GM slams possible fuel economy changes

yep it was a chevy sprint. at least that is what my sister remembers and she worked briefly at the same place

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Dec 28 2006, 08:24 AM) [snapback]367661[/snapback]</div>

Under the right conditions (steady 55 mph on the highway) I've gotten as much as 55 mpg in the Geo Metro I had, and IIRC even the Chevy Sprint we had before that. Again IIRC the same engine.

Dave M.

 

GM has the power to change people. Why not flex that power and go with the "economy" flow but in a slightly new direction so it doesn't look like bandwagon hopping and cash in? By stating they make vehicles that Americans want they are doing the opposite of what our advertisers and media have know to be more productive. MAKE THE PEOPLE WANT YOUR PRODUCT.

Sadly enough this all comes back to the poor worldview our society harbors. As with every other problem in our country, a change of mind can go a long ways toward fixing anything.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Dec 26 2006, 07:42 PM) [snapback]366945[/snapback]</div>

There is a formula in CAFE where manufacturers pay fines or earn credits based on the average of every vehicle they sell. For years toyota and honda built up many credits because they built mostly small vehicles(that has changed drastically the last 5-10 years). Thus GM and Ford would be paying fines and toyota woul d be using banked credits, thereby ginving themselves a built-in price advantage courtesy of the US govt. The headline was much different than the real story.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 8 2007, 02:20 PM) [snapback]372579[/snapback]</div>

Advantage? You make it almost sound like using the credits is wrong. Sounds perfectly reasonable and legal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 8 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]372579[/snapback]</div>

Even now, Japanese subcompacts such as the Yaris outperform the American counterparts.

Rewarding automakers with credits if they exceed CAFE standards and fining them if they fall short sounds like perfectly sound policy (if you are interesting in paying less to OPEC nations and reducing ozone days in US cities) Why can't that be a priority for Ford, GM, and DCX?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 8 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]372593[/snapback]</div>

So the US government is going to subsidize Toyota and Honda sales? Great economic move. Maybe we could use taxpayer money to underwrite new manufacturing plants for Toyota and Honda in the US? Oh, we do that to.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 8 2007, 01:52 PM) [snapback]372601[/snapback]</div>

It is. The credits were earned decades ago. Again great economic sense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 8 2007, 03:57 PM) [snapback]372602[/snapback]</div>

Uhm...and the problem with importing jobs from overseas to the U.S. is?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 8 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]372607[/snapback]</div>

That is the problem. We are not importing jobs form overseas we are exporting jobs overseas. As i said before every point of market share toyota takes in the US exports 18,000 American jobs. This is a net job figure. Or Toyota creates 6,000 jobs by opening a new plant and 24,000 Detroit three jobs are eliminated. The math is not good for the vast majority of US citizens in this equation including yourself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 8 2007, 01:57 PM) [snapback]372602[/snapback]</div>

So you seem to suggest, reward Detroit for keeping us highly dependant on unfriendly OPEC oil and build more Dodge Rams, Excursions, and Hummers? I'd love to drive a domestic brand competitive with Civic, Prius, Yaris....if they were there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 8 2007, 01:57 PM) [snapback]372602[/snapback]</div>

Check out www.fueleconomy.gov and compare Japanese vs. American subcompacts and compacts for 2007. And between the marketing budget for the Malibu and Impala and the Hummer an Tahoe it's not a contest as to which vehicle class gets promoted. I'm bad at math, but promoting sub 20mpg vehicles over 30mpg vehicles doesn't exactly sound like a committment to fuel economy. Got to add I'm not crazy about the Tahoe or Titan either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 8 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]372627[/snapback]</div>

detroit is keeping us dependent on foreign oil? Is Detroit making anyone buy trucks and SUV's? What about the fact more than half of Toyota's US sales were form truck, SUV and Lexus sales. Oops. I guess that fact might make some of you and your love for Toyota and its "stewardship" of the environment a little uneasy!
Oh but about 2.5% of Toyota's sales were the Prius hybrid. Do you feel better now? I guess Toyota really is the manufacturer that helps the environment and all the other manufacturers are only in it for themselves and their shareholders and dealers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 8 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]372632[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I know the ads don't actully have someone walk out of the TV and pull them to a dealership.

No, I'm not happy about that Toyota percentage of truck/SUV sales, but I'd be very suprised to see it higher than Ford, GM, or DCX.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Jan 8 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]372639[/snapback]</div>

My problem with the credit system is at the time Toyota and Honda especially were the big beneficiary of system because they did not build large cars and trucks. If the North American content of toyota and honda's vehicles were guaranteed to be at or above 80% and they were all manufactured in north america i would not have much problem with it. The main problem with CAFE anyway is that it did very little to change what was being built, toyota built vehicles that met or exceeded CAFE and a manufacturer like Mercedes just figured the fine into the price of every vehicle.
The only real effective way to determine what the CAFE really is, is what is the price of a gallon of gas. Always has been and always will be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Jan 8 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]372575[/snapback]</div>

They're not going to do that for one simple reason: MONEY. The profit margins are MUCH better on a truck or SUV, so which one would you want to push? By my recollection, 9 out of 10 commercials that I see by GM or Ford are for their pickups or SUV's, because they want to feed the addiction and keep the money flowing.
[smug ON] Sorry, but I've gone cold turkey. [smug OFF]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 8 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]372643[/snapback]</div>

Toyota's present model mix when it comes to cars vs trucks/SUV's is very close to GM's. The average person would never guess that. DCX has the lowest car/truck mix.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Jan 8 2007, 02:49 PM) [snapback]372652[/snapback]</div>

Same reason Toyota is going upscale and larger very fast. Do you really think Toyota brought 12 billion dollars to the home island form the US by selling the Yaris and Prius?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 8 2007, 02:53 PM) [snapback]372653[/snapback]</div>

If anyone has a link that lists the car/truck mix among various automakers, I'd be very interesting in browsing it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 8 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]372657[/snapback]</div>

http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA1152515.PDF

Her it is for the BIG 6 in 2006

------------------GM------------Ford-------Toyota---------DCX-----------Nissan-----Honda
Cars --------1,580,000-----1,020,000---1,271,000-----773,000------469,000-----706,000
Luxury cars---142,000---------88,000-----183,000-----178,000-------87,000-----137,000
Trucks-------2,342,470-----1,793,000---1,064,368---1,535,000------465,000-----665,000
-----------------38% -----------35% ---------50%---------36%------------45%--------47%

How woul dyou like to see that graphed by manufacturer say from 1990-2006. Now THAT would tell a story!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jan 8 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]372650[/snapback]</div>

This is the idea behind True Cost Pricing. If people want to pollute and ignore environmental signals then they should have to pay the price. True some people will still pay the inflated prices but it will turn more buyers of that product away because it is too costly. This is how it should be for any product that degrades the environment (natural and urban) and our health.

 

A few years ago all the auto manufacturers got together to discuss the coming changes (finite oil resources, increased fuel economy, emissions restrictions, crash worthiness, etc.). The consortium asked the US Government for assistance to jump start new approaches. Honda and Toyota returned to Japan and went to work. Detroit went home and did nothing, except to complain to the US Congress about not subsidizing foreign competitors (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc.). Foreign competitors were cut off.

The Prius is now in its 10th year of production. Toyota is well on its way to having a full hybrid fleet, fuel cell vehicles and more efficient EVs. Detroit appears to be married to the concept of 1970s muscle cars, power, larger pickups, etc. GM went so far as to recall and destroy all EVs. Toyota and Honda are doing very well.

I think about these things as I drive and observe vehicles around me that idle whether the ICE is needed or not, then reflect on the Prius ICE that only runs when it is needed. Ford is having supply problems or intentionally limiting production of its hybrid Escape Explorer.

GM and Ford are failing by design.