So what exactly is the big deal?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I think there is a lot of talking and overreacting going on around the net about CAFE killing this and CAFE killing that. It seems that a lot of executives might be playing to politics.

If this is the agreement we got, then it sounds pretty positive and pretty attainable.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...0621/1014/rss13

Maybe I'm remiss, but I just don't see why everyone is so upset at this point. We can continue to engineer our way to this goal, that is, *IF* it isn't revised in the first place (which by the wording of the article, sounds like it might happen down the road)

A FEW NOTES:

1) Don't even bring up the oil at $100/barrel crap, because 1) we have ways to make cars (yes, even V8s) more efficient. Hell, they don't even have to run on gasoline. I'm not living in denial, I just don't want the price gouging, that will sooner or later stop, (through intervention or crashing the market) to be the focus of this topic.

2) I am NOT changing my views about CAFE. But, I think a lot of people are being a bit too dramatic and negative about the situation

3) We need a level headed and multi faceted approach to this.

*** I just would really like to know/seperate the BS talk from the reality of the situation. What exactly is reality and what is just 'talk' on the part of both Congress and the industry?

Edited January 4, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Camino LS6]

How we view it isn't the issue, how GM management does is.

Who is in charge will make all the difference.

EDIT: Let's just say that CAFE makes a great scapegoat for other agendas.

[CARBIZ]

FOG, you're dreaming about the gouging thing on oil. Yes, right now there is a lot of speculating and gouging happening: it seems like every time some dictator farts, the price of oil jumps a few dollars a barrel, but the U.S. as a nation has to face it that in the near future there is going to be a lot of competition for oil. China is the new colossus and it will require a new Saudi Arabia in the next 15 years to satiate its demand.

Do you want to go to war (again) over oil, but this time with China? The dictators may be doing us a favor by getting us used to $100 a barrel. I remember 3 years ago economists predicted economic ruin over $50 a barrel. Well, look - so far, the sky hasn't fallen. But we have to START in the right direction (whatever that direction may be) NOW.

Don't forget, it takes oil to fuel the jet fighters and tanks. America doesn't have a lot of oil left.

[A Horse With No Name]

FOG, you're dreaming about the gouging thing on oil. Yes, right now there is a lot of speculating and gouging happening: it seems like every time some dictator farts, the price of oil jumps a few dollars a barrel, but the U.S. as a nation has to face it that in the near future there is going to be a lot of competition for oil. China is the new colossus and it will require a new Saudi Arabia in the next 15 years to satiate its demand.

Do you want to go to war (again) over oil, but this time with China? The dictators may be doing us a favor by getting us used to $100 a barrel. I remember 3 years ago economists predicted economic ruin over $50 a barrel. Well, look - so far, the sky hasn't fallen. But we have to START in the right direction (whatever that direction may be) NOW.

Don't forget, it takes oil to fuel the jet fighters and tanks. America doesn't have a lot of oil left.

We have strategic reserves enough for that. However, you are right, $100 a barrel oil IS doing us a favor.

Chris

[Northstar]

It doesn't seem like it would be all that hard to raise MPG by 7.5 over 12 years. Cut 200lbs off each vehicle (200lbs less = 1 more MPG on average), add more hybrids (the Volt should raise GM's CAFE by at least 1 MPG by itself, I would think), more diesels in the trucks (if 1/4 of the T900 trucks and SUVs were diesels, this would have a huge impact), and adding the smaller cars we are expecting to get will also raise GM's CAFE significantly. I can see an easy 5 MPG increase in GM's CAFE just from cutting 200lbs from each vehicle (aluminum hoods on every vehicle and aluminum trunks/liftgates alone will give you a good amount), the Volt, diesels in the trucks, and the small cars (forget their names right now). And all of those vehicles/engines should be here by 2012 at the latest - GM has until 2020 to figure out how to get 2.5 MPG, then. The weight reduction would have to come over time, obviously. Improving cd would also raise MPG significantly.

There are a lot of ways that GM can improve their CAFE. The increase seems drastic and unneeded, but it's not as hard to do as GM apparently thinks it is, IMO. Lutz says they could have that right now if I remember correctly, but it is too expensive. By 2020, I don't think it will be too expensive to do...

[Camino LS6]

Your last point is a good one,Northie. Economies of scale could definitely help in bringing the price of lightweight materials down to a more reasonable level.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

EDIT: Let's just say that CAFE makes a great scapegoat for other agendas.

Yep, Zeta is about corporate bull$h!, not so much CAFE. (Just like, I'm willing to bet the first cancellation of it was) I'm ok with a FWD or AWD Impala. But to deprive us of a Camaro and Pontiac/Buick entries is not good IMO. That is; unless Alpha can fit a V8

FOG, you're dreaming about the gouging thing on oil. Yes, right now there is a lot of speculating and gouging happening: it seems like every time some dictator farts, the price of oil jumps a few dollars a barrel, but the U.S. as a nation has to face it that in the near future there is going to be a lot of competition for oil. China is the new colossus and it will require a new Saudi Arabia in the next 15 years to satiate its demand.

I never have denied that oil will increase in price and demand. However, I do not think we will continue to see such instability (spikes/lows) in the price because it simply isn't sustainable. If the price begins to level off and increase steadiy, which I think it will, then we can adjust naturally. The activity right now is about 40% bull$h! and 60% fact and if it continues that route, then we will enter worse financial times and the demand will decrease anyway.

Do you want to go to war (again) over oil, but this time with China? The dictators may be doing us a favor by getting us used to $100 a barrel. I remember 3 years ago economists predicted economic ruin over $50 a barrel. Well, look - so far, the sky hasn't fallen. But we have to START in the right direction (whatever that direction may be) NOW.

No disagreement here... And, if it meant the survival of this country, then I'd absolutely go to war with China for oil. As has always been my tactic; if throats have to be cut for my survival, then throats (friend or foe) shall be cut.

The point of my post was; instead of freaking out about this, like EVERYONE including me -- to an extent, seems to be doing, why don't we focus on meeting the challenge and maintaining our driving tastes.

Edited January 4, 2008 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[thegriffon]

It actually works the opposite to that. As demand increases the cost of lightweight materials increases, just as the cost of regular steel has increased dramatically in recent years. It's only assembly costs and logistics which decrease with economy of scale.

[Camino LS6]

It actually works the opposite to that. As demand increases the cost of lightweight materials increases, just as the cost of regular steel has increased dramatically in recent years. It's only assembly costs and logistics which decrease with economy of scale.

I can see that if production capacity of the material is limited, not otherwise. If you offer to switch to a supplier's material from a more conventional material on a large scale, you will certainly have leverage on price.

[Robert Hall]

It's been 32 years since the CAFE standards were last adjusted, right? And it's 12 years until the new regs are fully in place...yet to many people here, the sky is falling! It's the end of the world! YAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH. What an irrational bunch.

[Camino LS6]

It's been 32 years since the CAFE standards were last adjusted, right? And it's 12 years until the new regs are fully in place...yet to many people here, the sky is falling! It's the end of the world! YAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH. What an irrational bunch.

Hardly.

The regs affect product planning immediately - even retroactively in a sense. Planned products will be modified /cancelled because of this.

Even worse, personnel changes will be influenced.

Meeting the new standards isn't so much of an issue as how they will be met.

[thegriffon]

FYI for flexible-fuel vehicles, the maximum increase in fuel economy under CAFE is 1.2 mpg until 2014, dropping gradually to 0 in 2020.

[Camino LS6]

FYI for flexible-fuel vehicles, the maximum increase in fuel economy under CAFE is 1.2 mpg until 2014, dropping gradually to 0 in 2020.

Can you clarify?

[thegriffon]

Other fuel efficiency measures being introduced include:

a fuel efficiency rating for replacement tires.

A maximum of $25 billion in loans for facilities building advanced technology vehicles (low emission, low particulate vehicles achieving 125+% better fuel economy than the average for otherwise similar vehicles). (until end 2020)

Unspecified grants for production of hybrid, plugin-hybrid, plugin-electric and advanced diesel vehicles.

Loan guarantees for facilicities manufacturing of advanced batteries and undefined "fuel efficient" vehicles (until 2017)

Grants for advanced biofuel refineries which lower CO2 emissions by 50%

Grants for installation of renewable fuel facilities at gas stations etc.

no franchise restrictions on gas station franchisees installing renewable fuel facilities, selling or advertising renewable fuels etc., even if the franchisor cannot provide such fuel.

[thegriffon]

Can you clarify?

e.g. CNG/gasoline, E85/Gasoline, diesel/biodiesel fueled vehicles currently get a credit for improved mpg (i.e. assumed partial running time using less or no gasoline). The maximum credit will be 1.2 mpg dropping to zero in 2020. Flexfuel vehicles will therefore have little to no advantage in meeting CAFE requirements.

[thegriffon]

I can see that if production capacity of the material is limited, not otherwise. If you offer to switch to a supplier's material from a more conventional material on a large scale, you will certainly have leverage on price.

Only if you have been buying retail quanitities. production of all lightweight materials is naturally limited and pricing fluctuates with demand. That applies to aluminum, plastics, high-strength steels, titanium alloys etc., even plant-based polymers. Of course as demand drives up the price for more popular materials (such as steel), the feasibility of more exotic and expensive materials increases. Materials are commodities, unlike DVD players you can't just build a new plant to meet demand. At best, as the price increases it becomes feasible to open previously unprofitable mines etc.

Edited January 4, 2008 by thegriffon

[Camino LS6]

e.g. CNG/gasoline, E85/Gasoline, diesel/biodiesel fueled vehicles currently get a credit for improved mpg (i.e. assumed partial running time using less or no gasoline). The maximum credit will be 1.2 mpg dropping to zero in 2020. Flexfuel vehicles will therefore have little to no advantage in meeting CAFE requirements.

That is absurd and needs to be fixed.

[PurdueGuy]

The big issue is how the increase in economy is achieved.

Good ways:

-offer good, small, high mpg cars, and enough people buy them simply because they want them, not because the cars are forced on consumers.

-offer alternative fuel vehicles, and enough people buy them simply because they want them, not because the cars are forced on consumers.

-weight loss without sacrifice in performance or safety

-improved technology at acceptable cost increases, if any

Feared ways:

-cut availability on high-performance vehicles

-cut availability on trucks that can do real work

-force everyone into smaller vehicles

-force high tech on everyone, increasing prices across the board and repair costs

[Z-06]

What about the HCCI technology that GM is developing?

In lab it is been achieving about 25% more fuel economy compared to the DOHC, they were planning to introduce it in 2012-13, that will be a big bump in the CAFE.

As Northie said, GM needs to put its vehicles through Weight Watcher's regime. Those 1-2 mpg gained by lowering weight will help a lot.

[daves87rs]

The big issue is how the increase in economy is achieved.

Good ways:

-offer good, small, high mpg cars, and enough people buy them simply because they want them, not because the cars are forced on consumers.

-offer alternative fuel vehicles, and enough people buy them simply because they want them, not because the cars are forced on consumers.

-weight loss without sacrifice in performance or safety

-improved technology at acceptable cost increases, if any

Feared ways:

-cut availability on high-performance vehicles

-cut availability on trucks that can do real work

-force everyone into smaller vehicles

-force high tech on everyone, increasing prices across the board and repair costs

Sadly, I think some of it will come down the feared ways....if gas continues to rise in a hurry...

[CARBIZ]

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Even in Brazil, where they are routinely paying more than $8 a gallon, I saw quite a few Grand Blazers (Tahoes) and Explorers. Drive on any highway there and they, too, are choked with trucks. People will get used to smaller cars and smaller engines, just like we once did in the '80s. What has happened in the past 15-20 years is a bit of a bubble, really. GM may not be in this mess if they'd kept on the track they were heading in the mid-80s (with the introduction of new technologies that emphasized fuel economy, not performance), but the truck bubble side tracked all of that.

As I said on an earlier thread, I drove a Cooper S for a few days recently, 6 spd and all, it was a blast. Smaller cars need not be boring. It is just what we are used to. I miss my father's '69 Chrysler 300, but those days will never come back.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

As I said on an earlier thread, I drove a Cooper S for a few days recently, 6 spd and all, it was a blast. Smaller cars need not be boring. It is just what we are used to. I miss my father's '69 Chrysler 300, but those days will never come back.

They can on the weekends!

[makfu]

Sadly, I think some of it will come down the feared ways....if gas continues to rise in a hurry...

Actually, you should pray that prices do rise because that will actually save a lot of low-volume low-MPG projects as it will drive general consumers to smaller more fuel efficient vehicles that GM will be able to sell at a profit while improving their CAFE mix. This is why Lutz keeps pushing for a gas tax as GM needs to be able to sell small cars here in the US for a profit, as they do in other countries. This will allow GM and Ford to sell proper high-content small and medium sized vehicles (such as the Astra and the Malibu) without steep discounts and will prevent automotive travesties like Ford's poorly warmed over US market Focus.

Meanwhile, because the CAFE mix will be better (especially as ultra-high MPG vehicles like the Volt enter the mix) it will protect vehicles like the Corvette ZR-1, the upcoming (and totally awesome, I might add) G8, a likely RWD Lucerne replacement along with a host of other vehicles.

That said, there are some vehicles that are simply not going to happen with CAFE, the most obvious one is a RWD Impala due to its potential volume. I would also expect some pretty negative impact to the pickup truck market - but again, lowering the large truck and SUV market by eliminating those who don't really need to purchase these vehicles (and moving those customers to profitable CAFE friendly alternatives) will actually protect the long-term viability of those products.

By the way, Congress, and a lot of other people, need to remember what the original CAFE program was really about - it was to force automakers to deliver high-MPG products, thus helping the consumer as the original CAFE was drafted in an era of actual gas shortages and rationing, where the difference between 10MPG and 15MPG meant getting to work or not. It was a panic solution to a bad situation and has been woefully misapplied in this modern incarnation. In short, I really hope that gas prices (e.g. the market economy) actually do the work that CAFE is supposed to do because if we fall back on CAFE idiocy to make it happen, then you really will see a lot of chopping of low-MPG options to force people into vehicles that help GM meet CAFE numbers.

[regfootball]

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Even in Brazil, where they are routinely paying more than $8 a gallon, I saw quite a few Grand Blazers (Tahoes) and Explorers. Drive on any highway there and they, too, are choked with trucks. People will get used to smaller cars and smaller engines, just like we once did in the '80s. What has happened in the past 15-20 years is a bit of a bubble, really. GM may not be in this mess if they'd kept on the track they were heading in the mid-80s (with the introduction of new technologies that emphasized fuel economy, not performance), but the truck bubble side tracked all of that.

As I said on an earlier thread, I drove a Cooper S for a few days recently, 6 spd and all, it was a blast. Smaller cars need not be boring. It is just what we are used to. I miss my father's '69 Chrysler 300, but those days will never come back.

at the body shop today i listened to the manager dude explain to the person on the phone how badly mangled their explorer was in a brutal t-bone crash. he was saying to them, the important thing is your daughter is alive, the vehicle is not worth anything compared to her being here. he got off the phone and said the explorer was completely mangled and DECIMATED. imagine had that been the mini.

this is your brain. this is your brain in a small car. any questions?

Edited January 6, 2008 by regfootball

[regfootball]

but again, lowering the large truck and SUV market by eliminating those who don't really need to purchase these vehicles (and moving those customers to profitable CAFE friendly alternatives) will actually protect the long-term viability of those products.

oh, so who gets to decide who 'needs' a truck?

hey, why not let the MARKET decide. or will we list names and go down the list and vote on everyone?

[makfu]

oh, so who gets to decide who 'needs' a truck?

hey, why not let the MARKET decide. or will we list names and go down the list and vote on everyone?

Your pocketbook versus requirements. It's that simple. If you need the functionality of a full-frame SUV/Truck (towing, business, etc.) then you will have to pay to keep it fed, which will prove a deal breaker in the era of $4.50+ per gallon for the soccer moms I see tooling around in Yukon's and Escalades.

Look, I think it sucks that gas is expensive, I wish we could return to the days of 99 cents a gallon, but the reality is that this is not a temporary situation and I am willing to be real money (and I have) that prices will continue to go up, probably indefinitely (since we are quickly exhausting new sources of additional production capacity yet demand, especially outside the US, is skyrocketing). Regardless, either via CAFE or market economics, things are going to change.

At least if the market drives up the cost of gas, GM will be able to sell larger numbers of fuel efficient vehicles at a profit, which will offset the CAFE risk of a lot of the low mileage vehicle programs. If things go strictly the CAFE route, while gas prices stay low, GM will be forced to artificially rework the product mix in favor of CAFE, likely having to add expensive drivetrain options to low-mileage vehicles that will hurt profitability and still massively drive up the cost of said vehicles (and all the while still losing money on econobox's they'd have to give away - the historic plight of small cars in the US throughout the 70's, 80's, 90's and today).

No matter what, low mileage vehicles, especially full-frame trucks and SUV's will become more expensive to own. However, if GM doesn't have to artificially rework its product mix to meet CAFE, chances are better that a lot of the low mileage vehicle programs will survive in recognizable form (not to mention GM might actually be able to turn reasonable profits across their entire product line).

[CARBIZ]

at the body shop today i listened to the manager dude explain to the person on the phone how badly mangled their explorer was in a brutal t-bone crash. he was saying to them, the important thing is your daughter is alive, the vehicle is not worth anything compared to her being here. he got off the phone and said the explorer was completely mangled and DECIMATED. imagine had that been the mini.

this is your brain. this is your brain in a small car. any questions?

The Mini (as with the Smart Car) is actually a very safe car. They have both been over engineered that way. But here is where the selfish part kicks in: yes, if you are driving a Tahoe and I am driving a Mini and we collide head on, I am going to lose. Pure physics. However, if we are both driving Minis, then we are equal.

There is no such thing as an accident. Driver skill always plays a part. $h! happens. You can be killed in a Tahoe or a Mini. It grates on my nerves whenever I hear a customer say,"yeah, we want (insert the name of your favorite SUV here) because we sit up higher and we can see ahead," because I think to myself, "yeah, f$#khead, does it occur to you that because YOU are up higher nobody else behind you can see?" It's all relative.

No matter how you slice it, it is a crime to have 4,500 lbs of steel and plastic around you to transport 175 lbs of person to work every day. Again, physics. Things will have to change. The only choices we have now are whether we want to do it the nice way, gradually, or by a war or something worse in, say, 10 or 15 years from now.

[ocnblu]

Nah, I don't agree driving an SUV is a "crime". I believe everyone should be able to choose the vehicle they want, as long as they accept the compromises that arise with any vehicle purchase. A Mini is fun and economical, but it has very limited hauling capacity. A Tahoe has a commanding driving position and is comfortable and capacious, but gets half the fuel mileage. No car is the perfect car for all uses, that's why we need to maintain vehicle choice through the CAFE wormhole.

[thegriffon]

oh, so who gets to decide who 'needs' a truck?

hey, why not let the MARKET decide. or will we list names and go down the list and vote on everyone?

Ahh, I thi k you missed Makfu's point—with higher fuel prices, people will naturally gravitate toward smaller, more economical vehicles, and thus the market will decide what vehicles GM produces and not some artificial CAFE requirement. That could still kill vehicles such like the V8 DT7, but it will be because not enough people are willing to pay the running costs of a V8 (with less than 400 hp), and not because it hurts GM's CAFE.

[Robert Hall]

No matter how you slice it, it is a crime to have 4,500 lbs of steel and plastic around you to transport 175 lbs of person to work every day.

How about 4500 lbs to transport 225lbs of person to work every day? Works for me.. my Grand Cherokee is a comfortable commuter car with the features I like in a daily driver (heated seats, good sound system, power everything), goes through snow without a problem, and I afford to fill it up. I could drive a Mini to work, but it would seem a bit small (and I couldn't carry 5 people to lunch as I do on occasion, or have room for my weekend gear (the occasional skis, snowboards, bicycle).

I have my V8 Mustangs and 6-cyl BMW for nice-weather weekends and the occasional drive to work.

Edited January 6, 2008 by moltar

[Camino LS6]

No matter what, the bottom line is that we need another fuel source (or sources).

Anything short of that is a band-aid at best.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Actually, you should pray that prices do rise because that will actually save a lot of low-volume low-MPG projects as it will drive general consumers to smaller more fuel efficient vehicles that GM will be able to sell at a profit while improving their CAFE mix. This is why Lutz keeps pushing for a gas tax as GM needs to be able to sell small cars here in the US for a profit, as they do in other countries. This will allow GM and Ford to sell proper high-content small and medium sized vehicles (such as the Astra and the Malibu) without steep discounts and will prevent automotive travesties like Ford's poorly warmed over US market Focus.

Meanwhile, because the CAFE mix will be better (especially as ultra-high MPG vehicles like the Volt enter the mix) it will protect vehicles like the Corvette ZR-1, the upcoming (and totally awesome, I might add) G8, a likely RWD Lucerne replacement along with a host of other vehicles.

That said, there are some vehicles that are simply not going to happen with CAFE, the most obvious one is a RWD Impala due to its potential volume. I would also expect some pretty negative impact to the pickup truck market - but again, lowering the large truck and SUV market by eliminating those who don't really need to purchase these vehicles (and moving those customers to profitable CAFE friendly alternatives) will actually protect the long-term viability of those products.

By the way, Congress, and a lot of other people, need to remember what the original CAFE program was really about - it was to force automakers to deliver high-MPG products, thus helping the consumer as the original CAFE was drafted in an era of actual gas shortages and rationing, where the difference between 10MPG and 15MPG meant getting to work or not. It was a panic solution to a bad situation and has been woefully misapplied in this modern incarnation. In short, I really hope that gas prices (e.g. the market economy) actually do the work that CAFE is supposed to do because if we fall back on CAFE idiocy to make it happen, then you really will see a lot of chopping of low-MPG options to force people into vehicles that help GM meet CAFE numbers.

I agree and disagree...

For instance, my family has a truck and we need it for our livestock and camper. (FWIW, most of the time we drive more fuel efficient cars though) I'd hate to see a gas tax that limits our lifestyle, because, well that'd make life not worth living for a lot of us.

[makfu]

I agree and disagree...

For instance, my family has a truck and we need it for our livestock and camper. (FWIW, most of the time we drive more fuel efficient cars though) I'd hate to see a gas tax that limits our lifestyle, because, well that'd make life not worth living for a lot of us.

Well, I don't want a gas tax either, but I'd take it over this CAFE BS. But, and this is just my opinion, I think both CAFE and taxes will prove academic as prices at the pump are going to keep going up. Unfortunately it will impact a lot of people who drive big low-mileage vehicles negatively, which sucks, but I think is just a reality of the times.

I suppose my final summation of my point would be that given the CAFE regs, it would be best if prices went up to encourage people to WANT to drive more efficient vehicles because that would allow GM to make money on smaller more efficient vehicles and not force them to try and make every full size, full-frame truck an unprofitable 25MPG vehicle. If that were to happen, well then they will go the same route as the full-frame, full size American car - eventually downsized and decontented to try and gain additional mileage and to restore profitability taken away by the extraordinarily expensive technology needed to meet CAFE mandates. At that point they might limp along in time stasis like the full-frame "full size" (junk) cars of the mid 70's through today (with now just the Panthers remaining), but they will bear little resemblance to the trucks and SUV's of the glory days. I don't want that and I firmly believe if you can afford the gas for it, you should be able to buy the truck or SUV you want. I know it seems counterintuitive, but rising prices have the best chances of preventing CAFÉ from ending trucks, and other low-MPG vehicles, as we know (and love) them.

Edited January 7, 2008 by makfu

[Camino LS6]

Without large vehicles, the country would grind to a halt.

[Drew Dowdell]

at the body shop today i listened to the manager dude explain to the person on the phone how badly mangled their explorer was in a brutal t-bone crash. he was saying to them, the important thing is your daughter is alive, the vehicle is not worth anything compared to her being here. he got off the phone and said the explorer was completely mangled and DECIMATED. imagine had that been the mini.

this is your brain. this is your brain in a small car. any questions?

She probably would have been safer in a smaller, fuel efficient Saab 9-3 or Volvo S40.

[thegriffon]

Without large vehicles, the country would grind to a halt.

The NHTSA will have discretion to set targets based on a vehicle's size and function (i.e. an 8-seat minivan will likely have a lower target to meet than a 4-seat subcompact), but the average will still have to be 35 mpg. A study is being conducted on setting segment-based targets for medium and heavy trucks as well, probably to be determined by GVWR Class (i.e. no more exemptions for Topkick "pickups").

[Robert Hall]

The NHTSA will have discretion to set targets based on a vehicle's size and function (i.e. an 8-seat minivan will likely have a lower target to meet than a 4-seat subcompact), but the average will still have to be 35 mpg. A study is being conducted on setting segment-based targets for medium and heavy trucks as well, probably to be determined by GVWR Class (i.e. no more exemptions for Topkick "pickups").

I would think they could have an exemption for commercial vehicles, so full size pickups could be sold for commercial use w/o restrictions..

[thegriffon]

Nope. The plan is to have all commercial vehicles meet some kind of fuel economy targets regardless of size (not the CAFE target though). Work trucks below a certain GVWR will still be included in CAFE. For light trucks an extension of the current size-based formula is probable, although it may be adjusted for consistency with the requirements to be developed for medium and heavy trucks (i.e. some kind of payload and towing capacity measure factored in).

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I think the truck area is where GM will benefit from diesels the most.

I know my family would LOVE to replace our V8 truck with a light duty diesel that would probably serve our towing needs better anyway.

Hopefully the new light truck diesel will spread through the line very quickly.