GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Production

Fuel-Economy Push Hits Snags
Gas-Mileage Rules Are Called Too Lax And Too Stringent
By STEPHEN POWER
July 29, 2008


WASHINGTON -- A Bush administration proposal to boost fuel efficiency of automobiles to 31.5 miles per gallon by 2015 is raising hackles on two sides: from car makers, who say it is too tough, and from some Democrats, who say it isn't tough enough.

While auto makers warn of the threat to jobs, some lawmakers -- in particular Democrats from districts that don't have car factories -- are urging an even higher target. They say this would save more gasoline and reduce the need for drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, a bone of contention in Congress at the moment.

If the government forced car makers to hit a 35 mpg standard by 2015, according to calculations by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. would save an additional 300,000 barrels of oil a day in 2020. By comparison, the offshore areas currently subject to a federal drilling ban would produce about 220,000 barrels a day at peak production in 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration, an independent forecaster.

Auto makers, both domestic and foreign, say the Department of Transportation's proposal is too aggressive. This year is shaping up as the worst year for U.S. car sales in more than a decade. Ford Motor Co. last week announced an $8.7 billion second-quarter loss.

Ford warned in a June 30 letter to the department that the company "does not have adequate resources or lead time to make major product changes across most or all of our vehicle fleet (beyond what is already planned.)"

Ford said this month it is retooling some factories to build smaller cars instead of trucks and sport-utility vehicles, but a spokesman says its statement in the letter stands.

General Motors Corp. says the department's proposal could result in plant closings and job losses.

Even as GM has promoted its Chevy Volt electric concept car -- showing the vehicle to Republican presidential candidate John McCain earlier this month -- the company has told the Department of Transportation that the Volt won't do much to boost GM's fleetwide fuel efficiency before 2015.

A GM spokesman said the company's comments to the department reflect its belief in setting "very conservative expectations" about how many Volts it can produce initially.

Toyota Motor Corp. says the proposed fuel-economy increases come "at a rate much greater than anticipated" by last year's law.

Tyler Duvall, the assistant secretary of transportation for policy, told Congress last month that the new rules will help drive fuel-saving technologies.

"From the societal perspective, the rule-making makes a lot of sense, but we are extremely aware of the impacts on various manufacturers," Mr. Duvall said. "It's an extremely aggressive proposal."

Full Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121729112585291671.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,431 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

I hate CAFE as much as the next guy, but it's a little funny how they all say that the 35 mpg mandate is too strict while they can't sell their own products now because they don't have enough fuel efficient options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

The real problem is that the auto industry simply cannot turn on a dime. With product life cycles averaging 6 years +/- and new cars requiring 3 years +/- of development time, it's really unrealistic to expect automakers (especially cash strapped automakers) to overhaul their entire lineups in 6 years.
 

·
Registered
2015 Cadillac XTS Platinum, 1989 Merkur XR4Ti, 1989 Merkur Scorpio
Joined
·
11,308 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

Even as GM has promoted its Chevy Volt electric concept car -- showing the vehicle to Republican presidential candidate John McCain earlier this month
Oh crap... now McCain's going to copy the Volt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,689 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

I saw a very interesting show on PBS last night about the "Car of the Future".

Interesting statistic:

In 1975 the average fuel economy of US vehicles, and remember there were very few imports at the time, was about 13.8 MPG. After the first round of government intervention, that had climbed to 22.0 in 1987. Fuel useage had been declining in the US until 1987 as well. Of course at that time Cihna didn't exist as a force either.

This decline in demand begat a decline in crude prices and the price of gas stayed steady for many years even as real household income, property, and stock values all soared. This "fueled" the love of trucks and SUV's and we all know what that has wrought. But the most interesting statistic was that the average fuel economy of US sold vehicles has dropped since 1987 to about 20.7 MPG today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,689 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

Oh crap... now McCain's going to copy the Volt.


Why? Is his old defibulator on the fritz?

(Maybe Cheney has a spare?)


.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,040 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

I saw a very interesting show on PBS last night about the "Car of the Future".

Interesting statistic:

In 1975 the average fuel economy of US vehicles, and remember there were very few imports at the time, was about 13.8 MPG. After the first round of government intervention, that had climbed to 22.0 in 1987. Fuel useage had been declining in the US until 1987 as well. Of course at that time Cihna didn't exist as a force either.

This decline in demand begat a decline in crude prices and the price of gas stayed steady for many years even as real household income, property, and stock values all soared. This "fueled" the love of trucks and SUV's and we all know what that has wrought. But the most interesting statistic was that the average fuel economy of US sold vehicles has dropped since 1987 to about 20.7 MPG today.
The way your statistics are worded implies that the government intervention was what increased the average fuel economy to 22.0 mpg in 1987. It was more likely the price of fuel in the early 80's that caused the drastic shift in consumer preferences that actually made it happen. I recall many people buying tiny cars at the time as they sold their bigger cars because they WANTED to use less gas. As gas became cheaper and cheaper to buy we shifted the other way. Now we are starting to buy smaller cars again and I bet our average fuel economy of cars being bought now is much higher than it was 2 years ago. New CAFE rules haven't kicked it yet either so it is obviously just from consumer preference fueled by high gas prices. Same as before. The government really can't respond any faster than the consumer can react to prices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,710 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

and from some Democrats, who say it isn't tough enough.

If the government forced car makers to hit a 35 mpg standard by 2015, according to calculations by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. would save an additional 300,000 barrels of oil a day in 2020. By comparison, the offshore areas currently subject to a federal drilling ban would produce about 220,000 barrels a day at peak production in 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration, an independent forecaster.
Ever wonder what goes through the minds of some of our legislators? I imagine it's a little something like this:
Even though I'm not an engineer or a designer, and have no idea what's realistic, it's still my duty to make a rukus and get reelected, so I should propose significantly more stringent CAFE regulation. If it will save that much money and fuel at 35mpg, why not make it 40mpg, or 50mpg? Who's with me? While we're at it, let's make cars safer, with more electronic monitoring systems since people can't check their own tire pressure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,034 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

Oh crap... now McCain's going to copy the Volt.
:lmao: Oh that's classic! Love it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,790 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

It's not going to be CAFE that makes GM and others increase the MPG on their vehicles... It'll be the consumer in these higher gas price periods. Just like any situation in capitalism, the consumer will buy the most fuel efficient car from Car-Maker A while Car-Maker B sits there and decides that in order to get that consumer back they have to offer a car that doesn't meet the fuel efficiency of Car A but exceed it.

But unfortunately the auto industry doesn't work like every other tech company out there for some unknown reason.

Think about this, remember back in the day on THE PRICE IS RIGHT the price of a new car they were playing for usually began with an 8 or 9 in the four digit price tag? Then in the 90's they added the FIFTH digit and 1 became the first number!!!! Now it seems 2 is starting to replace 1.

Why is that? Sure people will say it is because of the cost of labor, materials and such but now think about this: Why is it that you can now buy a computer today that is half the size, 10x more powerful, does 1000 things more and is only about 40% the cost of what it was 15 years ago? My God people.... you can buy High Def LCD TVs that fill your whole wall up for the price of what an old 32" tube used to cost.

The auto industry has gotten lazy and fat and now they have been caught by a financial crisis that is hurting everyone from the poor all the way up to the rich.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,689 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

The way your statistics are worded implies that the government intervention was what increased the average fuel economy to 22.0 mpg in 1987. It was more likely the price of fuel in the early 80's that caused the drastic shift in consumer preferences that actually made it happen. I recall many people buying tiny cars at the time as they sold their bigger cars because they WANTED to use less gas. As gas became cheaper and cheaper to buy we shifted the other way. Now we are starting to buy smaller cars again and I bet our average fuel economy of cars being bought now is much higher than it was 2 years ago. New CAFE rules haven't kicked it yet either so it is obviously just from consumer preference fueled by high gas prices. Same as before. The government really can't respond any faster than the consumer can react to prices.

No, it was the first CAFE standards set in the mid-70's. There would be even fewer "tiny cars" to buy if it weren't for that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

WASHINGTON -- A Bush administration proposal to boost fuel efficiency of automobiles to 31.5 miles per gallon by 2015 is raising hackles on two sides: from car makers, who say it is too tough, and from some Democrats, who say it isn't tough enough.
And naturally it easy to say the law isn't tough enough when you know full well you wont be spending one penny to assist any of the manufacturers meet the law you want to impose.

People maybe moving to public transit and more efficent cars because of higher gas prices, but at the same time as prices fall again we will again reach price points where it becomes more beneficial to drive every where as opposed to taking a bus or train. The shorter the drive or the longer the commute by public transit the quicker people will turn back to driving all the time, hopefully just in the more efficent vehicles.

By the time I can walk to the bus stop to get a bus I would have driven about 3/4 of the way to work, I will use public transit to go downtown for concerts if the timing is good as it is free parking at the park n ride and 2 return tickets on the train is less than the parking down town and obviously less gas used.

As to GM being conservative, getting a few thousand Volts sold, on the road, being seen, especially on the coasts, will bring lots of warm and fuzzies, even more so if it meets/exceeds expectations. Just the announcement of the Volt has given GM lots of free "green" press.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

Ever wonder what goes through the minds of some of our legislators? I imagine it's a little something like this:
Even though I'm not an engineer or a designer, and have no idea what's realistic, it's still my duty to make a rukus and get reelected, so I should propose significantly more stringent CAFE regulation. If it will save that much money and fuel at 35mpg, why not make it 40mpg, or 50mpg? Who's with me? While we're at it, let's make cars safer, with more electronic monitoring systems since people can't check their own tire pressure.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head!:rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

Why is that? Sure people will say it is because of the cost of labor, materials and such but now think about this: Why is it that you can now buy a computer today that is half the size, 10x more powerful, does 1000 things more and is only about 40% the cost of what it was 15 years ago? My God people.... you can buy High Def LCD TVs that fill your whole wall up for the price of what an old 32" tube used to cost.

The auto industry has gotten lazy and fat and now they have been caught by a financial crisis that is hurting everyone from the poor all the way up to the rich.
You can never defy the laws of physics. Add in inflation costs, mandated safety features, mandated smog control, mandated this mandated that. The last time I checked you don't need airbags, tire pressure sensors, stability control, plus associated electronics to go somewhere on the internet.

Your argument is old, tired and annoying. There is only so much weight you can take out of a vehicle at a reasonable & affordable cost before you end up with a car the size of an Aveo costing $100k and made out super exotic materials to remove the weight which few consumers can afford and even fewer will want to buy.

Oh, and don't forget the extra weight every vehicle is hauling around as this country gets fatter and fatter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

The original CAFE law is what created the problems we have today. It drove people out of cars and into trucks, because it didn't attack the problem-Cheap Gas. The new law is no improvement. We should scrap CAFE, and replace it with a gas tax.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,371 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

It's not going to be CAFE that makes GM and others increase the MPG on their vehicles... It'll be the consumer in these higher gas price periods. Just like any situation in capitalism, the consumer will buy the most fuel efficient car from Car-Maker A while Car-Maker B sits there and decides that in order to get that consumer back they have to offer a car that doesn't meet the fuel efficiency of Car A but exceed it.

But unfortunately the auto industry doesn't work like every other tech company out there for some unknown reason.

Think about this, remember back in the day on THE PRICE IS RIGHT the price of a new car they were playing for usually began with an 8 or 9 in the four digit price tag? Then in the 90's they added the FIFTH digit and 1 became the first number!!!! Now it seems 2 is starting to replace 1.

Why is that? Sure people will say it is because of the cost of labor, materials and such but now think about this: Why is it that you can now buy a computer today that is half the size, 10x more powerful, does 1000 things more and is only about 40% the cost of what it was 15 years ago? My God people.... you can buy High Def LCD TVs that fill your whole wall up for the price of what an old 32" tube used to cost.

The auto industry has gotten lazy and fat and now they have been caught by a financial crisis that is hurting everyone from the poor all the way up to the rich.

The reason LCD TVs and computers have dropped decidedly in price while increasing performance is because all of the costs are related to development. For example: The cost to develop a Pentium microprocessor was in the millions of dollars. The cost to manufacture that chip is in the tens of dollars. So, as Intel sells more Pentium chips, the cheaper it can sell them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,125 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

You can never defy the laws of physics. Add in inflation costs, mandated safety features, mandated smog control, mandated this mandated that. The last time I checked you don't need airbags, tire pressure sensors, stability control, plus associated electronics to go somewhere on the internet.

Your argument is old, tired and annoying. There is only so much weight you can take out of a vehicle at a reasonable & affordable cost before you end up with a car the size of an Aveo costing $100k and made out super exotic materials to remove the weight which few consumers can afford and even fewer will want to buy.

Oh, and don't forget the extra weight every vehicle is hauling around as this country gets fatter and fatter.
To add to that, the sharp decrease in automobile cost already happened--back in the earlier part of the last century.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,193 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

I saw a very interesting show on PBS last night about the "Car of the Future".

Interesting statistic:

In 1975 the average fuel economy of US vehicles, and remember there were very few imports at the time, was about 13.8 MPG. After the first round of government intervention, that had climbed to 22.0 in 1987. Fuel useage had been declining in the US until 1987 as well. Of course at that time Cihna didn't exist as a force either.

This decline in demand begat a decline in crude prices and the price of gas stayed steady for many years even as real household income, property, and stock values all soared. This "fueled" the love of trucks and SUV's and we all know what that has wrought. But the most interesting statistic was that the average fuel economy of US sold vehicles has dropped since 1987 to about 20.7 MPG today.
The only problem I see with increasing CAFE standards is that right now CAFE doesn't include light pick-ups/SUV's (ex. GMT900) the new CAFE of 35 will include (to some extent) these vehicles. Your 20.7mpg includes the GMT900 type vehicles while the actual CAFE average for GM is more than 27.5 today. increasing the Average by 15 mpg is going to take drastic and very expensive changes. Hence, the Auto companies are saying the new standard is too tough. I think it is more the time line than the actual average fuel economy number.

I hate CAFE as much as the next guy, but it's a little funny how they all say that the 35 mpg mandate is too strict while they can't sell their own products now because they don't have enough fuel efficient options.
The fuel efficient options are on the way. It takes time to get there. I think the too strict part is the timeline not the actual 35mpg goal.

The way your statistics are worded implies that the government intervention was what increased the average fuel economy to 22.0 mpg in 1987. It was more likely the price of fuel in the early 80's that caused the drastic shift in consumer preferences that actually made it happen. I recall many people buying tiny cars at the time as they sold their bigger cars because they WANTED to use less gas. As gas became cheaper and cheaper to buy we shifted the other way. Now we are starting to buy smaller cars again and I bet our average fuel economy of cars being bought now is much higher than it was 2 years ago. New CAFE rules haven't kicked it yet either so it is obviously just from consumer preference fueled by high gas prices. Same as before. The government really can't respond any faster than the consumer can react to prices.
Good point. We'll see this trend again. Oh wait, we are. Add to that, cars like the Cruze and Volt hitting the market will help increase that number.

Ever wonder what goes through the minds of some of our legislators? I imagine it's a little something like this:
Even though I'm not an engineer or a designer, and have no idea what's realistic, it's still my duty to make a rukus and get reelected, so I should propose significantly more stringent CAFE regulation. If it will save that much money and fuel at 35mpg, why not make it 40mpg, or 50mpg? Who's with me? While we're at it, let's make cars safer, with more electronic monitoring systems since people can't check their own tire pressure.
They think it is a small 27.5 to 35 mpg increase. The realitly is that it is a 20 to 35 mpg increase in a very short amount of time.

No, it was the first CAFE standards set in the mid-70's. There would be even fewer "tiny cars" to buy if it weren't for that.
Unfortunately, this I have to agree with. Sometimes auto companies need a shove.

I do think that the government is doing the wrong things to get America to refocus on the imported oil problem. I say IMPORT TAX EVERYTHING!!!!! Gas at $10/gal vs. E85 at $3.50/gal guess what people will be doing?

Take the unfair profit margins away from foriegn companies here at home and we will see manufacturing and industrial companies come back to America. More of that and we have more jobs, then the economy will recover. Make it cheaper for Walmart to buy domestic products than import products from China and we will have a real solution to our economy woes. Give Americans a reason to not use gasoline and we will rid our dependence of foreign fuels. I don't think we should ever decrease the price of gas, it should continue to increase at the rate it is right now. Heck, look at what the prices have done to the ethanol and bio deisel production here in America.

I like what is happening here. I see the long term result being very good for Americas goal of fuel independence. And, if the government does impose an import tax tarrif, we will se a very prosporous American economy within a decade of implementing it.

Just my .02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

It's not going to be CAFE that makes GM and others increase the MPG on their vehicles... It'll be the consumer in these higher gas price periods. Just like any situation in capitalism, the consumer will buy the most fuel efficient car from Car-Maker A while Car-Maker B sits there and decides that in order to get that consumer back they have to offer a car that doesn't meet the fuel efficiency of Car A but exceed it.

But unfortunately the auto industry doesn't work like every other tech company out there for some unknown reason.

Think about this, remember back in the day on THE PRICE IS RIGHT the price of a new car they were playing for usually began with an 8 or 9 in the four digit price tag? Then in the 90's they added the FIFTH digit and 1 became the first number!!!! Now it seems 2 is starting to replace 1.

Why is that? Sure people will say it is because of the cost of labor, materials and such but now think about this: Why is it that you can now buy a computer today that is half the size, 10x more powerful, does 1000 things more and is only about 40% the cost of what it was 15 years ago? My God people.... you can buy High Def LCD TVs that fill your whole wall up for the price of what an old 32" tube used to cost.

The auto industry has gotten lazy and fat and now they have been caught by a financial crisis that is hurting everyone from the poor all the way up to the rich.

Cars today are not cheaper, but that is becuase they are forced to add so much expensive stuff to them. To make the emissions legal they have hundreds of pounds of sensors converters and other such goodies which aren't cheap. To make them safe in a crash, they have hundreds of pounds of beams and bars and traction control and ABS and EBD.

It's the same thing, I'm sure if you wanted to drive a brand new 1990 Cavalier, the cost to build it would be much less than a Cobalt today because it is a much less safe, and a much less complicated car.

And yes, your numbers for computers and TV's are pretty accurate, but that's for normal stuff. You can buy a cheap ass Hyundai or a Lexus. You can also buy that $500 LCD TV from a company you never head of from Wal Mart, or you can go to the Sony store and spend $5000 on the same size TV.

You think cars havn't gone down in price, but look at the price of new tech when it first comes out. For example, Mercedes was one of the first with doors that sensed the keys and push button starting (without a key in the car..ala the old Caddy's in the 50's) and it was on the top end S class. Now you can get that on $25,000 cars.

Now if we want to argue about economy not improving much over the last 20 years in cars, you also have to realize that those toys we demand in cars are not light. Neither is the safety equipment. You add 500 pounds of safety equipment, 300 pounds of electronics and 200 pounds of converters bolted to the exhaust to keep it clean, all that weight can't be towed around for free.

Would I like to be able to buy a 2000 pound car just to commute in? Without the ABS and TC and Nav and 500 pounds of roll bars? Sure, but the safety Nazis have decided that you can't sell me one because I'm not capable of making my own choices, and need government regulation to protect me.

Nobody is ripping anyone off. If the higher cost of cars was profit off the top and GM was just screwing those poor Price is Right folk, they would be turning a profit, not losing money every day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,633 Posts
Re: CAFE: GM Spokesman Sets "Very Conservative Expectations" On Initial Volt Producti

I saw a very interesting show on PBS last night about the "Car of the Future".
Interesting - yes, as an unbalanced propaganda piece.

Interesting statistic:

In 1975 the average fuel economy of US vehicles, and remember there were very few imports at the time, was about 13.8 MPG.
Well, compared to now - sure but really that's not the only point of comparison - definitely not the best although certainly worth noting.

My memory can't produce the national registration total % ie 'in service' which is what really matters most but its a larger 'small' number than most think.

Related and more to your point - sales percentages - can't go look it up right now but in 1975 Imports were accounting for somewhere between 15 - 20% of total light vehicle sales - which is not small in any sense.

This number was more significant than it first appears - it was pretty much all retail.

We still had a fading fast ( '71 on ) but usable representation coming out of Europe besides the Germans - who were as a group going gang busters - outside of VW .

Worth noting antidotely, VW managed to sell 425,000 Beetles (or was it their total ? -which was mostly the Beetle anyway) - in 1967.

(Also worth noting, Mr. Lutz ends up doing good things at BMW around this time frame ( '72 -76 ish ) - which is when BMW truly starts to hit stride in a really big kind of way. No accident the two are related. )

The Japanese were ramping up from '67 forward (Nissan) and ever more quickly from '72 forward.

( About to hit second gear - our Japanese Import problem was in full bloom by '75. )

Imports were, compared to even 1968 ( just 5 years earlier ) thru the roof.

After the first round of government intervention, that had climbed to 22.0 in 1987. Fuel useage had been declining in the US until 1987 as well. Of course at that time China didn't exist as a force either.
The domestic fleet number was considerably below this - both in service and saleswise . At this point in time the import fleet was hugely different with a much higher achieved fleet mileage number - at no time since has it contributed so much to improving our fleet numbers. Our domestics were hitting the minimums - or being forced by the market to slightly above - the Imports as a group were considerably higher - although trending down.

This decline in demand begat a decline in crude prices and the price of gas stayed steady for many years even as real household income, property, and stock values all soared. This "fueled" the love of trucks and SUV's and we all know what that has wrought. But the most interesting statistic was that the average fuel economy of US sold vehicles has dropped since 1987 to about 20.7 MPG today.
CAFE, and what it could've done in a revised form and in co ordination with some other things could've been a highly significant positive factor for our Domestics from 1987 - thru 2008.

Another thing most forget here, is that the old CAFE program was absolutely despised by OPEC and some others like them - including certain oil/energy interests - once its effectiveness was recognized as an 'unexpected disappointment'.

Although completely mismanaged after 1987, it was the largest single factor in producing fuel prices below a dollar in the '98 -'99 time frame - China was slower coming on line than originally planned.

Just imagine what the debate would be today and where we would be if the whole fleet on an individual unit basis had slowly risen in a domestic producer friendly way - just 2.5 -3.0 MPG across the board during the 1987 -2007 period - along with a minimum performance 'floor' program ( multiple segments ) for vehicles below a 21,000 lbs gross.

Couple this with some other simple stuff and its compelling in the extreme.

One key concept missed was to - for as long as possible, always end up with a (slightly) lower total demand than the oil people were planning for.

'We' had that going on - until 2000 - 2001.

Two other easy to do high value items are worth mentioning for this time period.

A bio fuel content goal of 30%, and a dieselization goal of also 30%.

Finally, all of this would've 'necessarily' and desirably so involved special assistance and co ordination with our Domestic big three - and with other regulatory programs and standards.
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top