Could this HELP Save GM?

[44 mpg by 2010]

A Plan to Jumpstart Our Economy: 44+ mpg combined average Vehicles by February 2009 and Improve National Security

Strategy: The President or President Elect can waive (NOW or immediately after the Inauguration) all tariffs, import, safety, and emissions restriction on vehicles achieving more than 44 mpg(US) [53 mpg(Imperial)] combined average and that satisfy Euro Step IV (or Step V) emissions [with DPFs for diesels] plus current Euro safety standards for a period of 24 months.

Justification: This waiver could be executed immediately by Executive Order as justified under the WAR POWERS ACT because oil imports ARE a NATIONAL SECURITY issue.

Setup: Now, immediately notify the domestic auto manufacturers of the plan and schedule giving them a warning that this waiver is coming and that they can either participate in the solution by delivering these high mpg vehicles through their distribution networks while they revise their domestic manufacturing to comply with US safety and emission standards or the individual consumers will import on their own.

This is a minimum resource/cost, quick response solution for Detroit to start generating cash flow through temporary use of excess non-domestic product and production capacity while they retool domestically for a more appropriate domestic product set. This would be a serious jumpstart to a new level of automotive product fuel frugality and lower emissions. It might, in the simplest form, just require figuring out how to put emissions corrected fuel frugal Euro power trains in US vehicle designs.

Benefits: IF ... Detroit and others committed to and quickly built these FUEL FRUGAL vehicles within the US in high volumes ASAP, we could "kill 16 birds with one stone":

1) reduce automotive CO2 emissions potentially by 50% or more per “average” vehicle

2) generate domestic jobs (put Americans BACK to work)

3) scare speculator out of the petroleum market

4) start reducing oil consumption AND oil imports currently costing about $300~800 BILLION/YEAR (potentially to ZERO by 2020 with 100 million 45 mpg and greater vehicles and supplemental bio fuels)

5) stimulate the US economy ... with a needed useful and sellable product (IF rationally priced)

6) reducing imported oil purchases would add funds (up to $300~800 BILLION/YEAR at current prices) to the domestic economy causing increase in (and recovery of previously lost [due to oil import purchases]) Federal/State Tax revenues (up to $400~800 BILLION/YEAR)

7) provide the consumer an opportunity experience and use these machines to reduce vehicle operating costs (possibly $1,000 per year or more) returning money to the domestic economy for other goods and services

8) provide an opportunity to export these FUEL FRUGAL vehicles when exchange rates and productivity/efficiency allow (proved the US built vehicles satisfy both US and Euro safety/emissions standards) providing even more domestic jobs

9) rejuvenate the "domestic" auto industry, manufacturing technologies, and innovation

10) give AMERICA a pride in accomplishing something difficult and constructive for the future

11) provide a viable bridge to future advanced automotive/transportation technologies (2018 and beyond)

12) improve balance of trade

13) clean small, under 1.8 liter, turbo diesel engines would provide a viable path to bio diesel

14) improve National Security because of reduced dependence on foreign oil and a strong industrial sector

15) help stabilize the WORLD economy and security

16) the import waiver would give immediate product availability, cash flow for Det3, visibility to consumer preferences, plus immediate alteration of market dynamics and direction prior to implementation and use of complex domestic regulations


Background: FORD/Volvo/Mazda and GM/Chevy/Vauxhall already have numerous vehicles in Europe rated above 51, 61, and 71 mpg(Imperial) [above 42, 50, and 59 mpg(US) ] combined cycle. Unfortunately many are diesel ... BUT NOT ALL! [Sadly Chrysler does not seem to have fuel frugal technology even in Europe above 40 mpg(US).]
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...lConSearch.asp



It is my belief that 100 million 44 (and greater) mpg combined average vehicles introduced into the US over the next 10~12 years could reduce light vehicle fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by about 50%. With the proper implementation of renewable bio fuels oil imports could easily approach zero. And in fact, it might be possible to generate a surplus of domestic petroleum ... then the US could join OPEC!


Consider that currently there are about 260 million registered "light vehicles" for roughly 180 million licensed drivers, so 100 million new fuel frugal vehicles over the next 10~12 years could have a significant impact on the US jobs, economy, fuel consumption, oil imports, the industrial base, balance of trade, National Security, and world stability.


If these ideas are worthwhile, please pass them on.

[Exploder]

I don't know...I'm not saying those cars and engines shouldn't be sold Stateside, but there are far more factors than not just selling diesel cars in the US that is causing GM's troubles.

[2002 Caddy]

I don't think so...

Toyota, Honda already have the lions share of the US market in cars that meet you "war measures act" yard stick...

This will just help more Americans buy more Toyota's, Honda's, Smart Cars... Sure it will sell a few Cobalts but it will sell more of the others. Which is GM's problem.

GM could have brought cars like the Cruze here first; they chose not to. That is the mystery... Why not bring your best small car to the biggest car market on the planet?

Gas prices are no longer GM's problem anyway... Gas is less then $2.00 a gallon in most states...

Now GM has a credit problem. GMAC can't lend money for cars... leases are dead... and the banks won't give a loan for a domestic truck even if your FICO score is 800...

Oh and BTW once the credit crisis passes... and it will...
Mark my word, GM Management will have a new problem...I don't know what it will be, but there will be a problem, it might be safety standards, or suppliers, lack of materials, or maybe the electric grid.. but there will be a NEW crisis that they need saving from.

You see it is never GM Management's fault... They did everything right...
It is always something/someone else that is causing their pain.

[jkennedy293]

Who is going to buy a car with a diesel engine when diesel prices are $1 more per gallon. For the consumer of small cars, the financial benefits aren't there.

[tom3]

But will they still be paying $28 an hour with the benefits now provided to employees and retirees? The current product is not the problem as I see it. Competing with the foreign auto factories and nameplates with their pay and benefit packages is the problem.

[Wolfman01]

The concept also ignores one problem that is why the Astra is struggling to sell here. Exchange rates for foreign vs. U.S. currencies. Because of this, the Astra is forced into a price point, where it simply cannot compete with the other competing vehicles in the same class. Importing more of t he same, will only add to the glut of unsold vehicles in this country.

[TedReminder]

Originally Posted by tom3

But will they still be paying $28 an hour with the benefits now provided to employees and retirees? The current product is not the problem as I see it. Competing with the foreign auto factories and nameplates with their pay and benefit packages is the problem.

There is no "the problem". There are lots of problems.
Ted

[supermoto]

Where does Toyota and Honda have a lions share of the domestic market for vehicles over 40 mpg combined? Where does Toyota and Honda have a lions share of the Euro market for those same vehicles?


If GM and Ford have available vehicles that do get over 40, but would need to change safety requirements or emissions to sell them here, then waiving those requirements for a few years to test demand would help them. The current exchange rates would be a problem though.

Just because diesel is much higher is some parts of the country, doesn't mean it's a $1 a gallon more everywhere. It certainly isn't where I'm at and higher highway fuel economy is more important in the west and midwest.

[2002 Caddy]

Originally Posted by supermoto

Where does Toyota and Honda have a lions share of the domestic market for vehicles over 40 mpg combined?

Good question, next time you are driving somewhere take a look out the window... The answer is:

California, Pacific Northwest, Florida, the gulf coast, the south, the eastern seaboard, New England, some of the Midwest, much of "urban" parts the Great lakes region (not counting Michigan)... and Hawaii (unless you count the rentals)

You forget that sadly since about 1999 GM has become a pickup truck company... We have the lion's share of the truck market... Cars? not so much... Small cars? Forget about it...

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by Wolfman01

The concept also ignores one problem that is why the Astra is struggling to sell here. Exchange rates for foreign vs. U.S. currencies. Because of this, the Astra is forced into a price point, where it simply cannot compete with the other competing vehicles in the same class. Importing more of t he same, will only add to the glut of unsold vehicles in this country.

I agree that there is a VERY limited US market for the current "domestic" gasoline Astra offering at 27 mpg average and 32 mpg highway.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...f.jsp?id=25511

Now consider, what would the level of interest be ... IF ... that Astra were a 1.7 liter turbo diesel that got 47 mpg average and about 56 mpg highway?
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...s.asp?id=22011

I am confident that there would be a radically different consumer preception between these 2 offerings, even if the diesel price point was $2~3k higher.

I do recognize that ANY new offering in this immediate economic climate would have an uphill struggle. At least the 47 mpg machine has a chance while the 27 mpg vehicle has ABSOLUTELY NONE ... just "more of the same" ... so to speak.

At least the 47~56 mpg vehicle would stand out from the pack and that might just be enough to start generating sales! Probably more so than deep discounts on the 27 mpg gasoline Astra.

If initial development costs were "zero" (the 24 month waiver) then the economic cost (and risk) to GM would be almost NON-EXISTENT! Start-up time is days ... not years!

If there is reasonable US market acceptance/volume, then GM domestic manufacturing could be retooled up, started, and the design could be brought into compliance on emissions and safety.

OR ... a similar "power train" could be rolled into ANY appropriate existing domestic product for improved fuel economy eliminating the safety issues leaving just emissions issues to be solved!