GM Inside News Forum banner

Saving Detroit: Keep the $50 billion, rewrite CAFE instead

4K views 74 replies 33 participants last post by  CaptainDan 
#1 ·
"CAFE has to be the most perverse exercise in product regulation in industrial history." So wrote Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. in the Wall Street Journal last week. "Look at the gallons consumed, miles driven, barrels imported or emissions emitted: CAFE has had no significant impact on energy consumption. Its sole practical effect has been to inflict on Detroit the need to produce, with high-cost U.S. labor, millions of small cars designed to lose money."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

more at link:

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6295862...he-50-billion-rewrite-cafe-instead/index.html
 
#2 ·
Gotta take issue with that one.

The manufacturers have taken advantage of time allowances before CAFE increases to build bigger, heavier, and faster full size trucks and SUV's.

Who really needs a 6000lb. SUV? A 400 hp pickup truck? And I'm not just talking about domestics.

Instead of concentrating on 5 and 6 speed automatic transmissions and multi-displacement engines, manufacturers should be building 2000lb lighter light duty trucks and 1000 lb lighter automobiles.

The Dodge Challenger V-8 weighs well over 4000lbs, more than it did 38 YEARS AGO. What's wrong with this picture?
 
#4 · (Edited)
it is very simple - cancel CAFE. The market demands a substantial number of vehicles with high mileage, so they will be produced, CAFE or no CAFE. The real effect of CAFe is to harm US vehicle makers.


The Dodge Challenger V-8 weighs well over 4000lbs, more than it did 38 YEARS AGO. What's wrong with this picture?
Nothing! The cars of 38 years ago the car did not have a structure which would do well in a wreck, did not have air bags, did not have antilock brakes, Etc. of current cars.
 
#6 ·
Couldn't agree more. First of all CAFE is unfair to the US automakers since they sell more (way more) light trucks, and that's where they get most of their money. Plus there's the fact that regulating what Americans buys is totally un-American.

I love GM, but I agree that it's wrong to use tax payer's money to "bail out" the autos. Then again if it wasn't for cafe and other government regulations they probably wouldn't need this money in the first place.
 
#8 ·
Ever held an air bag? Hold a bumper from the '70 Challenger, a seat frame, and one from a current model vehicle?

You have the added weight of air bags, but the bumpers, ect are way lighter in a current vehicle.

We should have been investing in lighter vehicles instead of better fuel mileage engine/trannies for heavier vehicles.
 
#35 · (Edited)
Ever held an air bag? Hold a bumper from the '70 Challenger, a seat frame, and one from a current model vehicle?

You have the added weight of air bags, but the bumpers, ect are way lighter in a current vehicle.
I agree that newer cars are pigs, but look at the structure they have. Yes airbags are light but put 6 in a car and it adds up. Ever held the a/c unit out of a old challenger? Oh yeah most didn't have it but now all the options are standard, its not a matter of a few heavy things, its a matter of lots of lighter things, crumble zones,sound deadening, power windows,power locks, cruise, tlt/telescoping columns, big stereos, lots of speakers computers, airbags, a/c, metal trim, facias are light but the real mass is behind them in steel encased foam filled zones, independent rear suspension, bodies that won't rust in a couple years, bigger wheels, tires and brakes plus parts to support the performance everyone DEMANDS (lest they get creamed in the magazine shootouts) and be as safe as the government LEGISLATES.

The problem is it keeps spiraling up as everyone has to keep outdoing everybody else to get the sale and the more quiet, safer and luxurious it is, the more it weighs. Same with trucks...I'd be up for a lower tow rating, slightly smaller, more aero truck as long as I can still haul stuff around but when was the last time somebody actually REDUCED a rating or REMOVED a feature package?? :D And if they do everyone screams about the missing >insert item here< so that is the way it goes, unless you want to buy $100,000 lightweight material pickup trucks to save 5.00 every refill.
 
#11 ·
The article is outdated and a waste of ink and paper. Discussing it is a waste of bandwidth.

CAFE has been made moot by the rise in fuel prices. Every vehicle maker here will be well above CAFE's standard well before 2020, or if not they will be out of business. It's as simple as that... continue along witht he products of the 90s and go bust or adjust to the new realities and make more fuel efficient vehicles. Stick with trucks and SUVs and die a horrible death or give the public what it wants and grow.

Due to the rise in fuel prices Ford and GM and Toyota have all made their decisions already..
..trucks are on the way back to what they were in the 70s, work vehicles only;
..midsized SUVs are DOA already, its just that the earth hasn't yet been thrown on the coffin;
..the same is true for BOF autos;
..large SUVs will remain in one form or another but only as niche vehicles for those needing to carry 6 or more AND tow something...and probably only for the wealthy who can afford them and the fuel to go in them.
 
#12 ·
Due to the rise in fuel prices Ford and GM and Toyota have all made their decisions already..
..trucks are on the way back to what they were in the 70s, work vehicles only;
I'm not in total disagreement but GM, Ford, and Dodge still sell a ton of trucks, sales are only down 30% or so. None of the Big 3 have been able to turn a profit on passenger cars in several years so I can't see them abandoning the only profitable vehicles they make.

The Government should kill CAFE immediately if for no other reason than to help the economy.
 
#15 ·
As long as we have a choice in what vehicles we buy, CAFE for fuel economy reasons will not work. People buy what best suits their needs and desires. People will always need a vehicle that fits their family/friends, is safe and reliable, and the environment needs them to be as ecologically friendly as reasonably possible. If you want a Volt or an Expedition, the government shouldn't tell you that you can't have one.
By eliminating CAFE, each company will pursue the markets they want, niches will be filled by companies that figure them out, and people will be able to get the vehicles they want and need.
For GM to not be able to pursue a flagship because of CAFE is counterproductive and against the wishes of the American public, I believe.
If people thought out thoroughly the implications of CAFE, they would roundly reject it. They instead would say "Give me a vehicle that is clean, safe, reliable and that meets my needs and wants. I want choices, not government mandates."
CAFE wastes money, time, reduces choices, and makes our car companies less competitive by forcing them to produce vehicles that foreign companies are already producing. If not eliminated completely, CAFE should be reduced to clean air legislation.
We should back the loans to Ford, GM and probably Chrysler because IT IS IN OUR INTERESTS, much like current government actions to prevent the Second Great Depression.
Foreign-based car companies should not be eligible for government loans or help.
 
#16 ·
As long as we have a choice in what vehicles we buy, CAFE for fuel economy reasons will not work. People buy what best suits their needs and desires. People will always need a vehicle that fits their family/friends, is safe and reliable, and the environment needs them to be as ecologically friendly as reasonably possible. If you want a Volt or an Expedition, the government shouldn't tell you that you can't have one.

In fact the government has both the right and the reponsibility to 'tell us what can be driven on the nation's highways'. Such a right and responsibility was specifically written into the Constitution from the outset. This has nothing to do with any enviro-greenie concept. It's much more serious than that. It's why the stronger CAFE was initiated by .... GW Bush ... no greenie there. There is something even more serious on the horizon than some greenie worry about climate change.

By eliminating CAFE, each company will pursue the markets they want, niches will be filled by companies that figure them out, and people will be able to get the vehicles they want and need.
For GM to not be able to pursue a flagship because of CAFE is counterproductive and against the wishes of the American public, I believe.
If people thought out thoroughly the implications of CAFE, they would roundly reject it. They instead would say "Give me a vehicle that is clean, safe, reliable and that meets my needs and wants. I want choices, not government mandates."


In fact it may be against the wishes of the bulk of the populace of MI and OH and WI and TX but the vast majority of the American public is strongly against SUVs and trucks. This is specifically why the politicians voted the way that they did when Mr Bush's plan was proposed and negotiated. As to why that plan was first introduced ( see above ).


CAFE wastes money, time, reduces choices, and makes our car companies less competitive by forcing them to produce vehicles that foreign companies are already producing. If not eliminated completely, CAFE should be reduced to clean air legislation.
We should back the loans to Ford, GM and probably Chrysler because IT IS IN OUR INTERESTS, much like current government actions to prevent the Second Great Depression.
Foreign-based car companies should not be eligible for government loans or help.
So far CAFE has done NOTHING to limit your/our choices. The past version of CAFE didn't stop the Big 3 from making trucks and SUVs. The new version of CAFE 35 doesn't take effect for twelve years!!! It too will have little or no effect. By that time all vehicle makers will have a fleet averaging > 35 mpg..... or the buying public will have sent them to bankruptcy court.
 
#18 ·
It wouldnt matter, the price of gas is a bigger driver of people moving to compacts then CAFE ever was.
People moved to smaller cars during the fuel crisis because they got better gas milage. GM tried to make small cars after 50 years of making larger cars, and havent figured it out. CAFE didnt help GM or anyone.
We would have a Cobalt here either way. The market is dictating the rules now, not the goverment.
CAFE was a loose structure of ideas. Everyone found ways around them, and overall they were a sorry idea. Could and should they have been proactive in the 50's and 60's? Yeah, but would we have the cars we chrish today?
Either way, it didnt happen, and it doesnt change the current time. GM is not stupid now, they see the market shifting and the are coming up with cars for people to buy.
CAFE didnt bring the Volt out faster, Prius's popularity durring the gas price hike did. The loss in perception did.
CAFE as it sits is worthless. Do you think that if the goverment tomorrow disolves the CAFE requirements, that GM would start dropping LS9's into Aveo's?
Would trucks double in size? Would we see production monster suv's?
No, because the PEOPLE have spoken, and they want better gas milage.
CAFE didnt make GM make a better Malibu
CAFE didnt tell GM to make the Camaro
CAFE didnt help GM develop the Volt
CAFE didnt push the Family Zero engines for the new Cruze
CAFE hasn't done anything but put strict rules out there so that its just another set of hoops for car makers to jump through.
The people, the consumers did.
 
#20 · (Edited)
GM is not stupid now, they see the market shifting and the are coming up with cars for people to buy.
CAFE didn't bring the Volt out faster, Prius's popularity during the gas price hike did. The loss in perception did.
CAFE as it sits is worthless. Do you think that if the government tomorrow dissolves the CAFE requirements, that GM would start dropping LS9's into Aveo's?
Would trucks double in size? Would we see production monster suv's?
No, because the PEOPLE have spoken, and they want better gas milage.
GM's not stupid now, but they sure were pretty dumb from 2002-2007 right? Cause they didn't get ready for the gas crunch sooner...

The problem with this POV is you miss the fundamental truth about gas prices:
1) They are historically "random"... And controlled by foreign nationals... Almost all of whom HATE America and American industry... So, if you try to base your fleet on what gas prices are going to be in 5 years you will ALWAYS be in "catch up" mode (sound familiar?)
2) Gas prices in America are some of the lowest in the world... this ENCOURAGES manufactures to build big heavy and inefficient cars and trucks... The answer to your question is YES... IF CAFE were abolished and if gas got back to the $1.80 a gallon range then YES then GM would drop LS9's into EVERYTHING... Trucks WOULD become HUGE as would SUV's (Take a look..circa 2002, H1, Monster Suburbans, Ford Excursion, etc.. THEY DID! You forget the "size" race... Each OE built bigger and bigger UTEs to out do each other) and they would sell like crazy (Again they did!)... The problem with your "just let the market decide" POV is that the lead time to bring a new car to market is about half a decade... By the time you turn your company around to build the new cars that the people now want you will loose ALL of your market share to off shore competitors (hey sound familiar again?)

If you want GM to be competitive with the rest of the world manufactures you have two choices (both bad)
1) You need have gas prices that are on par with average gas prices in Europe and East Asia... OR
2) CAFE...

Take your pick.
 
#21 ·
CAFE really is stupid. The consumers and buying market should determine what vehicles automakers will produce
 
#33 · (Edited)
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that gas prices can change virtually over night (especially if supply from the Middle East is interrupted suddenly) and it takes about 4-5 years to bring out new, and especially radically different, automotive designs to react to such changes.

Does anyone NOT think that oil is potentially a threat to our national security? If it is - then it is the government’s role to move us along in a more secure direction. Being less dependent on foreign oil is widely thought to be a good idea - no? Do you realize the about 94% of the oil we consume goes into our vehicles? 94% of the problem is fuel economy.

Is it really wrong to task some of the brightest engineering minds in the world (U.S. Engineers) to solve this problem? Is it really impossible to give customers what they want and fuel economy? I don't think so. When was the last time a customer asked specifically for a vehicle that weighed over 5000 Lbs or got less than 10 MPG?

Stop whining and make more efficient cars that meet all of the regulations and customer requirements. Almost over night (not literally) the dual mode hybrid SUV's have increased city mileage by nearly 50%. I thought it couldn't be done - I thought CAFE was wildly impossible. We are a year or so away from a car that will allow 78% of us to buy ZERO gasoline (save the occasional long trip). The auto makers have said it was nearly impossible to raise CAFÉ even a few MPG and now we have a car that burns virtually zero gas and requires zero investment in new infrastructure to charge it. How does a large percentage of Americans buying ZERO oil affect our national security? We can wait for gas prices to climb over 4 - 5 - 6 dollars a gallon and then wait another several years for the automakers to react - or we could use a little critical thinking and do the right thing proactively.

Can't be done - oh really? It is time to stop selling short American ingenuity, stop whining and do the right thing for the country. People will buy them if they meet the customer’s needs and desires. Once again - I doubt anyone is asking for 5000 + Lbs and 10 or less MPG.
 
#28 ·
i think cafe is a great idea that needs some mods to it. Basically i would have cafe apply to each and every thing that an automaker produces that has an engine. Basically lets take a look at the Esclade ESV, when applying my new cafe rules, all versions of the product must get 35 not just one model version of it. I think it is high time that we rid the usa of cars that are also over 10 years old with no exceptions. All cars must be 150% recyclable. The engine must be on each wheel and no nonemmission engine that cleans the planet must power the rechargeable non batteries (as batteries polute the earth) Also the autos must not use any natural resources, they must use synthetic resources.
 
#60 · (Edited)
Rid the US of all cars that are over 10 years old? I guess it doesent matter that some people cant afford new cars? :rolleyes: Would you dispatch some repomen to take any car 10 years or older? I guess if a car is 9 years old then a year later they seize it. :rolleyes: So are you against electric cars since they may use batteries? If so this is exactly why its so hard to get any solutions, because your never satisfied, be satisified that it IS progress.

Also, you might want to go back and learn to use correct grammar. Its biodegradable not "biodgreatable".


So the President made the decision not to limit your choices but only to require that whatever truck you drive ( your free choice ) it has to be more fuel efficient.
To be honest, I wonder if some people wouldnt be complaining if it ran on air and had zero emissions. It seems to me some people are just anti-truck. (Not targetting you BTW just saying)

We are entering a new age of the automobile, the gasoline engine is on its way out. This does not mean the fun of owning an automobile is gone, hardly, this means the fun is just starting. I wish I was younger so I could see the new products that will be coming online. Imagine an automobile you'll never have to refuel, imagine. Some of you younger posters will see that very thing, its feasible, it will happen. Change is wonderful, without the noisy gasoline engine, you will be able to hear with much greater clarity the 56 piece orchestra riding in your back seat.
Yeah, I cant wait for new vehicles, especially electric. My only concern is not everyone can afford a new vehicle, which is why I think there should be a way to upgrade existing vehicles (atleast for the time being). That and I dont really like the style of some of the new vehicles, but I assume as technology progresses you can have cars that look better, or maybe alternative versions of existing cars (I think they look fine, they just need technology).

Do you realize that by that time GM's product mix will likely be 10% trucks, 0% SUVs and the rest crossovers, cars and hybrids?
Whos to say they cant make SUVs viable if new technology came along? Just perception?
 
#39 ·
the cities I visit across America are full of Honda and Toyota. Wagoner is a crook who has intentionally driven GM down. no one could possibly be as stupid as to lose so much market share and see our once great company suffer so greatly at the hands of once simply annoying companies.

wake up America and realize what has happened while you have been sound asleep!
 
#41 ·
give the companies whatever they want as long as Wagoner gets the boot.
 
#57 · (Edited)
I don't know how old most of you are, but I can tell you, in twenty years if something is not done about the air on this planet, many of you will die from insufficient oxygen levels and poisonous gases in the atmosphere. Say you're twenty now and nothing is done, at age forty you will be in hot water(I mean that literally). Pooh pooh the cafe standards at your own peril or the peril of your children and grandchildren.

We are entering a new age of the automobile, the gasoline engine is on its way out. This does not mean the fun of owning an automobile is gone, hardly, this means the fun is just starting. I wish I was younger so I could see the new products that will be coming online. Imagine an automobile you'll never have to refuel, imagine. Some of you younger posters will see that very thing, its feasible, it will happen. Change is wonderful, without the noisy gasoline engine, you will be able to hear with much greater clarity the 56 piece orchestra riding in your back seat.
 
#73 · (Edited)
In the exact same issue of the online nonsubscriber edition of the WSJ where this threads nonsensical starter article is contained , there was also this.

Not perfect, but better - by far.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122125023848529351.html

* EYES ON THE ROAD
* SEPTEMBER 15, 2008

What the U.S. Should Do
To Reduce Oil Consumption
'Drive Less, Drive Smaller' Isn't Likely
To Be A Rallying Cry for Politicians

By JOSEPH B. WHITE

Congress is cranking up another battle over you and your car.

Washington's frenzy to do something about energy was intense even before Hurricane Ike's direct hit on Texas oil refineries pushed gasoline back up over $4 a gallon this weekend. There will be stirring slogans – "Drill, Baby! Drill!" There will be headache-inducing arguments over the merits of tax credits for windmills, biofuels, natural gas and solar power. There will be bipartisan calls for action to free ourselves from foreign oil.

Here are some lines you are unlikely to hear from political leaders as they debate whether to allow drilling in coastal waters:

Our "energy crisis" is mainly about cars.

Americans drive too much.

Gasoline in the U.S. is still too cheap.

If our government was serious about cutting OPEC loose it would curb the subsidies for gasoline consumption, which start with federal funding for

highways and extend to the U.S. Navy.

**************************

The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates both have applause lines about oil.

Wisely, they keep them vague.

Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama calls on America to reduce consumption by the equivalent of our current imports from the Middle East and Venezuela.

Republican nominee Sen. John McCain calls for achieving "strategic independence" from foreign oil by 2025.

*************************


But America could install windmills from the New York island to the redwood forests and we would still depend on OPEC unless we change what

we drive and how we drive.

The Persian Gulf countries alone provide about 12% of our current oil consumption.

The biggest single use of the oil consumed from whatever source is fueling our cars and trucks.
Since 1981, the last time the U.S. economy's dependence on foreign oil was a hot issue, the number of cars and trucks registered for the road has

increased by about 75%
to 248.7 million vehicles, according to data compiled by Ward's Automotive Report.

The number of miles Americans drive has almost doubled since 1981.

That's why gasoline consumption has increased by about 40% since Ronald Reagan became president, despite a more than 60% increase

in the average fuel efficiency of new cars and light trucks.


Copyright ©2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top