GM May Break SUV-Truck Marriage to Cut Fuel Use, Emissions

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by uboys

Dear Lord and Master, what else am I allowed to do today?
I would like permission to brush my teeth now please...

The Tahoe isn't going anywhere if it still tows more than the Lambdas and has that coveted truck-like ride height.

Not necessarily true. It all depends on the Tahoe/Yukon being able to carry their share of the 'weight' of the corporation; i.e. selling enough, keeping capacity full and making money. Once they shows that they can't do this ( maybe because fuel prices make these vehicles unattractive ) then they're on the schedule for extinction. No rational managment can keep capacity open for 100's of thousands of units if only tens of thousands of buyers show up each year.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by tgagneguam

Government is rarely the answer to a problem. Free citizens are usually the answer.

The free market is a problem with petroleum for two reasons. First, our government has been involved in international politics in order to secure our access to oil for decades:
1. The United States encouraged and assisted Great Britain with the overthrow of the government of Iran in the 1950s with one more friendly to our oil policies.
2. When the Iranian people rebelled and a group opposed to the US took control in the late 1970s, we funded and equipped Saddam Hussein in his war against them.
3. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, we went to war to kick him out because he was no longer our ally and we didn't want him to control too much oil.
4. We are currently allies with Saudi Arabia, a country which is ruthlessly oppressive of women's rights, among other human right violations. We're allies because of their oil.
5. Saddam Hussein has been executed, why are we still in Iraq? Because if we withdraw and a large scale war breaks out, it can disrupt oil flow from Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. No matter how you feel about Iraq, we now need to keep the region stable or $200 barrel oil will look good.

That's the tip of the iceberg. Free markets don't really apply, because the US government already influences our petroleum use through foreign policy.

Second, on a related point, our political security would benefit if we didn't have to depend upon oil imports. The free market doesn't care about international borders, so it's happy if we import 30% of our oil or more. But for our long term economic security and political safety (i.e. fewer reasons to meddle in international politics for our own security), we should try to shift as much energy production as possible inside our borders. I think it's a worthy goal, and the free market doesn't care either way.

[member12]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Good. Let's get the Escalade on a modified premium CUV Zeta platform.

Now that probably isn't a bad idea........but the Tahoe needs to remain a real truck.

The Traverse is going to gradually get a bigger part of the full sized truck pie, but that doesn't mean GM should complete give up on body on frame trucks.

30 years ago, people who bought Suburbans needed Suburbans. It's going to be like that again.

Let Nissan and Toyota cancel their full sized suvs....GM has to hold the line on this market.