CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Production

[Ming]

Fuel-Economy Push Hits Snags
Gas-Mileage Rules Are Called Too Lax And Too Stringent
By STEPHEN POWER
July 29, 2008


WASHINGTON -- A Bush administration proposal to boost fuel efficiency of automobiles to 31.5 miles per gallon by 2015 is raising hackles on two sides: from car makers, who say it is too tough, and from some Democrats, who say it isn't tough enough.

While auto makers warn of the threat to jobs, some lawmakers -- in particular Democrats from districts that don't have car factories -- are urging an even higher target. They say this would save more gasoline and reduce the need for drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, a bone of contention in Congress at the moment.

If the government forced car makers to hit a 35 mpg standard by 2015, according to calculations by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. would save an additional 300,000 barrels of oil a day in 2020. By comparison, the offshore areas currently subject to a federal drilling ban would produce about 220,000 barrels a day at peak production in 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration, an independent forecaster.

Auto makers, both domestic and foreign, say the Department of Transportation's proposal is too aggressive. This year is shaping up as the worst year for U.S. car sales in more than a decade. Ford Motor Co. last week announced an $8.7 billion second-quarter loss.

Ford warned in a June 30 letter to the department that the company "does not have adequate resources or lead time to make major product changes across most or all of our vehicle fleet (beyond what is already planned.)"

Ford said this month it is retooling some factories to build smaller cars instead of trucks and sport-utility vehicles, but a spokesman says its statement in the letter stands.

General Motors Corp. says the department's proposal could result in plant closings and job losses.

Even as GM has promoted its Chevy Volt electric concept car -- showing the vehicle to Republican presidential candidate John McCain earlier this month -- the company has told the Department of Transportation that the Volt won't do much to boost GM's fleetwide fuel efficiency before 2015.

A GM spokesman said the company's comments to the department reflect its belief in setting "very conservative expectations" about how many Volts it can produce initially.

Toyota Motor Corp. says the proposed fuel-economy increases come "at a rate much greater than anticipated" by last year's law.

Tyler Duvall, the assistant secretary of transportation for policy, told Congress last month that the new rules will help drive fuel-saving technologies.

"From the societal perspective, the rule-making makes a lot of sense, but we are extremely aware of the impacts on various manufacturers," Mr. Duvall said. "It's an extremely aggressive proposal."

Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1217...googlenews_wsj

[member12]

I hate CAFE as much as the next guy, but it's a little funny how they all say that the 35 mpg mandate is too strict while they can't sell their own products now because they don't have enough fuel efficient options.

[jckjds]

The real problem is that the auto industry simply cannot turn on a dime. With product life cycles averaging 6 years +/- and new cars requiring 3 years +/- of development time, it's really unrealistic to expect automakers (especially cash strapped automakers) to overhaul their entire lineups in 6 years.

[eaton53]

Even as GM has promoted its Chevy Volt electric concept car -- showing the vehicle to Republican presidential candidate John McCain earlier this month

Oh crap... now McCain's going to copy the Volt.

[megeebee]

I saw a very interesting show on PBS last night about the "Car of the Future".

Interesting statistic:

In 1975 the average fuel economy of US vehicles, and remember there were very few imports at the time, was about 13.8 MPG. After the first round of government intervention, that had climbed to 22.0 in 1987. Fuel useage had been declining in the US until 1987 as well. Of course at that time Cihna didn't exist as a force either.

This decline in demand begat a decline in crude prices and the price of gas stayed steady for many years even as real household income, property, and stock values all soared. This "fueled" the love of trucks and SUV's and we all know what that has wrought. But the most interesting statistic was that the average fuel economy of US sold vehicles has dropped since 1987 to about 20.7 MPG today.

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by eaton53

Oh crap... now McCain's going to copy the Volt.

Why? Is his old defibulator on the fritz?

(Maybe Cheney has a spare?)


.

[WishIhadatruck]

Originally Posted by megeebee

I saw a very interesting show on PBS last night about the "Car of the Future".

Interesting statistic:

In 1975 the average fuel economy of US vehicles, and remember there were very few imports at the time, was about 13.8 MPG. After the first round of government intervention, that had climbed to 22.0 in 1987. Fuel useage had been declining in the US until 1987 as well. Of course at that time Cihna didn't exist as a force either.

This decline in demand begat a decline in crude prices and the price of gas stayed steady for many years even as real household income, property, and stock values all soared. This "fueled" the love of trucks and SUV's and we all know what that has wrought. But the most interesting statistic was that the average fuel economy of US sold vehicles has dropped since 1987 to about 20.7 MPG today.

The way your statistics are worded implies that the government intervention was what increased the average fuel economy to 22.0 mpg in 1987. It was more likely the price of fuel in the early 80's that caused the drastic shift in consumer preferences that actually made it happen. I recall many people buying tiny cars at the time as they sold their bigger cars because they WANTED to use less gas. As gas became cheaper and cheaper to buy we shifted the other way. Now we are starting to buy smaller cars again and I bet our average fuel economy of cars being bought now is much higher than it was 2 years ago. New CAFE rules haven't kicked it yet either so it is obviously just from consumer preference fueled by high gas prices. Same as before. The government really can't respond any faster than the consumer can react to prices.

[Slideways]

Originally Posted by Ming

and from some Democrats, who say it isn't tough enough.

If the government forced car makers to hit a 35 mpg standard by 2015, according to calculations by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. would save an additional 300,000 barrels of oil a day in 2020. By comparison, the offshore areas currently subject to a federal drilling ban would produce about 220,000 barrels a day at peak production in 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration, an independent forecaster.

Ever wonder what goes through the minds of some of our legislators? I imagine it's a little something like this:
Even though I'm not an engineer or a designer, and have no idea what's realistic, it's still my duty to make a rukus and get reelected, so I should propose significantly more stringent CAFE regulation. If it will save that much money and fuel at 35mpg, why not make it 40mpg, or 50mpg? Who's with me? While we're at it, let's make cars safer, with more electronic monitoring systems since people can't check their own tire pressure.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by eaton53

Oh crap... now McCain's going to copy the Volt.

Oh that's classic! Love it!

[PontiacBixler]

It's not going to be CAFE that makes GM and others increase the MPG on their vehicles... It'll be the consumer in these higher gas price periods. Just like any situation in capitalism, the consumer will buy the most fuel efficient car from Car-Maker A while Car-Maker B sits there and decides that in order to get that consumer back they have to offer a car that doesn't meet the fuel efficiency of Car A but exceed it.

But unfortunately the auto industry doesn't work like every other tech company out there for some unknown reason.

Think about this, remember back in the day on THE PRICE IS RIGHT the price of a new car they were playing for usually began with an 8 or 9 in the four digit price tag? Then in the 90's they added the FIFTH digit and 1 became the first number!!!! Now it seems 2 is starting to replace 1.

Why is that? Sure people will say it is because of the cost of labor, materials and such but now think about this: Why is it that you can now buy a computer today that is half the size, 10x more powerful, does 1000 things more and is only about 40% the cost of what it was 15 years ago? My God people.... you can buy High Def LCD TVs that fill your whole wall up for the price of what an old 32" tube used to cost.

The auto industry has gotten lazy and fat and now they have been caught by a financial crisis that is hurting everyone from the poor all the way up to the rich.

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by WishIhadatruck

The way your statistics are worded implies that the government intervention was what increased the average fuel economy to 22.0 mpg in 1987. It was more likely the price of fuel in the early 80's that caused the drastic shift in consumer preferences that actually made it happen. I recall many people buying tiny cars at the time as they sold their bigger cars because they WANTED to use less gas. As gas became cheaper and cheaper to buy we shifted the other way. Now we are starting to buy smaller cars again and I bet our average fuel economy of cars being bought now is much higher than it was 2 years ago. New CAFE rules haven't kicked it yet either so it is obviously just from consumer preference fueled by high gas prices. Same as before. The government really can't respond any faster than the consumer can react to prices.

No, it was the first CAFE standards set in the mid-70's. There would be even fewer "tiny cars" to buy if it weren't for that.

[jbernie]

WASHINGTON -- A Bush administration proposal to boost fuel efficiency of automobiles to 31.5 miles per gallon by 2015 is raising hackles on two sides: from car makers, who say it is too tough, and from some Democrats, who say it isn't tough enough.

And naturally it easy to say the law isn't tough enough when you know full well you wont be spending one penny to assist any of the manufacturers meet the law you want to impose.

People maybe moving to public transit and more efficent cars because of higher gas prices, but at the same time as prices fall again we will again reach price points where it becomes more beneficial to drive every where as opposed to taking a bus or train. The shorter the drive or the longer the commute by public transit the quicker people will turn back to driving all the time, hopefully just in the more efficent vehicles.

By the time I can walk to the bus stop to get a bus I would have driven about 3/4 of the way to work, I will use public transit to go downtown for concerts if the timing is good as it is free parking at the park n ride and 2 return tickets on the train is less than the parking down town and obviously less gas used.

As to GM being conservative, getting a few thousand Volts sold, on the road, being seen, especially on the coasts, will bring lots of warm and fuzzies, even more so if it meets/exceeds expectations. Just the announcement of the Volt has given GM lots of free "green" press.

[Ambalanche]

Originally Posted by Slideways

Ever wonder what goes through the minds of some of our legislators? I imagine it's a little something like this:
Even though I'm not an engineer or a designer, and have no idea what's realistic, it's still my duty to make a rukus and get reelected, so I should propose significantly more stringent CAFE regulation. If it will save that much money and fuel at 35mpg, why not make it 40mpg, or 50mpg? Who's with me? While we're at it, let's make cars safer, with more electronic monitoring systems since people can't check their own tire pressure.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head!

[jbernie]

Originally Posted by PontiacBixler

Why is that? Sure people will say it is because of the cost of labor, materials and such but now think about this: Why is it that you can now buy a computer today that is half the size, 10x more powerful, does 1000 things more and is only about 40% the cost of what it was 15 years ago? My God people.... you can buy High Def LCD TVs that fill your whole wall up for the price of what an old 32" tube used to cost.

The auto industry has gotten lazy and fat and now they have been caught by a financial crisis that is hurting everyone from the poor all the way up to the rich.

You can never defy the laws of physics. Add in inflation costs, mandated safety features, mandated smog control, mandated this mandated that. The last time I checked you don't need airbags, tire pressure sensors, stability control, plus associated electronics to go somewhere on the internet.

Your argument is old, tired and annoying. There is only so much weight you can take out of a vehicle at a reasonable & affordable cost before you end up with a car the size of an Aveo costing $100k and made out super exotic materials to remove the weight which few consumers can afford and even fewer will want to buy.

Oh, and don't forget the extra weight every vehicle is hauling around as this country gets fatter and fatter.

[Hoboken Tim]

The original CAFE law is what created the problems we have today. It drove people out of cars and into trucks, because it didn't attack the problem-Cheap Gas. The new law is no improvement. We should scrap CAFE, and replace it with a gas tax.