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

[goblue]

Originally Posted by 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.

Bingo. And then, simply reduce income tax across the board. Thus, if you drive fuel efficient vehicles you pay less in total tax than you do now, drive an Excursion - and you pay more. Best motivating force there is.

[delmarjohn]

you know every time this comes up ....I somehow forget we live in the USA ...where everything is possible and we are free to be who want to be....but occasionally they bring me down to reality ,with fast food restraunts being barred from poor sections of LA to someone telling me indiretly what vehicle I must buy...who will be there to tell my family when I amkilled by some truck in a tiny vehicle...what will they say to my son,well he was getting good mileage.....the last I checked this was still the USA ....so big brother get off my back I will spend MY disposable income on what I want not what you legislate....I will eat what I want where I want .....you can give me no guarantees of longevity or safety so BEGONE

[AMERICA 123]

I just laugh my ass off at all the misconceptions and misrepresentation concerning 'historic' CAFE - while always supporting the notion that a fuel tax accompanied by offsetting income tax revisions of equal value was always more preferable. Also that the proposed CAFE system for 2011 thru 2015 is something worse than a bad joke.

Perhaps the biggest laugh is the most bitter: given all the rest as it actually is - we wouldn't have left what little we do today of the domestic auto industry without the old CAFE program.

And also given all the rest as it actually is, a gradual rise in CAFE between '87 thru '07 would've definitely meant the pain and bad news of today would less as well.

Without the old, neglected CAFE program we'd either have already or would be currently discussing the break up and Bankruptcy proceedings of all three domestic producers.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by vcs2600

The CAFE "truck loophole" was well known about in Washington for years, and there was some political effort to close it in the early 1990s. Detroit lobbying effectively stopped it by cutting a deal with Clinton for government support for Hybrid R&D and a small increase in the gas tax.

Net result: the Big 3 produced even bigger trucks and never marketed a hybrid.

If the carrot don't work, try the stick. Holds true everywhere, even Washington.

YEP.

Also nothing on bio fuels or diesel etc.

Sensible national energy policies and all the bits and pieces required for it at that point were lacking in the USA - as usual.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by WishIhadatruck

I believe what I stated was true but you are correct as well that it does encourage them to make smaller cars. But they wouldn't sell in many numbers if people don't want to buy them. CAFE does not encourage people to buy smaller more fuel efficient cars.....

OK, so answer me this, how exactly would things look like if in 1987 we had adopted world pricing strategies on fuel - including the current end point of 6.50 to 8.50 plus plus plus per gallon.

Tell me about what this would've done for all the other fuel user groups -like general aviation and boating and what this would've done to everything else - including food prices.

Now tell me what we all would've been driving for the last 20 years.......

One of the centrally defining characteristics of the 'American' 'Experience' including 'pre petroleum' times has been 'relatively' cheap energy prices - so isn't the real question how to keep that going in a clean domestically provided manner - rather than becoming like all the rest ????

Another affect of CAFE is to encourage car companies and consumers to get around the rules. One more reason large cars and station wagons disappeared and SUV's and minivans took their places. With cheap gas people were more than willing to drive inefficient SUV's and car makers found it easy with the lower standards for trucks. It helped fuel the disappearance of cars that were more capable of hauling people and trailers.

National deficits and the resulting trade inequities are the real culprit here. Short sighted thinking by the domestics was another much smaller piece of the puzzle - including the union, the management, and the large stockholder types.

If the Domestics had been receiving fair and wise treatment by the US Government they would not have tried to run to something the Japanese could not produce at the time. Closing part of the CAFE gap between trucks and cars would 've also helped 'the big car that can tow' cause as well.

Fuel prices have the biggest affect of all. Little else matters. High fuel prices will drive demand and auto makers will try and meet demand. Luckily congress never pushed 35 mpg. standards when gas was super cheap. It would be a disaster. Car makers trying to build vehicles nobody wants. It will work out fine this time because consumer preference (due to gas prices) is actually ahead of the CAFE curve.

You want to be like all the rest of the world ???? Sure, in many ways that's preferable to what we have become and what we have now - the best choices, however, lie outside these two artificially provided and restrictive 'choices'.

National Fiscal Policy and National Energy Policy are completely interrelated.

The first type of Government provided welfare we should end - right after all the 'free trade' world domination BS is that that we provide for energy companies in regards to their overseas operations.

Fruitful and productive national self reliance is the first National virtue - time to get it back.

[vcs2600]

In 1993, they fought like hell to get the gas tax increased by 4 measly cents. And this is when gas was back at $1.50 a gallon.

"Increase the gas tax" is politically impossible. It is the equivalent of saying "Do nothing".

[mrgto]

You would think GM would shift ALL MONIES being used for future truck/SUV models and devote it all Volt development....they can't get that car on the roads quick enough.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by megeebee

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.

CAFE standards didn't do anything but damage.

When CAFE was created, cars started getting smaller, more fuel efficient. But was that caused by CAFE, or was it caused by higher gas prices driving car buyers to WANT smaller, more fuel efficient cars?

When gas prices dropped again, the consumers demand for fuel efficiency lessened, and big vehicles, with worse gas mileage made a come back. Or did CAFE do that too?

Now, gas prices are up again, and lo and behold, the car buyers want smaller, fuel efficient vehicles again. And this is somehow happening WITHOUT any change to CAFE rules!

The worst part in this is that quite a few Senators and congressmen honestly believe that the CAFE rules did work! This only encourages further rule making, "forcing" those evil carmakers to build cars that the car buyers are already driving the manufacturers to build. Of course the car makers have to stop that silly work of meeting customer demand, and concentrate on meeting the government's arbitrary regulations instead.

The automakers (all of them, even Toyota) have constantly voiced opposition to CAFE. Because it is an arbitrary target, and it's something they can't even control whether or not they hit it. They make a broad array of vehicles. Some are better than the standard, some are worse. Then those pesky consumers come along and buy what they actually WANT, instead of what CAFE says they should buy. That can make any automaker end up on the wrong side of the CAFE fleet average, and they can't even control it.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by mrgto

You would think GM would shift ALL MONIES being used for future truck/SUV models and devote it all Volt development....they can't get that car on the roads quick enough.

It isn't a lack of money keeping the Volt in development, it's the development itself. Just imagine if GM appeased all of the 'get it out nows' and the car had some problems, GM would be toast. No, let them finish the testing of the battery packs and powertrain...I'd rather wait and have the car done right instead of them rushing it out and screwing it up. This isn't like building a Camaro, this thing is relatively complicated, from an electrical standpoint anyway. The Volt is fully funded, but the testing takes time to be done right.

[Chaz_23]

Absolutely NOT.
How can any American favor such madness is incomprehensible.

Originally Posted by Hoboken Tim

We should scrap CAFE, and replace it with a gas tax.

[goblue]

Originally Posted by Chaz_23

Absolutely NOT.
How can any American favor such madness is incomprehensible.

Americans who understand macroeconomics understand how raising the gas tax could paradoxically make gas cheaper overall.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by vcs2600

In 1993, they fought like hell to get the gas tax increased by 4 measly cents. And this is when gas was back at $1.50 a gallon.

"Increase the gas tax" is politically impossible. It is the equivalent of saying "Do nothing".

Yes, - mostly.

Arbitrarily drawing a line in time, we blew it in the 1957 - 1968 timeframe on everything concerning and related to energy policy and transportation.

At this point and most likely for the next 10 -12 years minimum, adding a tax of a dollar or two or three per gallon is not only politically unacceptable - it would destroy the economy - such as it is - including the transportation sector.

If for some reason pump prices dropped back down to 2.50$ or so you could try it - with the right leadership.

Right now for that time period it would be better to just efficiently 're' co ordinate all the soon to be mandatory regulations concerning safety, emissions, and yes fuel economy - and energy programs.

Unless something changes for the better we can look forward to a bunch of potential buyers being basically buried in their trade ins for the next 10 - 15 years - in regards to new vehicles that are going to cost increase real quick.

Basically its at least another 4-5 years before the product line ups catch up to 4.00/4.00$ plus fuel prices.

Maybe we will in fact require a tax credit program or similar for new vehicle purchases - another can of worms.

Either that or an American sized Kei auto program centered around 1000 -1200 cc sized engines.

[Tstag]

It strikes me that GM has misunderstood what it needs to do to cope with a more fuel concious America. The Volt, is simple looking more and more like a big white elephant. GM will lose money on every one they make and the technology and infrastructure is just not in place to make this car really fly.

To my way of thinking the likes of Land Rover have got the right idea. Look at the new LRX they are designing. Land Rover claim that when it's launched in 2010 it will do 60 MPG (combined). They will achieve this by making the whole thing out of Aluminium and by recharging lithium batteries off the engine. This will power motors in the axels to turn the wheels. Not only that but they are planning to fit things like stop start tech to every model they make. To pay for it they will price the LRX at $60,000 a pop. Over all Land Rover will have spent about $1 billion on the tech which will go into all the models they make. This is a relatively small car company doing a lot with very little.

Now GM should be able to copy a lot of these ideas and with all it's money do a lot more. But all it can come up with is the Volt. In my view it's a disgrace and I wonder just how long a new CEO would keep investing in the Volt if they took charge? It makes me mad to see GM keep going like this.

[AMcA]

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.

As I recall, Billary Clinton casually said during the primary campaign that we ought to be looking at 50 mpg. She thought that was a really "green" thing to say. The crowds, apparently not realizing they'd all be stuck driving clown cars, roared approval.

Then she went and climbed into a Suburban and rode off to her campaign jet.

[AMcA]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

It isn't a lack of money keeping the Volt in development, it's the development itself. Just imagine if GM appeased all of the 'get it out nows' and the car had some problems, GM would be toast. No, let them finish the testing of the battery packs and powertrain...I'd rather wait and have the car done right instead of them rushing it out and screwing it up. This isn't like building a Camaro, this thing is relatively complicated, from an electrical standpoint anyway. The Volt is fully funded, but the testing takes time to be done right.

I think an even bigger issue than testing and design is the supply chain. You don't just call up Pep Boys and order batteries for 50,000 plug-in hybrids.

You've gotta find someone who CAN make them, and who CAN BE TRUSTED to do the job reliably, who then has to BUILD a factory to build them. And then your trustworthy supplier needs to find a boatload of suppliers it can trust.

This is not something that happens overnight. Or even over a couple years.