy - signed the bills that created Amtrak and Conrail.

2) I think you're misguided as to the reasons why private enterprise was so closely intertwined with the government during the war. Contrary to what you appear to be asserting, America's industrial companies freely offered their services following Pearl Harbor (and in some cases, before). Yes, Roosevelt took the next step and asked for total mobilization, but only with the agreement of the parties involved - it was never a forced issue, with the exception that public opinion at the time would most likely have been roundly opposed to any manufacturer that chose not to help out the war effort. You'll also note that as soon as the war was over, private industry was quickly allowed to retool for civilian production - and in most cases, this was accelerated thanks to payments from the government for services rendered during the war.

3) Again, do you have a source for the assertion that Congress wants to control the markets? Frankly, it sounds a bit "tinfoil-hat" to me and not really grounded in reality. And where is anyone complaining about a lack of competition in the auto industry? Most would argue that we may enjoy too much competition at present.

[gm4life]

That would kill me. All my cars are under 10 seconds thank god. Even my GP is. I am not going back to that day. I have driven those cars too. (I am 50!) But they were so slow!

[Duncan]

I hate to rant but I will anyways. This mister "Buy a Car and Get a Check" is really getting on my nerves, he needs to check his worthless a$$ outta here. Anyways now that is off my back...

Yeah I know we have a small portion of the population and use more than are fair share of resources. *Do I really care?* Nope. Other countries aren't economically developed and we are one the lucky ones that are. So tough.

I don't understand this view in light of your later comments, but I'll address this at that point.

What is the matter with these tree huggers in our goverment who want to shove another freaking mandate up our asses.

It was gonna happen sooner or later - I much prefer that we set the terms for our country's energy usage on our own time, rather than having to do it under the barrel of a gun when OPEC (or something similar) forces us to. Lutz has it exactly right: having a crappy policy is at least better than running blind.

This is freaking nuts. And why are we going after the automotive industry? Thats right because there easy to blame and cars use the most fossil fuel right? Not. What about changing we use to heat our homes or run our stoves?

True, the auto industry is an easy scapegoat, and (unless I'm mistaken) I don't see a lot of other efforts to cut energy usage in other industries within the bill. So you have a point there.

I see no reason for even a gas tax nor cafe regulations. The more things the goverment touches the more that gets screwed up. What in the hell is the matter with people?

This, on the other hand, I have to call you on. For instance, I'm glad we're able to have this conversation on the Internet - which was initially created and funded by the government. Or that fine ribbon of Interstate highway you drive to Grandma's house? I can assure you that little elves did not magically spring up one day and begin laying down slabs of concrete in neat patterns. And hey, how about the collection of schools and universities you most likely have attended? I imagine they weren't built and funded strictly by force of will.

I could go on, but the list is very long. Sure, there are many things the government ought to just leave alone, but the things they've helped to provide us with are far more extensive and far-reaching in their impact.

This is not the goverments problems, we actually have real problems in the world. Like world hunger (this is Christian in me coming out), or poverty, and to continue to fight terrison.

Here's where I see a conflict of ideals. Your concern for humanity is laudable, and I agree that hunger and poverty ought to be high on our government's priority list. However, earlier you said it was "tough" if other countries weren't as well-developed as we are. Please explain how you can both care and not care for the poorer people of the world at the same time.

Those my friends are real problems, what about social security? Or how about health care, and yet we find time to slap the auto industry on the hand.

Here's an easy solution. Fix health care, and Social Security will fix itself. It's more detailed than that, certainly, but suffice it to say that Social Security is not going to be this country's biggest problem in the future.

Not only will GM be screwed and different even the beloved enviormental Toyota (the greatest car maker ever will be screwed too) even Honda with no true truck will be hurting. Not only is 35mpg too high but to lofty of a goal at this point in time. (Of course anything can be done with money...)

I can agree with you here, though we probably differ in the solution to this issue. If the government's going to require that domestic manufacturers meet such elevated MPG requirements, the least they could do is help subsidize the development costs for them to meet those numbers. As for the imports? Much as I hate to say it (being a Mazda fan), they can pay to play or they can get out of the market if it's too tough.

The cost of vehicle performance scares me too, no longer a 0-60 time of 8 or 9 seconds will be normal it will be hovering around 10 or 12. This bill must be stopped, for ever automaker and for the sake of common sense.

Yeah, I'd be sad to see vehicles get slower, but that would honestly be a short-term problem. Even then, a quick ECU reflash or change of axle ratio on most cars would probably bring back any performance loss. Americans survived the crappy 1970s with slow cars and are now better than ever - a few years of slightly duller mainstream sedans will not kill us. (It might kill Chrysler, but that's another story.)

When did the goverment regulating something ever do us any good. Like my grandfater would say the more you can keep the goverment out of your business the better off the common man is.

Wow. My grandpa was obviously more enlightened than yours. No offense, but I'm just saying.

Is there a website or group we can join? Or someone I can write a bitchy letter at? Someones head is going to get bit off real soon.

Aren't you already doing quite a bit of that here?

Edited January 2, 2008 by Duncan

[Z-06]

Here is my theory, which may make sense of why oil is rising and why we will feel the pinch more than other countries.

Most of world's oil is traded in dollars. With the dollar tanking and with the fear that it is not an investment currency and thus being dumped, the price of oil has to go up in dollars, to sustain the profits ("greeds") of the oil producing companies. Otherwise they will not get the "return" to their investment in dollars and crude they want.

Now, the dollar has been tanking with respect to other countries as well. So the price increase of crude oil in dollars is offset by the loss of value of dollar. Take this example, Dollar stood at 44.23 Indian Rupees at begining of 2007 and the price of crude was about $55/ gallon. Let us say India bought 100 oil futures in dollars then. It paid 100*44.23*55 = Rupees 243,265 for those 100 crude futures. As of today Dollar is 39.45 Rupees, the price of oil is $99.0/ gallon, India is paying 100*39.45*100 = Rupees 394,500. This is an increase of 62.2%. But for us Americans price of crude oil jumped (99/55-1)% = 80%. So theoritically, India has a "net" gain in the investment of fuel prices. We thus feel more pinch than India will at the gas pump. But the question is why is India clamoring for loss of dollar? Because, India sells goods with dollars more than it buys, so if the dollar looses value, so will its profits erode.

Now going a step further, since our politicians and we cannot curb our spending greed, and our desire to save and invest despite of the economy slowin (slowed?) down, Uncle Sam has to pay interest on those treasuries and loans of close to 8 Trillion dollars he owes. How will he do it? By indirectly charging us more on our oil. Oil is a single commodity which we need even if it goes to $200/ gallon. It is a hidden tax which we are paying. Since our government does not have balls to tell our citizens to curb spending, this is indirectly novel way.

Upto a certain extent the CAFE may be thus a smoke screen, because Uncle Sam will need this more money he is getting from us for the oil. That is why the goal is set to 2020. Do you not think that three forthcoming presidents and 6 forthcoming congresses till that date may not overthrow or change this CAFE? I mean it is not part of the constitution and even constitution can be ammended.

Any thoughts?

[Guest YellowJacket894]

I hate to rant but I will anyways. This mister "Buy a Car and Get a Check" is really getting on my nerves, he needs to check his worthless a$$ outta here. Anyways now that is off my back...

+1

I've been reading this topic since it started. If most of his posts had nothing but pictures of white flags embedded in them, it wouldn't matter; they'd still tell the same opinion and broadcast the same message.

I could type something that would take an hour to read, but I won't. I'll just say that I would like to see myself being able to own a slew of different rear-wheel drive cars with some decent power and attractive design over the course of my lifetime, because that's what I want in a car. I don't want Congress regulating what kind of car I can or cannot buy because they are too stupid to create a f@#king national energy policy and really push to invest in alternative fuels while giving a whole-hearted attempt at regulating the greedy, corrupt Big Oil companies that make the development of those fuels so slow and painful (something that will probably take a huge public uproar and backlash against either one of the two to accomplish).

Edited January 3, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[buyacargetacheck]

For the sake of peace I hope that YellowJacket, GM4life, etc are all of about 12 years old and therefore not representative of the general adult population. The thought of a population "entitled" to a lifestyle that isn't sustainable is a scary thought. There is no magic bullet on energy. Oil is nature's one-time gift and it will be coming to end in our lifetimes. Politicians and government have nothing to do with natural resource depletion. This is not a matter of "surrender." It's a matter of understanding that there's no such thing as getting something for nothing. All the "alt fuels" are actually old news and have been around in one form or another since the beginning of the car business. About the only one that hasn't resurrected itself yet is steam. I'm sure the "news" media will be on that one as oil continues its rise. BTW, anyone look up from their comic books today to notice that oil hit $100/barrel for the first time? $200 and higher will be here sooner than you expect. Bank on it.

A parting thought: when I was a teenager Nissan made a big deal about how they were working on hydrogen and elecrtic-powered vehicles!!! The future is now - fuel economy and overall usage is even worse.

For your own sake, start thinking about a world where you walk instead of drive.

Edited January 3, 2008 by buyacargetacheck

[Camino LS6]

For the sake of peace I hope that YellowJacket, GM4life, etc are all of about 12 years old and therefore not representative of the general adult population. The thought of a population "entitled" to a lifestyle that isn't sustainable is a scary thought. There is no magic bullet on energy. Oil is nature's one-time gift and it will be coming to end in our lifetimes. Politicans and government have nothing to do with natural resource depletion. This is not a matter of "surrender." It's a matter of understanding that there's no such thing as getting something for nothing. All the "alt fuels" are actually old news and have been around in one form or another since the beginning of the car business. About the only one that hasn't resurrected itself yet is steam. I'm sure the "news" media will be on that one as oil continues its rise. BTW, anyone look up from their comic books today to notice that oil hit $100/barrel for the first time? $200 and higher will be here sooner than you expect. Bank on it.

A parting thought: when I was a teenager Nissan made a big deal about how they were working on hydrogen and elecrtic-powered vehicles!!! The future is now - fuel economy and overall usage is even worse.

For your own sake, start thinking about a world where you walk instead of drive.

The difference is that you have already given-up hope, the rest of us have not.

Walking is not an option and you know it.

One question: What part of the world do you live in?

[Guest YellowJacket894]

For the sake of peace I hope that YellowJacket, GM4life, etc are all of about 12 years old and therefore not representative of the general adult population. The thought of a population "entitled" to a lifestyle that isn't sustainable is a scary thought. There is no magic bullet on energy. Oil is nature's one-time gift and it will be coming to end in our lifetimes. Politicans and government have nothing to do with natural resource depletion. This is not a matter of "surrender." It's a matter of understanding that there's no such thing as getting something for nothing. All the "alt fuels" are actually old news and have been around in one form or another since the beginning of the car business. About the only one that hasn't resurrected itself yet is steam. I'm sure the "news" media will be on that one as oil continues its rise. BTW, anyone look up from their comic books today to notice that oil hit $100/barrel for the first time? $200 and higher will be here sooner than you expect. Bank on it.

A parting thought: when I was a teenager Nissan made a big deal about how they were working on hydrogen and elecrtic-powered vehicles!!! The future is now - fuel economy and overall usage is even worse.

For your own sake, start thinking about a world where you walk instead of drive.

I'm 18. And you can bet I'm voting this November.

You just don't get it. Congress and our government should be focusing on getting us out of war, creating a national energy policy, reversing the woes of the value of our dollar, revitalizing manufacturing within our own borders, really pushing for a replacement for gasoline and not just pussy-footing around by throwing a few pennies here and there to the people who want it tomorrow instead of a year or two from now, and not just sitting around, doing nothing vital or important, and saying, "Well, you know what the cause of all our problems is? Cars. Just like the gays last year and just like [insert random bull&#036;h&#33; here] before that."

Fossil fuels aren't just used in powering cars. I think you know that (I hope you do, anyway). I can take pictures of a power plant on college campus in my town that provides electric to most of the central part of it that runs off of coal; there's even a smoke stack and everything. Why isn't Congress focusing on reducing fossil fuels in lighting our cities as well? Why aren't they pushing for a alternative fuel that will replace gasoline in our cars and coal in lighting our cities? Why the hell is the finger of blame pointed at the auto industry all the time?

Please, don't insult my f@#king intelligence by saying I'm 12 years old, alright? You can ram that statement right back up your ass from where it came if you're going to sit there and just insult me because YOU think I don't know the reality of the situation. Our consumption of natural resources isn't nothing to make light of, but it's nothing to &#036;h&#33; a f@#king two-hundred pound brick over, either. Are you awake and paying attention to the boom in China? Or are you just asleep like the other mass percent of apathetic American morons who absorb the drivel on Fox News like a sponge? That country is gaining in our footsteps every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every month, every year, and every decade. Their consumption will soon surpass ours and yet they aren't doing anything to stop themselves, now are they? Where's the finger of blame being pointed at them?

And, FYI. I don't think I'm "entitled" to anything other than my FREEDOM OF CHOICE, one of the basic principals this country was founded on and that I'm guaranteed by law. This piece of legislature is clearly violating my freedom of choice by forcing me into something I don't want to drive when my Sonoma is due to be replaced by a new car (although it will break my bank, I am probably going to have race to get an '09 Camaro while I still can and just wait until I swear off new car purchases for the rest of my life). I don't like small, cramped cars. I don't like weak, slow little engines. I don't like the majority of front-drive cars. I don't like something that looks the box my shoes came in. (And I really dislike automatics on top of that, but I don't mind them.) I believe I can get what I want to drive as long as there is a company really willing to develop the technology and mass produce it. Unfortunately, the aforementioned company has probably been paid off not to develop or mass produce that technology because of so many myriad stark reasons associated with greed and whatever bull&#036;h&#33; you want to put here.

Walking is not an option. It never will be. (Stop and think of the impact of transportation for a moment, if you will. A world without cars or even horse-drawn wagons. That's going back to a world where your kids wind up sleeping with their siblings, cousins, or even your own wife because that nice girl they met in school lives 25 miles across town and who wants to walk that distance? It's a really vulgar thought, but it's true.)

That's my opinion. And I will stick to it, with arrows ready.

Edited January 3, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[Farkas]

It's all about choice. My next car purchase will be a compact, I can tell you that right now. Exciting? No. Economical? Yes, something that will be numero uno on my list. I don't have the means to afford the gas bill at this time, nor do I need a large car/SUV.

However, people should have the right to own any type of vehicle they want. If they can afford the car, the gas, the insurance, why not?

---------

Something that I felt was left out of the entire topic was the issue of cars manufactured before the "new CAFE". What is the government going to do about that? Grandfather them? What good does that do, especially in a time like this, when spending is way down?

---------

Last Point: How can we, as a society, get automakers to introduce new "alternatively" fueled cars into their line-ups?

---------

As always, just my $0.02.

[Camino LS6]

<--- dons moderator hat

OK guys, let's move away from the personal attacks.

[thegriffon]

It's all about choice. My next car purchase will be a compact, I can tell you that right now. Exciting? No. Economical? Yes, something that will be numero uno on my list. I don't have the means to afford the gas bill at this time, nor do I need a large car/SUV.

However, people should have the right to own any type of vehicle they want. If they can afford the car, the gas, the insurance, why not?

---------

Something that I felt was left out of the entire topic was the issue of cars manufactured before the "new CAFE". What is the government going to do about that? Grandfather them? What good does that do, especially in a time like this, when spending is way down? That is a major problem with CAFE, and a major concern of automakers. How will they sell 35 mpg cars when few people will be able to afford the type and size of vehicle they want.

---------

Last Point: How can we, as a society, get automakers to introduce new "alternatively" fueled cars into their line-ups? Introduce incentives for people to buy them, something the government should have done for fuel economy instead of CAFE. Introduce perks for smaller, lighter cars (lower tolls; more, cheaper parking; cheaper vehicle registration and taxes etc. ); subsidies and tax breaks for alternative fuel infrastructure; tax rebates for alternative fuel vehicles (as there are with hybrids); escalating sales and annual vehicle taxes based on CO2 emission bracket; tax rebates for trading up to a more efficient vehicle (as Texas and California do with locomotives); etc.. Essentially A) make it increasingly more expensive to own and use less efficient vehicles, and B) make it cheaper and more attractive to buy and operate a more efficient vehicle, something CAFE makes no provision for (and in the added cost of required technology, quite the opposite).

---------

As always, just my $0.02.