CAFE regulations to cost Big 3 double that of Japanese automakers

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by ksr

The government ought to realize that it's helping to destroy the domestic industry.

No one will agree with me, but I think they should slam the import makes harder on CAFE. Higher fines, perhaps higher standards. Hey, they aren't American companies, they pay virtually nothing for access to the best market in the world. Make them pay.

Would it be unfair to the import makes? No more unfair than the import regulations that have been slapped on American vehicles by other countries that end up boosting the costs of American vehicles to uncompetitive levels.

Personally I think the market itself should decide fuel economy standards. Automakers will build what they can sell. If low-mileage vehicles stop selling, they'll stop making them. But if you think there's some sort of moral obligation or "for the good of society" reasons for punishing manufacturers with CAFE, then morally it's even worse for foreign makers to dump their low-mileage vehicles into another country's market. Make them pay.

I'm just blowing off some steam. I hate CAFE.

I dislike CAFE, too, but for different reasons. I rarely find government intervention helpful in the long-run, and CAFE nicely demonstrates that. It's not that the US government is specifically out to harm Detroit. Nope, it's simply that Congress, which is wrestling with some of the lowest approval ratings ever, is trying to perpetuate an appearance of doing something about our dependency on oil and simultaneously do something for the environment. The response is simple: make more [burdensome, misguided, costly, misdirected] legislation. That's the way they think they earn their salaries.

No, the government shouldn't be making legislation that hurts either Detroit or Asian brands. It simply should stay out of the process as much as possible and let consumers determine what should happen. And consumers are.

Any time you want to know what should be done with respect to economic policies in this country, ask yourself a simple question: WMD? No, not weapons of mass destruction. What would Milton do? And Friedman couldn't possibly support CAFE. He'd let consumers do their best to beat auto companies that don't provide the best product, including nowadays with companies who don't offer the most fuel efficient models. No need of CAFE, no need of punishing Detroit (or Asian brands) unfairly. You let a free market bring the best solution forward. Left to its own devices, the market will.

[Ed Arcuri]

Good day!
This is my first post on GM Insider.
I have thought for some time that dealer advertising could help more than it presently does in making the fuel mileage case for GM. I envision a GM car facing another car completely covered with a tarp. The TV spokesman asks, "Which of these new cars has the best fuel mileage, the Chevrolet Malibu or foreign car "T", under the tarp?"
"Correct, the new Chevy Malibu!"
"Which of these cars has a 100,000 mile powertrain limited warranty?"
"Right again, the Chevrolet! Foreign car "T" only has a 60,000 mile limited powertrain warranty."
There you have it; a clear choice: the beautiful new Malibu with a longer limited warranty and better fuel mileage or the foreign car under the tarp.
Cheers,
Ed
"It ain't what folks don't know that's the problem. It's what they know, that just ain't so." Josh Billings

[jbernie]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

One more time...

Cobalt XFE - best in class fuel economy. (Cobalt Q1 sales up 14.5%)
Malibu 4 cyl/6 speed - best in class fuel economy. (Q1 sales up 16.7%)
Impala - tied for best in class fuel economy. (March retail sales up 16%)
CTS - better fuel economy than 335i or C350. (Q1 sales up 55.1%)

Within 2 years: BAS+, Volt, Vue plug-in, new Delta platform

I guess the problem the domestics have is when you ask joe or jane average consumer to name:
- a fuel efficent small car they are most likely to answer Corolla, Civic, Prius.
- a fuel efficent family car they are most likely to answer Camry, Accord.
- a large SUV they are most likely to answer Tahoe, Expedition.
- a large pickup truck they are most likely to answer F series, Silverado.

I won't say the general public is an idiot, but if the advertising I see on tv here in Denver is any guide then it is just what is being advertised.

Ford, GM, Jeep & Dodge are known for trucks & suvs. Chrysler is minivans.

People know about the other products they offer but not as the primary product.

[windvale]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

One more time...

Cobalt XFE - best in class fuel economy. (Cobalt Q1 sales up 14.5%)
Malibu 4 cyl/6 speed - best in class fuel economy. (Q1 sales up 16.7%)
Impala - tied for best in class fuel economy. (March retail sales up 16%)
CTS - better fuel economy than 335i or C350. (Q1 sales up 55.1%)

Within 2 years: BAS+, Volt, Vue plug-in, new Delta platform

I'm seeing different numbers, HoosierRon:

* Cobalt AT 22/31 MPG vs. Corolla AT 27/35 MPG (Coralla gets 23% better MPG in city, 13% better on highway)

* Malibu Hybrid 24/32 MPG vs. Camry Hybrid 33/34 MPG (Camry gets 38% better MPG in city)

* Aveo AT 23/32 MPG vs. Yaris AT 29/35 MPG (Yaris gets 26% better MPG in the city)

The Yaris, Corolla and Camry make up the vast majority of all Toyota car's sold in the US - and GM has nothing that matches up to either of the three of these models when equiped with an automatic transmission (which the overwhelming majority of purchases include) or Hybrid option.

Face facts...while Toyota was sinking time, money and resources into creating Hybrid Synergy Drive and super fuel efficient cars like the Prius, Corolla, Yaris and Camry hybrid - GM was busy concentrating on designing and building the world's best trucks and SUV's (and crap like the Aveo, too). In the process, they badly misjudged the future direction of the industry...

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by windvale

I'm seeing different numbers HoosierRon:

* Cobalt AT 22/31 MPG vs. Corolla AT 27/35 MPG (Coralla gets 23% better MPG in city, 13% better on highway)

* Malibu Hybrid 24/32 MPG vs. Camry Hybrid 33/34 MPG (Camry gets 38% better MPG in city)

* Aveo AT 24/34 MPG vs. Yaris AT 29/35 MPG (Yaris gets 21% better MPG in the city)

Why is it that GM, or you, or anybody else thinks that GM is competitive with Toyota on fuel economy ? The numbers totally show that they are not...

The Cobalt XFE gets 25/36. Civic manual gets 26/34.
Non-hybrid Malibu 6 speed 4 cylinder gets 22/32. Non-hybrid Camry gets 21/31.
I never mentioned the Aveo.

By the way, 4WD V-8 Silverado gets 14/19. Tundra gets 13/17.
Tahoe 14/19. Sequoia 13/18 (Tahoe hybrid 20/20.)

[Tico]

AT $4.00 a gallon the free market is already doing what Cafe won't do until 2015. It is forcing the big 3 to switch production toward small high MPG cars. Cafe is not the issue here people. Even with out cafe the imports are eating detroits lunch every day that gas stays over $4.00 a gallon! The big three need more high MPG cars now! Sure they can find ways to sitll build a few big V8's for thoses who want them. But with out a stable full of 30 MPG + competitive cars there will be no profits to make the low volume trucks and sports cars possible!

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by XCR440SP

True on last years market, but with SUV and Truck sales dropping like rocks, it won't be as bad. In the Car market the big 2 aren't as bad (Chrysler might have issues). If Ford and GM are smart, they'll downsize the SUV segment for more cross-overs, beef up the 1/2 ton pickups so they're 8501 GVWR so they don't get EPA tested for mileage and therefore don't count, and continue the progress made on the other lines.

I agree. By the time these regs hit all the vehicle manufacturers will be looking to retool their SUV/Truck lines to make crossovers and autos and hybrids. This has nothing to do with CAFE 35. It has everything to do with survival in a market where fuel prices are rising faster than most imagined; c.f. annoucement by A. Mulally last week.

The vehicle makers that can't shift fast enough are going to be left by the wayside like roadkill.

The purpose of CAFE 35, if it even has any relevancy in 2020, is simply to spread out the supply of petro-fuel over a larger driving population so that we all have a fair shot at some if we wish ( if we want to pay the price ). IF...... trucks and SUVs were mandated to be powered by biodiesel and celluosic E85 then that takes a huge amount of pressure off the demand for petro-fuel. In this case I can see a very valid case for trucks and SUVs being exempted entirely from any CAFE regulations....they don't use petro-fuel.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by ksr

The government ought to realize that it's helping to destroy the domestic industry.

No one will agree with me, but I think they should slam the import makes harder on CAFE. Higher fines, perhaps higher standards. Hey, they aren't American companies, they pay virtually nothing for access to the best market in the world. Make them pay.

Would it be unfair to the import makes? No more unfair than the import regulations that have been slapped on American vehicles by other countries that end up boosting the costs of American vehicles to uncompetitive levels.

Personally I think the market itself should decide fuel economy standards. Automakers will build what they can sell. If low-mileage vehicles stop selling, they'll stop making them. But if you think there's some sort of moral obligation or "for the good of society" reasons for punishing manufacturers with CAFE, then morally it's even worse for foreign makers to dump their low-mileage vehicles into another country's market. Make them pay.

I'm just blowing off some steam. I hate CAFE.

Because you don't understand the purpose of it. But that's OK, a lot don't. Actually CAFE will be a non-issue by 2020 at the rate we're going. The driving public will force the vehicle makers to dump the inefficient vehicles in favor of smaller more efficient ones. No biggie here.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

I dislike CAFE, too, but for different reasons. I rarely find government intervention helpful in the long-run,

Good, than we can agree that the Japanese auto industry in America is a real bad idea - having been nurtured to come here by the Japanese Government.

No, the government shouldn't be making legislation that hurts either Detroit or Asian brands. It simply should stay out of the process as much as possible and let consumers determine what should happen. And consumers are.

Our Government does have a duty and obligation to protect our economic entities and interests from predatory trade practises which are the core values as far as Japan's economic system goes..

No need of CAFE, no need of punishing Detroit (or Asian brands) unfairly. You let a free market bring the best solution forward. Left to its own devices, the market will.

The point is not to punish the Asian brands unfairly. It is to do it as 'fairly' as possible and stop Japan Inc. from punishing our brands - unfairly here at home.

[ksr]

Originally Posted by AMERICA 123

Good, than we can agree that the Japanese auto industry in America is a real bad idea - having been nurtured to come here by the Japanese Government.

Our Government does have a duty and obligation to protect our economic entities and interests from predatory trade practises which are the core values as far as Japan's economic system goes..

The point is not to punish the Asian brands unfairly. It is to do it as 'fairly' as possible and stop Japan Inc. from punishing our brands - unfairly here at home.

Good thoughts.

It's time, after more than six decades, for the government to realize that WWII never really ended for the Japanese. It merely entered an economic phase. And other Asian countries are following their example.

[ksr]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

Because you don't understand the purpose of it. But that's OK, a lot don't. Actually CAFE will be a non-issue by 2020 at the rate we're going. The driving public will force the vehicle makers to dump the inefficient vehicles in favor of smaller more efficient ones. No biggie here.

Thank you for the patronizing comment.

I understand the purpose. I don't agree with it and would let market forces decide vehicle fuel economy. Manufacturers will only build vehicles for which consumers are willing to pay fuel costs.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by ksr

Thank you for the patronizing comment.

I understand the purpose. I don't agree with it and would let market forces decide vehicle fuel economy. Manufacturers will only build vehicles for which consumers are willing to pay fuel costs.

That's not the purpose. The reason that the Gov't is invovled, Exec Branch and Congress, is simply to extend the future limited supply in the decades of the 20s and 30s across a much large driving population. It's intended to keep peace in the streets and to ensure that everyone on this site has an equal chance to buy the petro-fuel they want.

There will be 30-50% more of us in this country by that time with 30-50% more drivers. There will not be 30-50% more petro-fuel available for all of us. So who goes without? I could outbid you for yours so that I have mine or someone could steal mine so that they have theirs. Well-to-do states could outbid poorer states so that the wealthy drive and the poor walk. That would be letting the market decide.

In addition if vehicles were not made more efficient, if there were still a bunch of 18 mpg guzzlers cruising the roads, today's current technology used by a 30-50% larger population would suck up the reduced supply leaving us all in a shortage situation.....such as driving 4 days and walking 3 days.

These situations where citizens have to fight each other or steal from each other to get fuel or simply do without are disruptive of society. It is the government's responsibility to maintain peace and stability within.

[ogg vorbis]

First enacted by Congress in 1975, the purpose of CAFE is to reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. it doesn't mention emissions. forget the oil bogey men...americans plain use too much energy.

i don't like it when people use 'efficient' and 'economical' interchangeably. a v8 can be the same efficiency as a 4 cylinder, but not be as economical. the corvette is more economical than the honda s2000, and many other smaller, less powerful cars. engine efficiency is only a factor of total system efficiency. afm runs a v8 on 4 cylinders.

small manufacturers aren't affected by many regulations. under ~68,000 cars you don't have to conform to CAFE, around 20,000 cars you don't need NHTSA cert. Corvette isn't rated, although GM still does its own crash validation. advanced software makes it unnecessary in some cases to validate with physical models - and the capability is growing.