To get federal aid, FL Senator wants Big 3 to meet 50 mpg by 2020

[ModerateRight]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

Really? Where are they? There are no hybrid cars for sale in the U.S. that average 50mpg. None.

FYI: "~" means approximately, the Prius is rated 48/45 – for details on real world MPG see my other post.

Keep in mind we live in Western PA, lots of hills and crumby weather. It's not uncommon for drivers to get 60 mpg in areas like CA, AZ, ....

[blue3231]

Originally Posted by ModerateRight

FYI: "~" means approximately, the Prius is rated 48/45 – for details on real world MPG see my other post.

Keep in mind we live in Western PA, lots of hills and crumby weather. It's not uncommon for drivers to get 60 mpg in areas like CA, AZ, ....

As far as the government is concerned, "real world" doesn't matter, and the Prius gets 48 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on the highway.

[ModerateRight]

Originally Posted by blue3231

As far as the government is concerned, "real world" doesn't matter, and the Prius gets 48 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on the highway.

So based on being south of 50 mpg for a midsized car by a measly 3.5 mpg and having only a decade to innovate, you feel there's no chance of a manufacturer hitting 50 mpg across the fleet?

Just do me a favor; save this thread and set your alarm clock for 2020 - when the time comes I think we'll see several manufacturers hit the mark (or be off gas completely), and also see those manufactures out selling the competition.

[MCGARRETT]

As someone else pointed out, ok 50 mpg, sure, right, whatever....just make that check out to General Motors Corporation, what are they going to do in 2020, ask for it back?

[ksr]

Originally Posted by ModerateRight

Really? And how did consumers kill the car, when the vehicle was only available as a lease and in very limited quantities? You find out these things when selling the vehicle, not by running a phone based poll designed to point out the car's flaws.

And regardless of what reasoning you come up with the fact is GM is trying to do the same thing with the Volt (hence my “how much would it have cost just to drop in a small charging motor in the EV1” comment), so obviously the demand is there – a smarter company would have either moved forward anyway to help lead the industry (*cough* Prius *cough*), or sat on the tech until the demand was there (ie: today).

The demand wasn't there. If you saw that "documentary," you may believe that, but it wasn't true.

They were available for lease. Despite a long list of people that claimed an interest, few actually stepped up and leased one, even after GM dropped the price.

GM isn't "starting over" with the Volt. They did learn lessons with the EV1 that are being applied with it.

Do you really believe they walked away from the EV1 after investing billions in it just because they lost interest? Oil industry conspiracy? If GM could have sold the EV1 in any quantity at all, they would have.

Toyota pulled the plug on its EV development as well, something that the filmmakers deliberately decided to leave out of their "documentary" to focus on GM.

[Slideways]

"Why should we be pouring taxpayer money into an automobile industry that has continued to resist higher miles per gallon, which has led us in part to the problems we're in?"

Can someone explain to me how Detroit's CAFE caused the economy to nosedive?

[blue3231]

Originally Posted by ModerateRight

So based on being south of 50 mpg for a midsized car by a measly 3.5 mpg and having only a decade to innovate, you feel there's no chance of a manufacturer hitting 50 mpg across the fleet?

Just do me a favor; save this thread and set your alarm clock for 2020 - when the time comes I think we'll see several manufacturers hit the mark (or be off gas completely), and also see those manufactures out selling the competition.

I never said one way or the other. Just pointing out there's not a car for sale, not even the Prius, that meets that standard now. I hope there are several manufacturers that build cars that can in 12-15 years.

[big swede]

It's funny to me that someone who works for the least efficient system in the world (U.S. Government) wants to unabashedly tell GM what to do. Are these guys for real?

[Extreme4x4]

Ok, ModerateRight, lets play your game.

Since this individual is proposing a FLEET average of 50mpg, and we have already determined that trucks are necessary in this country................ what will the economy numbers need to be, on all of the cars sold.............. to average out at 50mpg???

Lets take a guess.............. oh, 80mpg, maybe................ or maybe even 100mpg, depending on how many trucks a manufacturer is unlucky enough to sell.

Or, are you saying that there will be the technology, in 10 model years, to make a truck that can actually do work, get 30-40mpg???

You have to look at the whole picture. This isn't just about having a midsize car that can average 50mpg................ because I see that as being completely possible. It is about have a total fleet average of 50mpg.............. combining all the small car, medium size car, large car, SUV, CUV, and truck mileage together.

Or, do you feel that we no longer need a construction industry, or farming/ranching industries??? Maybe we can get all our food from China.

[GMJIM69]

Who cares! Take the damn money, pay them back by 2019, and tell the Fed to kiss your ass!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Extreme4x4

Ok, ModerateRight, lets play your game.

Since this individual is proposing a FLEET average of 50mpg, and we have already determined that trucks are necessary in this country................ what will the economy numbers need to be, on all of the cars sold.............. to average out at 50mpg???

Lets take a guess.............. oh, 80mpg, maybe................ or maybe even 100mpg, depending on how many trucks a manufacturer is unlucky enough to sell.

Or, are you saying that there will be the technology, in 10 model years, to make a truck that can actually do work, get 30-40mpg???

You have to look at the whole picture. This isn't just about having a midsize car that can average 50mpg................ because I see that as being completely possible. It is about have a total fleet average of 50mpg.............. combining all the small car, medium size car, large car, SUV, CUV, and truck mileage together.

Or, do you feel that we no longer need a construction industry, or farming/ranching industries??? Maybe we can get all our food from China.

Based on what I've observed in every corner of the country over the years, most work truck engines are complete overkill (that's in both fullsize pickups and fullsize vans).

A large portion of the work could be done by I4/V6 Rangers and Colorados, 4-cyl panel vans (Uplander cargo/fleet version) and Astro-style vans.

How many people really do need a work truck that does 0-60 in under 7 seconds?

[Extreme4x4]

So I guess we are also planning on making RVing and camping illegal also???

You do not pull a TT or 5th wheel, or boat, with a I4 Ranger or Colorado. Now, before you say............. oh yes you can pull a boat with the Colorado.............. yes you can, a small one. For that matter, you would not pull your car trailer with your classic car with either small trucks.

If you think that all of the work on a ranch and farm, can be done with a Ranger or Colorado............... I propose that you spend more time actually seeing what they ask of their vehicles. These industries would literally tear either truck in half. Also, large trucks are used in many other industries................ such as the oil/mining industries. How many pallets of concrete are you going to carry with a Ranger or Colorado??? How many sheets of drywall???

No it is not necessary to go 0-60 in 7 seconds, in a truck. However, I would put forth the difference in fuel economy between the lowest powered engine and the highest. You will find that they are pretty darn close (between 1-2 mpg better on the gutless engine, because it has to work so hard.

The US would not work, without trucks. We are not Europe.

[ModerateRight]

The demand wasn't there. If you saw that "documentary," you may believe that, but it wasn't true.

...

Do you really believe they walked away from the EV1 after investing billions in it just because they lost interest? Oil industry conspiracy? If GM could have sold the EV1 in any quantity at all, they would have.

I assume you mean the crazy Al Gore documentary - no I avoid Al's propaganda like the plague.

The point behind the EV1 is that the demand for efficient and/or gas friendly cars was there, if not at that time, then only a year or two later. Regardless of what GM claims interest was another company could see the potential and stepped in with a product (even if Toyota did scrap their own ev project, they didn't give up, and then go focus back on the old SUV and small truck fall-back).

Originally Posted by Extreme4x4

Ok, ModerateRight, lets play your game.

Since this individual is proposing a FLEET average of 50mpg, and we have already determined that trucks are necessary in this country................ what will the economy numbers need to be, on all of the cars sold.............. to average out at 50mpg???

Lets take a guess.............. oh, 80mpg, maybe................ or maybe even 100mpg, depending on how many trucks a manufacturer is unlucky enough to sell.

Or, are you saying that there will be the technology, in 10 model years, to make a truck that can actually do work, get 30-40mpg???

And how is this not possible? Right now GM is announcing hybrid trucks that get 21/22 mpg. I'm sure over the next decade these will continue to become even more efficient. And what will those trucks get using technology from GM's upcoming Volt platform?

As for the volt it IS too expensive now, but how much will the technology cost drop over the next decade. And what does the car REALLY get mpg? If you drive less than 40 miles a day it's well over 100 mpg. I'm not sure what the gov will rate it as mpg when it comes out, but I guarantee if the rating is low that as more of these cars come out the way the mpg is calculated will become friendlier to them.

And since not all cars can use all this tech and remain affordable there still needs to be a low end option, but even today GM has small cars in the 30 mpg range. What will they have in 10 years as the cars become more efficient or use the current generation of hybrid technology, which presumable will be much less expensive by then?

I think this is a completely reachable goal just based on technology and cars GM is already working on and knowing they will have to evolve of the next 10 years.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Extreme4x4

So I guess we are also planning on making RVing and camping illegal also???

Not "illegal", just slightly more expensive.

Diesel reached $6.00 US a gallon here not too long ago. Sales of large RVs were in the toilet, but some people were STILL buying them. We saw retirees being interviewed in the media saying things like "well, yes it's more expensive to run now than it used to, but I like RVing and can afford it".

You want to discourage pollution, you charge polluters.

You do not pull a TT or 5th wheel, or boat, with a I4 Ranger or Colorado. Now, before you say............. oh yes you can pull a boat with the Colorado.............. yes you can, a small one. For that matter, you would not pull your car trailer with your classic car with either small trucks.

I have a construction company.

I was putting fuel in my Silverado at $6.00 US a gallon.

A Ranger even with the 4.0 would not meet my needs.

But $6.00 a gallon makes sure I don't do my daily grocery getting and pointless commutes with the Silverado. THAT IS THE POINT.

If fuel was cheap I might be tempted to drive the truck everywhere all day long just because it's cool to do so.

If you think that all of the work on a ranch and farm, can be done with a Ranger or Colorado............... I propose that you spend more time actually seeing what they ask of their vehicles.

My mom comes from a farming family. I've spent "vacations" working as a farm boy on my grandpa's (now uncle's) farm. I have a good idea of what the work is... BTW, as you probably know, farming equipment runs on NON-TAXED diesel, so what I'm suggesting wouldn't even hurt these guys.

These industries would literally tear either truck in half. Also, large trucks are used in many other industries................ such as the oil/mining industries. How many pallets of concrete are you going to carry with a Ranger or Colorado??? How many sheets of drywall???

Many sheets of drywall, actually.

Look, the industries who NEED trucks would keep using trucks. Just like I do.

The ones who don't would simply have more incentive to be "green".

No it is not necessary to go 0-60 in 7 seconds, in a truck. However, I would put forth the difference in fuel economy between the lowest powered engine and the highest. You will find that they are pretty darn close (between 1-2 mpg better on the gutless engine, because it has to work so hard.

In these cases, just keep the largest engine.

The US would not work, without trucks. We are not Europe.

Just FWIW... There's no construction industry in Europe? There's no farming industry in Europe?

Fact is, there are large work vehicles over there too, it's just that most people don't buy them to look cool while commuting to their office jobs, so you won't notice them as much.

[Dukeboy01]

And here we have one reason why this "bailout" will ultimately fail and the automakers will go bankrupt anyway: The Dems will not be able to resist screwing around with product development or trying to force more fuel economy mandates that will require the Detroit 3 to build moe unprofitable cars that no one wants to buy.