UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

  1. #1
    GMI Contributor Premium Member Ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    An Alternate Timeline
    Posts
    14,692
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    UAW and Big Three rally for jobs
    Friday, August 17, 2007
    BY ANDREA HOLECEK
    www.nwitimes.com

    CHICAGO | Jason Kunst doesn't drive yet, but he understands the importance of keeping Ford and the two other American automakers in business making trucks, vans and SUVs, as well as cars.

    Jason's father, Jeff, works at the Chicago Heights Ford Stamping plant, so the 15-year-old said he was happy to participate in a rally staged by the Big Three automakers and United Autoworkers at the Federal Plaza Thursday. He, his sister Jessica, and three other scouts from Lowell's Boy Scout Troop 697, played a special role in the event: demonstrating that large SUVs fill a need.

    The rally promoted support for a bill sponsored by U.S. Reps. Baron Hill, D-Ind., and Lee Terry, R-Neb., that would hike Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandates to 35 miles per gallon for passenger cars by 2022 and at least 32 mpg for light trucks by the same year. Unlike the Senate version of CAFE legislation, the Hill-Terry bill sets one standard for cars and another for trucks, SUVs and vans.

    Riding in a eight-passenger Ford Expedition SUV as it circled the plaza, filled with workers from the stamping plant, the Chicago Ford Assembly plant and the Belvidere Chrysler Assembly plant, the scouts with their leader and their backpacks were a shown as an example of why there is demand for large passenger vehicles.

    "A 12-passenger van took to us to West Virginia to go white water rafting last year," Jason said. "If we had a Civic, it wouldn't have worked. We needed the passenger space and the cargo space. A small car wouldn't have worked. And my dad needs his job,"

    The larger vehicles could be in jeopardy under the current Senate-approved CAFE legislation that increases average fuel economy to 35 mpg for cars and trucks combined by 2020, according to the UAW and U.S. automakers.

    The Terry-Hill bill supporters contend having all vehicles lumped together in one standard would hurt Ford, Chrysler and General Motors and put UAW jobs at risk because the Big Three produce more trucks, vans and SUV than their competitors.

    Under the Senate legislation, which will be debated when Congress resumes in September, Ford, Chrysler and GM would be forced to cut production of large pickups and SUVs by 60 percent, according to a Lehman Brothers study.

    http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/08...39007448d5.txt


  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville Fl.
    Posts
    1,774
    Thanks
    124
    Thanked 91 Times in 45 Posts

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    That little Mazda van is TO FUNNY!! I usually like the funky little older vans of the European kind but that thing is UGLY!!

  4. #3
    GMI Contributor Premium Member Ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    An Alternate Timeline
    Posts
    14,692
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Carguy
    That little Mazda van is TO FUNNY!! I usually like the funky little older vans of the European kind but that thing is UGLY!!
    With a name like "Scrum" what do you expect? On the other hand, the Econoline is no shining example of automotive beauty, either.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 KingElvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,237
    Thanks
    823
    Thanked 753 Times in 629 Posts
    My Ride
    '10 DODGE RAM ST RC HEMI 4.10

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    If you are an automotive enthusiast, you should be vehemently against setting an 'easy' standard for trucks and a 'hard' standard for cars.

    This is pure evil. Why UAW? Why do you think that Toyota is somehow barred from entering the large vehicle market?

    Has anyone at the UAW clicked on the Toyota website recently? They have three cars for sale and SIX trucks.

    The unmitigated bizzaro 'logic' of this argument just floors me.

    The entire thing smacks of dissembling. Every Ford Van rates over 8500lbs GVWR anyway THEY AREN"T EVEN COUNTED except for some passenger vans.

    And what about the Dodge Sprinter UAW? It gets 25mpg.

    I guess when you produce trucks in a regulatory environment where trucks are not placed on a precious pedestal, it means they actually don't need to swill fuel like a drunken sailor.
    Last edited by KingElvis; 08-22-2007 at 12:47 PM.

  7. #5
    5.3 Liter Vortec V8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,250
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    Yes pure evil - protesting against a prospective job loss due to unjustifiable, unconstructive proposed laws that wont solve any problems, but will tip the quasi-bankrupt big-2.2 over. The Dodge uses a benz diesel, just the investment to get to MBs level of clean diesels would likely sink GM, as well.
    What if people who drive SUVs drive less, as they are doing, because of the gas prices, does that let you sleep at night?

  8. #6
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 KingElvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,237
    Thanks
    823
    Thanked 753 Times in 629 Posts
    My Ride
    '10 DODGE RAM ST RC HEMI 4.10

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    A history lesson for the poor, poor UAW and associated light truck loophole apologists.

    In 1979 a K-10 pickup got 9.5mpg in this test.

    By 1985 GMC K-10 got...20mpg scoring only 5hp less than the '79.

    They doubled gas mileage less than ten years.
    Last edited by KingElvis; 10-25-2007 at 01:24 PM.

  9. #7
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 KingElvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,237
    Thanks
    823
    Thanked 753 Times in 629 Posts
    My Ride
    '10 DODGE RAM ST RC HEMI 4.10

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    OK, so here's the '85 GMC test data. In fact, it got 22mpg highway, but 19mpg is for 'mixed' driving.

    Those who defend the CAFE truck loophole - start providing more evidence that it 'doesn't work' because the evidence says it does.
    Last edited by KingElvis; 10-25-2007 at 01:24 PM.

  10. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    524
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    I haven't posted in a while, but this site has gone downhill fast. One biased headline after another, is Al Gore running the site?

    If you think you can double the fuel efficiency of a modern fuel injected vehicle without SEVERALLY lowering it's capability you are just plain ignorant.

    There is a limit to how much energy is in a gallon of fuel. You can't make a full size truck get 35 mpg even it somehow was 100% efficient, which is impossible. Using a old example doesn't justify your argument. Let me simplify it for you. Let's say a 100% efficient engine gets 10 mpg in a certain vehicle, if the engine is 40% efficient you will get 4mpg. If you double it to 8, you are 80% efficient. You can't double it again!

    There is only one other way to improve mileage, lowering weight. However this either shrinks the size of the vehicle, lowers the content, or costs a fortune. Since people still get to pick which vehicle they can drive they will still buy the biggest available.

    In effect your telling people what to drive, that you what's best for them. There is term for this kind of thinking, it's called COMMUNISM.

    The 35mpg CAFE standard is not attainable by any reasonable means when you include trucks. Read from someone who has done the numbers:

    http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto...92.A12523.html

    I'm done reading this eviro-fascist BS on this site.

  11. #9
    6.2 Liter LS3 V8 johnny smallblock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    3,438
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 232 Times in 96 Posts
    My Ride
    1972 Cutlass Supreme

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    Come one Keith. There's no reason to start so quickly calling everyone who disagrees with you a communist. Heck, you did it by post 8; that might be some kind of record.

    KingElvis showed that similiar vehicles have had dramatic improvements in fuel economy without diminishing their capabilities. Respond with an actual support for your argument. Not just "it can't be done."
    Current Hidden Content
    2013 Chevy Spark
    2010 Honda Odyssey
    1972 Cutlass Supreme

    R.I.P. Hidden Content
    2006 Ford Escape Hybrid (given to my brother)
    1999 Honda Elite (stolen)
    1996 Caprice LT1 (donated when gas hit $4)
    1996 Honda Elite (wrecked in a wipeout)
    1995 Honda Civic (T-boned by a police car)
    1986 Plymouth Colt Vista (died)
    1978 Chevy Mailbu (sold)

  12. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    524
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    I'm sorry did you read my post? I did post REAL info, and I explained why using "it's been done before, we'll just keep doing it" doesn't work. Efficiency is finite,
    you can't keep doubling the efficiency of anything. I didn't call any one person a communist, only pointed out that controlling what people do and think through the government is communism.

  13. #11
    GMI Contributor Premium Member Ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    An Alternate Timeline
    Posts
    14,692
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    Quote Originally Posted by KingElvis
    A history lesson for the poor, poor UAW and associated light truck loophole apologists.

    In 1979 a K-10 pickup got 9.5mpg in this test.

    By 1985 GMC K-10 got...20mpg scoring only 5hp less than the '79.

    They doubled gas mileage less than ten years.
    That's why I think GM would be better off with harsher CAFE rules. With lax rules they are tempted to go with the status quo, hoping for a dip in gas prices that lasts, so they can keep old profitable stuff around as long as possible for those fat executive bonues. Harsh CAFE rules would force them to tighten the belts and work on ENGINEERING cars, not repackaging them like endless revised W and G-body Buicks with 3800's and 4-speeds. The old "Same GM wine in a slippery new bottle - spread across 5 brands" lazy engineering inspired by Ron Zarella. 10-year old engines like the 3400 do not age like fine wine, unfortunately.

  14. #12
    GMI Contributor Premium Member Ming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    An Alternate Timeline
    Posts
    14,692
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Keith
    I haven't posted in a while, but this site has gone downhill fast. One biased headline after another, is Al Gore running the site?

    If you think you can double the fuel efficiency of a modern fuel injected vehicle without SEVERALLY lowering it's capability you are just plain ignorant.

    I'm done reading this eviro-fascist BS on this site.
    Let's see what threads I posted here in the last day...

    Review: GMC Sierra Duramax HD is Professional Grade

    GMC TopKick and Chevy Kodiak Diesels Get a Kick from K&N

    GM's Colorado/Canyon Pickups' Lackluster Sales: Down 7% as Tacoma is up 7%

    UAW Flexes Muscle


    3 articles about GM pickups. Two about the UAW. One half of one of those about CAFE.

    Where is Al Gore? "Severally" indeed.
    Besides, I've said many a time that my desire for high MPG GM cars is twofold:

    1. Beat (no pun intended) Toyohondassan at their own game
    2. I'm a cheapskate when it comes to car prices and gas prices and I don't need another $40,000 300+ horsepower SUV


    I could give a flying flip about environmentalist concerns. I want a small, inexpensive fuel efficient car because I think they're neat from a technological standpoint and I'm a penny-pincher. Stricter CAFE would broaden my choices.

    I'd prefer to buy one from GM since they make them in other parts of the world already. But if GM is run by people who think as you do, then I'll have to go elsewhere, obviously.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Keith
    Since people still get to pick which vehicle they can drive they will still buy the biggest available.
    Right, like I chose to downsize as a matter of personal taste (and in the face of higher gas prices). I guess I'm not "people"....
    Last edited by Ming; 08-17-2007 at 03:48 PM.

  15. #13
    3.0 Liter SIDI V6 pinyon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    641
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 41 Times in 21 Posts

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    I'm not against stricter CAFE standards although I'm not convinced they are the best apporach. What I don't like is lumping the entire fleet together. It penalizes full line manufacturers like GM, Ford, and Toyota versus Honda, Hyundai and the like that don't make full size trucks. I think there's always too many issues with details such as how do you rate a plug in hybrid? You have to somehow deal with the energy used to charge and not just say 150 MPG.
    2011 Sierra Denali 2500HD Duramax
    2013 Volt
    One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man.
    - Elbert Hubbard

  16. #14
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 KingElvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,237
    Thanks
    823
    Thanked 753 Times in 629 Posts
    My Ride
    '10 DODGE RAM ST RC HEMI 4.10

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Keith
    I haven't posted in a while, but this site has gone downhill fast. One biased headline after another, is Al Gore running the site?

    If you think you can double the fuel efficiency of a modern fuel injected vehicle without SEVERALLY lowering it's capability you are just plain ignorant.

    There is a limit to how much energy is in a gallon of fuel. You can't make a full size truck get 35 mpg even it somehow was 100% efficient, which is impossible. Using a old example doesn't justify your argument. Let me simplify it for you. Let's say a 100% efficient engine gets 10 mpg in a certain vehicle, if the engine is 40% efficient you will get 4mpg. If you double it to 8, you are 80% efficient. You can't double it again!

    There is only one other way to improve mileage, lowering weight. However this either shrinks the size of the vehicle, lowers the content, or costs a fortune. Since people still get to pick which vehicle they can drive they will still buy the biggest available.

    In effect your telling people what to drive, that you what's best for them. There is term for this kind of thinking, it's called COMMUNISM.

    The 35mpg CAFE standard is not attainable by any reasonable means when you include trucks. Read from someone who has done the numbers:

    http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto...92.A12523.html

    I'm done reading this eviro-fascist BS on this site.

    I read the article you posted. I'm willing to debate and hey, that's part of the fun of posting right?

    Here are some chinks in the armor I see:

    1. Author seems to presume the standard will start tomorrow. This is going to be phased in over 15 or 20 years.

    2. By making gas mileage a priority, you can 'move mountains.' It's currently a complete non priority, hence it's 'impossible.' Technology, presumably, won't stand still over the next twenty years. In 1939 people might have said a 300hp auto engine was 'impossible' by 1959 too.

    3. All the same arguments were made in the '70s against boosting mileage. With references to "You can't change the laws of physics!"

    4. The original CAFE law required mileage to double in ten years. This new law only requires a 30% improvement for cars over double that time. Trucks are already at 24mpg for 2011, so the improvement amounts to about 50%.

    5. US trucks are the literally the world's least efficient vehicles. It's in trucks where the EASIEST gains can be made by cutting body weight and engine size.

    6. By babying trucks, you defeat the purpose of raising 'car' standards since automakers will naturally shift production to trucks.

    Perhaps a compromise could be reached by lowering the standard a little bit, but I've literally written a book on this, and having these two separate laws amounts to a kind of "Jim Crow" legal code for cars.

  17. #15
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Further on up the road..
    Posts
    6,455
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: UAW and Big Three rally for jobs, against tough CAFE rules

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Keith
    I haven't posted in a while, but this site has gone downhill fast. One biased headline after another, is Al Gore running the site?

    If you think you can double the fuel efficiency of a modern fuel injected vehicle without SEVERALLY lowering it's capability you are just plain ignorant.

    There is a limit to how much energy is in a gallon of fuel. You can't make a full size truck get 35 mpg even it somehow was 100% efficient, which is impossible. Using a old example doesn't justify your argument. Let me simplify it for you. Let's say a 100% efficient engine gets 10 mpg in a certain vehicle, if the engine is 40% efficient you will get 4mpg. If you double it to 8, you are 80% efficient. You can't double it again!

    There is only one other way to improve mileage, lowering weight. However this either shrinks the size of the vehicle, lowers the content, or costs a fortune. Since people still get to pick which vehicle they can drive they will still buy the biggest available.

    In effect your telling people what to drive, that you what's best for them. There is term for this kind of thinking, it's called COMMUNISM.

    The 35mpg CAFE standard is not attainable by any reasonable means when you include trucks. Read from someone who has done the numbers:

    http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto...92.A12523.html

    I'm done reading this eviro-fascist BS on this site.
    A few nits to pick.
    '....it's called COMMUNISM.'
    I think what you meant to write was TOTALITARIANISM. Communism is a different idea. What you are missing is that when the CAFE rules are put into effect it'll be because the majority of the population wants them. That's what the representatives of CA, NY, NJ, FL, IL, MA all want because that's what the majority of their consitutents want. That's called DEMOCRACY. And yes it is an imposition on the minority which doesn't agree, but it's always been that way. It's also what the President and his Administration wants as well as the CIA/NSA/Penatgon, the Oil Industry and the Transportation Industry. All of them want stricter CAFE standards so that we use less fuel.

    Quote Originally Posted by witzenburg
    If 35 mpg were the law today, would those eight cars be all you could buy? No, because CAFE is an automaker's sales-weighted fleet average. But a great many expensive extremely high-economy diesel and hybrid small cars would have to be sold to enable automakers to sell any lower-mpg larger cars or trucks at all. How many American buyers would go for those?
    This statement from the article you referenced is the basis of a lot of the concern by those opposed to what is being proposed. Proposed since the final law is not formulated yet. I'd bet on some modifications.

    It has nothing to do with '...eviro(sp)-facist BS'. It has to do primarily with national security.

    Frankly it's what you will want as well in the future if no new sources of fuel are made available to us real quick. If they don't put more fuel at stations soon you may have to do with 50% less than you get now. So do you want to drive 50% less with today's vehicle or do you want to drive the same as today in a vehicle that's 50% more efficient? I ask everyone who is opposed "Would you rather drive a 17 mpg pickup/SUV when gas is $6/gal or a 25-28 mpg pickup/SUV?"
    Last edited by PhishPhood; 08-17-2007 at 05:48 PM.

  18. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2