Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Obama Announcing New Strict Federal Fuel Economy Requirements of 35.5 mpg by 2016, GM Commits to it

May 18th, 2009 | Posted in: Efficiency, Politics

CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fleet Economy and applies to the federal fuel efficiency requirement automakers are mandated to adhere to.

Currently the CAFE standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 24 mpg for light trucks.

For many years California has pushed for automakers to adhere to its own state standards which are much stricter. The major automakers including GM have fought against this, arguing that the cost of creating cars specifically for individual states is not justified and that there should only be one national standard.

It turns out President Obama has decided to take up the automakers on this issue. Indeed, there couldn’t be a better time for the government to make such mandates as the automakers very survival is dependent on it.

On Tuesday President Obama will announce a proposal to make California’s emission requirements the federal standard and cut automotive emissions by 30% by the year 2016.

To achieve that goal the CAFE standards will have to be significantly more stringent as the primary determinant of vehicular CO2 emissions is miles per gallon.

The new requirements will be total fleet average of 35.5 mpg breaking down to 39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks by 2016.

Although meeting these standards will be costly, those companies with electric car programs could be at a significant advantage. After all the Chevy Volt is likely to get an official EPA efficiency rating significantly greater than 100 mpg, although the exact rating methods and how they may affect the CAFE are still being worked out.

GM CEO Fritz Henderson has issued the following response to the Goverment’s announcement:

General Motors commends President Obama’s leadership to establish a harmonized National Program to improve vehicle fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy security and climate change are national priorities that require federal leadership and the President’s direction makes sense for the country and the industry. Harmonizing a variety of regulations will benefit consumers across America by getting cleaner, more efficient vehicles on the road quicker and more affordably. In turn, GM and the auto industry benefit by having more consistency and certainty to guide our product plans.

GM is fully committed to this new approach. As the President has previously said, all stakeholders must come together and act with a common purpose and sense of urgency to address the nation’s energy and environmental priorities. We agree and this collaborative spirit is reflected in our viability plan. Delivering innovation and solutions that will strengthen America’s energy security, economy and competitiveness are a central part of GM’s reinvention.

Posted by: Lyle

138 Responses to “Obama Announcing New Strict Federal Fuel Economy Requirements of 35.5 mpg by 2016, GM Commits to it”

charlie h Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

Does GM have a choice?

How are they going to game the system this time? Replay the ethanol card?
john1701a Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:34 pm

2004 Prius real-world lifetime average for me as of 117,567 miles is 47.6 MPG.

Delivery of my 2010 Prius (hopefully within the next week) should reveal an average well into the 50’s.

There no excuse anymore to not raise the standards quickly. The technology for using batteries & motors in the mainstream is well proven already.
Kevin R Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

Amazing….and they were resistive only months ago.

The Volt will really help GM in achieving these standards, along with other electric vehicles they are bringing online.
Stew Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

4th. Not quite as thrilling as first, hmpff.

This is great but I’ll believe it when it actually see it.
statik Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:52 pm

Any deadline that falls outside of the current administration’s term is worth what? ….yupe, not too much

And only 42MPG for cars? Why not 70MPG? Or 100MPG. So ridiculous. There is only 1 car currently rated higher than that on US roads….and the average car is going to be that high in 6.5 years?

By GM’s own admission the R&D and all projects have been shuttered for the next 2 years. And it takes about 3 years to get a new platform to market. So I’m thinking GM doesn’t hit this one…or they are going to have one heck of a overhaul in 2015.
Jordan Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:54 pm

Well in my opinion this is dumb.

By raising the car’s MPG requirement so much and essentially leaving the light truck’s requirement the same, this will likely lead to costly increases in a passenger car cost while leaving light trucks (which includes SUVs!!!) as the cheaper up front vehicle.

real progress…
jefro Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

I don’t think it will apply to the presidents ride.

Don’t think I can pull my travel trailer with a prius.
DonC Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

Overdue. The standard hasn’t changed since 1985 or something like that. It will cost more but the extra cost should be recouped in lower outlays for gasoline.

This does seem to represent a consensus. The states, the car manufacturers, and the environmental lobby is supposed to show up at the announcement. I’m just wondering what the deal is if all the vehicles use bio-fuels. Anyone know?
LWesson Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

From the perspective of the oil community here in Houston, the more oil that is used, the better. Don’t get all teary eyed about PATRIOTISM and Merica and the evils of overseas oil but it is the money that counts and the money for many workers comes from black gold, Texas, Arabian T. The Billionaires also count on YOU!

Mandating dictate from the Das Obama Eagle’s Nest, I guess it took the non media and never accountable but always bowed to, The ONE, who could do what needed to be done for the “Fatherland” that other Presidents, both Republican and Clintonland democrat could and would never never ever do. I guess he feels fearless against the oil industry. What year is this and where???

Raising the standards should have been done long ago. Doing so now further pushes auto cars for der people like the Volt further along. The “electric genie” is closer to going mainstream and way OUT OF THE BOTTLE.

Such orders from on high also propel companies like Tesla. Again, back to the 1920’s where there were many companies in, get this, competition, unlike the oil industry where there IS NO competition.

Oily regards! LWesson
Zach Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:10 pm

Is 42 the combined CITY/HWY mpg number? 2016 is still YEARS away…. but if all new cars are going to be required to meet those specifications, then in that case, it’s not too far out.

At the same time, I’m speculating that by 2015, at least half of the vehicles made in the USA (assuming Ford isn’t the only guy around, lol) will easily exceed that number with the aid of advanced battery technology. Maybe we’ll hear about a truck or two using an electric platform, but really, I don’t expect the to be more than 1 or 2 models (combined of all manufactures) on the market.

It’ll be exciting, because you know those companies still using combustion engines will be engineering and manufacturing engines for models through 2015 that will have increased mpg over today’s standards.

lol @ #9. I didn’t understand anything he said, except that oil companies don’t have competition. lol.
Bryan Baskin Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:19 pm

Question: Are minivans classed as cars or light trucks? If they are cars, I think we’re pretty far away from the affordable 7 passenger minivan that gets 40+ MPG.
Me Here Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:26 pm

24 => 26
27.5 => 42

does anyone else see anything wrong with that math?
Jim I Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

So does this mean that GM will get a hundred billion more, if they agree to the new standard????

Reality check: What choice did Fritz really have? If your sugar daddy says he wants something, you better keep him happy…………

On the other hand, if it gets more BEV and Voltec type cars on the road that much sooner, I am all for it!
KentT Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 10:57 pm

Six years to redesign the automotive fleet? Off hand that cannot be done. It takes a minimum of three years for any one car to create a new from the ground up design. Six years is only two three year cycles and we are talking not just the cars but the powertrain. The Volt will lead the way but 26mpg for a pickup truck?

And by the way, are we going to have to invade Colombia for it’s lithium reserves? (For those new to this site, lithium reserves was its own thread a few articles back….)

I guess the world of the possible will mean lots of cars getting 100mpg to get to the CAFE average. But I really wonder about the trucks and vans. Those vehicles are needed by contractors (not just the dude ranch suburbanites) and ranchers and farmers.

Oh, to live in interesting times!
Matthew_B Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:01 pm

RE:

”
24 => 26
27.5 => 42

does anyone else see anything wrong with that math?”

The problem is how to deal with the GVWR “loophole.”

CAFE does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 8,500. This will become 10,000 in 2010.

If they raise the truck standard too far, it will mean that the light duty trucks will become incapable of hauling or towing very much. That would lead more people to buy the heavier rated trucks that are exempt from CAFE.

Unless laws are passed prohibiting people from buying heavier trucks, then not much can be done.
avatar Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Oil from Algae is a win, win, win……
1. Jobs stay here in America.
2. Oil companies have a major competitor.
3. Algae facilities can use brackish or grey water.
4. Algae absorbs carbon dioxide.
5. Most likely could be cheaper than crude oil (environment considered here)
6. Unlimited supply.
7. Did I say unlimited supply.
8. Algae facilities do not need to be placed in HURRICANE zones.
9. Decentralized operations allow for no monopolies like big oil.
10.Cars, buses, trains, and plane fuel can use algae oil.
11. Bolivia can keep their lithium.
12. We become an oil exporting country and take on the middle east at their own game.
You get the picture.
Tax the gas Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

They should forget about cafe standards. Just adding a two or three dollar per gallon tax will get people to demand more efficient car. The cafe standards will motivavate automakers to build a non-market portfolio of cars which isn’t good for consumers or auto makers.
CorvetteGuy Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:24 pm

We’ve put men on the moon.
We invented SPAM as a tasty alternative to meat.
42 MPG average for a car? No sweat.
This is America! We can do anything we set our sites on to do.
truthguy Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

More madness from the Obama Administration. I expected idioticy from this administration and they have delivered big time. The Obama Administration is the biggest collection of buffoons ever assembled in Washington D.C. and that’s saying something. These standards cannot be met. It’s impossible to achieve this in 6 years. The whole Obama administration is technically illerate. The EPA director is a fool as is the Secretary of Energy. The amount of money wasted on this climate nonsense is staggering. And some of the people on this site were foolish to vote for this guy who hasn’t run as much as a lemonaid stand. There will be more nonsense to come. The pain will be immense. This administration will destory the industrial capacity of the US if not stopped. For all you Obama voters, shame on you. Eternal shame.
hayley Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:35 pm

Like everybody else, wondering why the light trucks only went up by 2mpg… sure they need power but who said efficiency meant less power? That is the point of innovation, making better engines, not scaling them down to meet acceptable fuel standards. And since when did light trucks average 24mpg to start with? Our Honda Accord only gets that…

Raising the small cars’ mpg is not as effective as raising the gas guzzlers’ (trucks, vans, SUVs) since those are lower to start with, so the change in ratio is greater.

10mpg –>20mpg means a 10 gallon tank goes 200 miles instead of 100, saving 100 miles, or 10 gallons of gas per fill up.
35mpg –>45mpg means a 10 gallon tank goes 450 miles instead of 350 miles. Here the 100 mile difference only saves 2.86 gallons of gas per tank.
CorvetteGuy Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:39 pm

#14 KentT
The Volt will lead the way but 26mpg for a pickup truck?
________________________________

The Chevy Tahoe & Silverado 2-Mode Hybrids get 22 EPA MPG now. With all the talk on this site about big advancements in battery technology, i.e. ‘weight reduction’, just a couple of years away, it seems very possible to squeeze out another 4 MPG if they can get the weight down.

The problem will be price. Right now GM thinks that Hybrids have to be fully loaded LTZ trim models instead of basic-no-frills-gas-savers. Even though they are great trucks, (drive one yourself – they are really impressive), there are very few buyers out there willing to shell out $49,000 to $54,000 for a truck no matter how good the mileage is.
hayley Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:41 pm

By the way, I just saw the front page article on CNN and it has different numbers than reported here. Their numbers sound much more reasonable to me. Still wish they would include vans and SUVs though.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/18/autos/new_fuel_economy_standards/index.htm
Enviros Denying Economic Reality Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

This is what happens when the hard-core environmentalists who don’t know anything about economics and industry take over…

“Tax the gas” is right – TAX THE GAS!!! CAFE is inefficient and dumb. It isn’t needed if fuel prices are high – it is much better to give consumers the signal to demand more efficiency in everything they do rather than to just tell automakers to make more efficient vehicles (which consumers place a relatively low priority on when fuel prices are low). While we’re at it, I wish Congress would drop Cap and Trade and go with a Carbon Tax instead – it would accomplish the results in a much more efficient manner with a lot less gaming of the system (but without gaming, there will be no fun for politicos and lobbyists, now would there?!?!?)

If this stands, here are the scenarios:
1. The standards and missed and all car companies pay penalties.
2. As 2016 approaches, Congress realizes the standards will be missed and waters them down. “Well, we tried – to all constituents who said ‘Legislate fuel economy! Well, we tried it!’”
3. Cars get a lot smaller and have smaller engines. Americans used to large/powerful cars, SUVs and minivans complain when they cost a lot more or are considerably less powerful than before. New car sales fall.
4. Electric cars like the Volt get a special “incentive” and their mileage games the system to make GM and other electric vendors able to meet the standards.
5. Price of Lithium soars! If an alternative battery type isn’t found, then battery prices soar (making electric vehicles even more expensive).

None of these accomplish anything (and only lead to further cynicism…)

The US is the only developed country that believes in the myth of fuel economy through legislation (while maintaining low gas prices) – despite this, almost every other developed country has a car fleet with higher economy, a more fuel efficient society, better developed mass transit, etc, and they do it all without fuel economy standards – and how do they do it??? They RAISE GAS TAXES!
Texas Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 11:54 pm

So, in 2016 we will achieve what Europe and Japan have now? Should I start clapping?

If the price of gas remains at $2 per gallon you can set any standards you want. Americans will buy big cars because it will remain cheap to run them. U.S. automakers will have to give out a free EV with the purchase of their Hummer just to meet the new standards. .

Lastly, these new standards are probably a waste of time. If the economy comes back to where Americans start buying new cars the demand for oil will be back up to what it was last summer. Can you guess what will happen? In that situation, people will not be driven by any standards. They will go by what their wallets say.
Eric E Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:18 am

Fritz = Puppet
CDAVIS Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:23 am

______________________________________________________
#14 KentT Said:
…26mpg for a pickup trucK?…
———–

Toyota Tocoma = 20/26
Ford Ranger = 21/26
______________________________________________________
Bearclaw Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:50 am

Good but it the truck mpg is too low. It is pathetic that some current car models still only get 13-20 miles per gallon. I drove a 72 Dodge Dart that got about that and a Oldsmobile Culass Ciera that wasn’t much better. This is about 30 years overdue and we are way behind the rest of the world. Al Gore put up that chart in his movie comparing us to Europe and others and hopefully this will catch us up.
Frank D Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:02 am

We are finally seeing a pro-active President that will stand up to the oil industries hold on our Country! As a baby boomer, i never thought i’d see a day like today!
Steven J Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:09 am

“Off hand that cannot be done. It takes a minimum of three years for any one car to create a new from the ground up design”

Incorrect. Tesla created the S sedan from the ground up in 8 months. Maybe 3 years miniumum for an old school car company, but most newer companies are far more nimble.
Barry Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:16 am

I love all the doubters that say this is so hard. All the technology exists TODAY to do this. Actually it existed 20 years ago. Not to mention that hybrids and battery technology could increase in effiency 10x in the next 5 years. I only wish the standard was higher/sooner.
Contra Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:26 am

I know 42 mpg sounds like a lot but keep in mind that the tests used to figure the mpg for CAFE is different than the tests used for the mpg on the window sticker at your local dealership. Inflate the EPA numbers you see on the window sticker by ~20% (think to old Prius numbers of 60/52) and you get an approximation of the CAFE numbers. This is assuming of course they continue to use those same standards.

I can think of a number of cars off the top of my head without doing any research that are already hitting that mark (Prius, Civic Hybrid, Insight, Fusion Hybrid) not to mention a few that are on the way (Volt, Cruze) and every new redesign has a mile or two bump in mpg so that won’t be challenging at all. Keep in mind too that it’s the average of the fleet so the Volt for example will allow GM to have the Camaro. A car that with a V8 won’t get good gas mileage but is more than likely someone’s second car and for having some fun on the weekends.

Finally, yeah 26 is low but keep in mind that raising the weight limit to 10,000 lbs. will bring a lot of 12 and 13 mpg F-250s and Chevy/GMC 2500s into the equation. They can be made more efficient even in just a couple of generations and like previous posts have pointed out there are compact trucks already exceeding the mark (taking into account the 20% bump) and the Silverado/Sierra hybrid getting 21/22 already hits it and that’s the first generation 2-mode. I’d love to see what a second generation 2-mode or EREV can do by 2016!

I don’t post that often but I love the site and all the posts from everyone. Keep up the good work Lyle and thanks for your service!!
Michael S Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:31 am

Few things…

#1 – CAFE is calculated using non-adjusted and pre-2008 mpg figures. The light-hybrid Chevy Malibu gets 26/34 mpg according to the EPA, but for CAFE purposes, it gets 40 mpg combined. “CAFE mpg” is inflated compared to consumer “EPA mpg”.

#2 – Automakers welcome this new regulation – because they fought for it. CARB initially proposed a patchwork system in which individual states would administer their own fleet averages, making it a pain for automakers – even if the target MPG were the same. These new regs harmonize standards across agencies and states.
Keith Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 3:57 am

A Series hybrid with a small voltage battery of 144 volts and a proper sized gen-set can easily achieve at least 75 miles per gallon provided that they are built using capacitors and are made for transportation , not for climbing Pikes Peak or using it as a truck to haul a trailer or a big boat.

It is easy to build a high mileage two or four door hybrid family transportation car . I say this because I know from my own experience as I converted a Ford Fairlane to a hybrid car over thirty years ago in about three months that got over 80 miles per imperial gallon on the highway at highway speeds between Vancouver and Hope BC .
BillR Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 5:21 am

#31 Contra and #32 Michael S,

As you mention, CAFE is a corporate average, not a minimum for every car or truck to meet.

This is where the Volt and other Voltec cars become extremely important. If the Volt has an EPA rating of 150 mpg for instance, and a Cadillac CTS-V with a 550 hp V8 has a rating of 20 mpg, the CAFE can still meet 42 mpg if significant quantities of the Volt are sold.

I see this legislation actually helping GM if Voltec is spread across their product line.
Herm Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 6:12 am

Maybe a diesel hybrid could do it or perhaps the new DI turbocharged engines coming out, but very hard to retain the towing ability that a lot of people want.. most likely towing anything heavy is about to get expensive, that may be good.. I see a lot of un-used towing ability running around town. Perhaps slowing down top speed while towing may also help.

Article on long distance towing with a 2-mode hybrid:

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/04/road-test-2009-chevrolet-silverado-twomode-hybrid.html

…………………………

#26 CorvetteGuy Says:

The Chevy Tahoe & Silverado 2-Mode Hybrids get 22 EPA MPG now. With all the talk on this site about big advancements in battery technology, i.e. ‘weight reduction’, just a couple of years away, it seems very possible to squeeze out another 4 MPG if they can get the weight down.
Rashiid Amul Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 6:17 am

#13 Jim I says,
So does this mean that GM will get a hundred billion more, if they agree to the new standard????

Reality check: What choice did Fritz really have? If your sugar daddy says he wants something, you better keep him happy…………

On the other hand, if it gets more BEV and Voltec type cars on the road that much sooner, I am all for it!

———
That is about where I am with this also. If GM can have a big part of their fleet be Voltec by 2016, then I don’t see CAFE being too hard to meet.
Jason M. Hendler Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 6:20 am

I think it is foolish to set this standard now, before we’ve gotten an indication of how well the Chevy Volt, Fisher Karma and Aptera 2h sells. No question this “policy” will be altered when reality hits.

I do think it is smart to apply it to small vehicles to start, as these techs just aren’t yet economically feasible for larger vehicles.
hermant Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 6:40 am

You guys that think that the truck numbers are too low are so completely clueless. The only working examples that we have today that can achieve those 2016 numbers are “toy” trucks. And you say, “hey, we landed on the moon”, “we’re ‘mericans”, “we can do anything we set our sights on”. Bullshit! Do you guys live in houses? Do you drive on paved roads? Do you shop indoors? What the hell are you talking about?

The full size pickups that build you home, your street, your stores are not able to even approach those numbers, even with the 50 thousand dollar hybrid drivetrains that we have now. But somehow, in your infinite ignorance, you believe that we ‘mericans are going to pull a 26 mpg AVERAGE full size pickup out of Detroit’s ass? Are you serious? Geez people, go back to bed because man are you ever dreamin’.

So if this is all a pipe dream, if it is just not even possible, then why IS prez Obama spewing this garbage? Power! Power in the form of revenue to the Internal Revenue Service! This is simply a big new tax increase dressed in shiny metallic paint. So what happens come 2016 if the major pickup truck makers can’t hit that number? Simple, they just pay a fine to the almighty federal government. And where do the manufacturers get the money to pay that fine. Even simpler, they raise the price of your next vehicle. Have you seen the price target for the Chevy Volt? A tax, is a tax, is a tax. Bend over…
RB Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 6:54 am

As mentioned above in #31, #32, #34 the first two letters of CAFE stand for “corporate average”. So GM and other companies still will sell big vehicles. The effect of the rule is to make them sell more smaller ones for each big one. The only way they have to do that is by setting the relative price. So big vehicles will be more costly than now relative to small vehicles. For small vehicles, the issue will be how to hit the lowest possible price point and still have a margin of profit left. The general idea that “more expensive equals bigger” will be reinforced.

I don’t see how this works in favor of the Volt or any other Voltec. They will be small (= cheap in the new system) but not cheap. So people willing to pay more may tend to avoid them as carrying the message of cheapness, and people wanting to pay less will avoid them because they are not lowest price. (Presumably the new rule will make all cars cost more.).

So it seems to me the new rule may be good for the country in some broad sense, but more narrowly the rule helps most Toyota and Honda, who have established their abilities to make small vehicles and sell them profitably at relatively low prices. It hurts GM and Chrysler, and to a lesser extent Ford.
Schmeltz Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 6:56 am

Gov’t: All automakers shall be selling cars at 100 gazillion mpg by next year.

U.S. Car companies: Ummm….Yeah OK, (whatever). Which way to bankruptcy court again?
Dave B Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:01 am

Anyone follow the Damler-Tesla partnership announcement? GM needs this with say, FISKER…. too late to pick up Tesla:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/19/live-blog-daimler-announces-new-strategic-partnership-for-evs/#continued
RB Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:05 am

The post quotes Fritz Henderson as saying
General Motors commends President Obama’s leadership to establish a harmonized National Program to improve vehicle fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
——————————————–

This statement sounds like any other department chairman praising his boss, hoping to keep his job and increase his budget. “Yes sir, no sir, anything you say sir.”
RB Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:14 am

#34 BillR says This is where the Volt and other Voltec cars become extremely important. If the Volt has an EPA rating of 150 mpg for instance, and a Cadillac CTS-V with a 550 hp V8 has a rating of 20 mpg, the CAFE can still meet 42 mpg if significant quantities of the Volt are sold
———————————

Yes, a good trade off. Thinking of the Volt and the CTS-V as a pair, some of the margin of the CTS sale has to go to subsidizing the cost of the Volt so that the customer sees the Volt as less expensive than it otherwise would be.

The question is whether that works better overall for GM than putting the CTS subsidy toward, say, a Cobalt (or maybe Cruze) and getting a really low price out there. If people see Voltec (meaning buying less gas) as really attractive, it may work. But it may be that there are more customers looking for a really cheap Cruze than there are looking for a Volt that is not too much more expensive.
Joe Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:15 am

From Statik @5

By GM’s own admission the R&D and all projects have been shuttered for the next 2 years. And it takes about 3 years to get a new platform to market. So I’m thinking GM doesn’t hit this one…or they are going to have one heck of a overhaul in 2015.

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

How can you think that way, Statik? Haven’t you heard that the electric car program at GM is going full steam ahead in spite of it’s financial problems. Obama is endorsing this program and it now becomes less risky for GM.

GM, Ford and Chrysler are now very committed to electric cars and, the way I see it, GM is the leader in that field. When GM announce the building of the Volt, the CEO of Toyota laughed at GM. Now, Toyota is not laughing and are now late starters.

For decades, we never had any leadership in Washington to help steer the auto industry’s direction. The domestic industry was always afraid to make a bold move in fear of lost sales.Now that fear is gone. The domestics will shine again!! This new bold move will compare to when we went to the moon. Once we set our sights on a goal with our Government’s backing, there is no stopping us!!!

Of course, Statik, you probably don’t think the same way because you are not from the USA. I’m a little bias. No offense, just a fact.
Dan Petit Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:17 am

Now it’s time to hold the rest of the planet to the higher carbon standard of the 100 mpg fleet-average of the Voltec Auto.

Now, it is not any longer sufficient to have a mere 45 mpg ICE assisted hybrid as an industry standard for efficient carbon reduction for the task of one person driving to their job.

This is especially true where technological advancement and governmental directive (backed by the proper support of loans), can bring about a huge cut in carbon for that consistent task of that daily drive to work.

This directive actually now puts America in the “Driver’s Seat”, when it comes to cutting carbon, along with Voltec’s 100 mpg “fleet average” capabilities. More Voltec production plants ought to be planned and supported by more loans.
Dan Petit Austin TX.
Jeff Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:31 am

#44 Joe

Once we set our sights on a goal with our Government’s backing, there is no stopping us!!!
————————————————————————–
The government supposedly does not want to be in the car business. Even though I like the new CAFE standard, GM is obligated to say “Yes” to ALL of the government’s requests since the government keeps the company in operation. Even if the request includes no plan to return GM to a “for profit” company.
ClarksonCote Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:41 am

#15 Matthew_B,

Thanks for that clarification. Like #12, I also thought it was strange that the MPG for light trucks was being raised so little compared to cars, but I guess if the GVWR is being raised for their definition to 10,000, that’s really a more difficult target to meet than it appears on the surface.

Personally, I would prefer that they create a CAFE standard for the heavier trucks rather than broadening the definition of light trucks. Even if it can’t be raised much or at all, there should be some standard in place IMHO.
Joe Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:42 am

Jeff Says: @46

That’s absurd about no plans no plans “to return GM to a “for profit” company.”

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

Is the TV industry making money?

I remember when not long ago, the TV’s you can buy today were selling for over $10,000.00 not to mention many other products that were once extremely expensive.

Do you get my drift?

It is this kind of thinking that gets us in trouble!!!
benson Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:45 am

Lyle and all,

If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the Detroit Free-Press this morning. A Top Ten list for David Letterman ahead of Lutz’s appearance, and a nice mention of this website…

http://www.freep.com/article/20090519/COL14/905190349/To+Letterman++A+Volt+Top+10
Lawrence Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:46 am

Volt = designed for mass.
Mass thinks MPG.
Mass can’t and won’t try to understand “MPG but 40miles electric, if u plug every night, but yes but no but yes”.

So the number that has to be kept in mind and sold out publicly is the REAL MPG you get after battery depletion. The 40miles full electric mode is a plus, but not a must have argument in order to hit max audience.

What is the MPG after battery depletion?
Herm Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:46 am

Thinking some more about this, if we truly need to tow anything extra heavy, do we need to do it faster than 50-55mph?

The people in the trades need trucks, perhaps its time to rent a commercial truck and drive to the job site in a corolla.. Home Depot delivers you know
Cautious Fan Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:51 am

New battery in commercial development. Claims 2600 Wh/kg (yeah right), but even half that would be good.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/05/19/basf_sion_power/
Tony Gray Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:07 am

I agree with a bunch of the posts here today.

Having spent a while in Europe with the military, it’s amazing the different way they “encourage” the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles through fuel taxes. It works for them, obviously, but they have many advantages such as their relatively short commute distances, their advanced mass transit systems, etc. North American distances, city design (actually more suburban design), and dismal state of mass transit conspires against this solution.

The political will is very much lacking when it comes to direct fuel taxes, where folks constantly say it will impact the poor. Hell, EVERYTHING impacts the poor. That’s why it sucks to BE poor.

Anyhow we at least have something that approaches feasibility. If we are stuck with CAFE, and it looks like we are, then we need to keep to incremental improvements. Huge changes only shock the system and we wind up with underpowered, unreliable crapwagons. Same thing with emissions requirements. I’m not sold that we need to spend a bazillion dollars to get the last whiff of bad gas out of the tailpipe when there are other lower hanging fruit out there NOT in the auto industry that could get the same benefit at much lower cost.

The best benefit is that we will now have a national standard instead of some insane patchwork. I’m a big believer in state’s rights and state solutions to state problems…but the air is a global resource and should be regulated at the national level. Cars are not a fixed source, but a mobile emitter and should be treated as an interstate item as well.

Whew…long post.
ArkansasVolt Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:10 am

#26 CDAVIS and a few others

those trucks will not pull my camper that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of about 6000+ lbs. So the vehicle I would want to buy would fit in the “light truck/SUV” category; however unlikely to get 30 combined mpg.

Unless they come up with some really mind blowing technologies that will produce a “light truck/SUV” to tow 6000+ lbs and still get 30 combined mpg, then I do not think that there will be a way to meet those guidelines. IMPO.
Jason M. Hendler Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:13 am

Dave B,

Thanks for posting the Tesla Motors / Daimler partnership link. I thought things might evolve in that direction once Tesla’s battery packs were selected for the Smart EV.

I especially like how Daimer refers to BEV (battery electric vehicle) and FCEV (fuel cell electric vehicle). I posted in the forum that FCV’s (fuel cell vehicles) should more correctly be called FCEV’s and it seems to have caught on.

Looks like the Model S is a lock with Daimler’s support and US federal loans.
statik Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:15 am

#44 Joe said:

in reponse to Statik (#5)–”By GM’s own admission the R&D and all projects have been shuttered for the next 2 years. And it takes about 3 years to get a new platform to market. So I’m thinking GM doesn’t hit this one…or they are going to have one heck of a overhaul in 2015″
——
How can you think that way, Statik? Haven’t you heard that the electric car program at GM is going full steam ahead in spite of it’s financial problems. Obama is endorsing this program and it now becomes less risky for GM.

GM, Ford and Chrysler are now very committed to electric cars and, the way I see it, GM is the leader in that field. When GM announce the building of the Volt, the CEO of Toyota laughed at GM. Now, Toyota is not laughing and are now late starters.

For decades, we never had any leadership in Washington to help steer the auto industry’s direction. The domestic industry was always afraid to make a bold move in fear of lost sales.Now that fear is gone. The domestics will shine again!! This new bold move will compare to when we went to the moon. Once we set our sights on a goal with our Government’s backing, there is no stopping us!!!

Of course, Statik, you probably don’t think the same way because you are not from the USA. I’m a little bias. No offense, just a fact.
==========

Not sure why you cut one sentence from my quote, this part ->” And it takes about 3 years to get a new platform to market.”

But the fact is that for the next 2 years almost everything is shuttered/on hiatus except for the Volt. It is not what I think…it is what GM said. And it does take at least 3 years to take a ‘new’ vehicle from paper to production.

As for me not thinking the same way because I am not from the USA…don’t know how to respond to that without coming off as I’d like too…so I’ll just leave it alone. I’m sure everyone in the USA doesn’t think with the same mind.

FACT: The Volt will not impact to any significant degree GM’s average MPG by the end of 2015.

FACT: GM has nothing, zip, zero in the product pipline (other than the Voltec) for NA that gets 42 MPG.

FACT: GM has no money. It takes money (lots) to change over 100% of your entire car lineup, especially to 42MPG+ (is that even possible? Could GM even sell 2-3 million cars @42MPG+? What does GM know about selling fuel efficient cars? ..they can’t even sell regular small cars for a profit)

All the ‘government’ assistance/backing in the world can’t change that. The thought that ‘we are America, so we can get it done and do it better than everyone else’ is a terrible sentiment. The fact is America has been the leader in ‘not getting it done’ when it comes to MPG, the environment, pollution and having some personal discipline (and my country Canada is no better).

What we need is some humility here, make the tough decision thats affect our lives RIGHT NOW, and make a real committment THAT STARTS TODAY to do better, not flag waving. Words mean nothing…patriotic rhetoric means less.

/thats how I think
ArkansasVolt Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:19 am

#51 Herm,

“Thinking some more about this, if we truly need to tow anything extra heavy, do we need to do it faster than 50-55mph?”

Depends on what you call extra heavy… 10,000+ lbs: no … maybe you think 5,000+ lbs. I do not know about you, but I am not extremely patient on the roads to be behind that many people going 50-55 on the highway. Especially if i am the one towing 5000+ lbs: I would not want to take all day to get to my destination.

“The people in the trades need trucks, perhaps its time to rent a commercial truck and drive to the job site in a corolla.. Home Depot delivers you know ”

I do not have a Home Depot within 25 miles of my house which means that they would likely not deliver to my house… or would they?
Herm Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:20 am

The Volt will not shine in that department, what must be sold is that you are likely to drive the whole week .. and then mention you have a gas engine for emergencies and the occasional long trip.
………………………………………..
#50 Lawrence Says:

So the number that has to be kept in mind and sold out publicly is the REAL MPG you get after battery depletion. The 40miles full electric mode is a plus, but not a must have argument in order to hit max audience.
What is the MPG after battery depletion?
Herm Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:21 am

oops hit return too soon..

The Volt will not shine in that department, what must be sold is that you are likely to drive the whole week WITHOUT USING ANY GAS.. and then mention you have a gas engine for emergencies and the occasional long trip.

………………………………………..
#50 Lawrence Says:

So the number that has to be kept in mind and sold out publicly is the REAL MPG you get after battery depletion. The 40miles full electric mode is a plus, but not a must have argument in order to hit max audience.
What is the MPG after battery depletion?
RB Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:24 am

#54 ArkansasVolt says Unless they come up with some really mind blowing technologies that will produce a “light truck/SUV” to tow 6000+ lbs and still get 30 combined mpg, then I do not think that there will be a way to meet those guidelines. IMPO.
—————————————–

It will be necessary to pay the penalty tax. That is, your vehicle choice still will be available, but it will cost more.
Herm Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:34 am

55mph is not bad, you get to meditate a lot.. I think in the future if you want to tow a 6000lb camper at 75mph with a monster truck you will pay for that privilege (gas guzzler tax).. but if you want to tow at 55mph then it may be cheaper in a smaller truck with the right gearing.. and GM should offers these trucks with less options for the poorer people.

These smaller trucks are liable to get worse mileage when towing a full load than a bigger truck, but should get better mileage when not towing, and that probably is most of the time.
…………………………………
#57
ArkansasVolt Says:

Depends on what you call extra heavy… 10,000+ lbs: no … maybe you think 5,000+ lbs. I do not know about you, but I am not extremely patient on the roads to be behind that many people going 50-55 on the highway. Especially if i am the one towing 5000+ lbs: I would not want to take all day to get to my destination.
RB Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:35 am

#15 Matthew B said CAFE does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 8,500. This will become 10,000 in 2010. If they raise the truck standard too far, it will mean that the light duty trucks will become incapable of hauling or towing very much. That would lead more people to buy the heavier rated trucks that are exempt from CAFE.
——————————

Good news. I can keep my truck, so long as it’s a bigger one
carcus1 Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:35 am

Looks like the days of Andrew Card are completely over.

I’m actually in favor of higher CAFE standards and I applaud this move by the government. For years the U.S. manufacturers just fought the standards. Now that they appear to be working towards the goals, maybe we’ll see that CAFE standards do work and we don’t need a gas tax.

If they’re indeed working with pre 2008 epa numbers, then I view these new benchmarks as high but achievable.

On light trucks: Ford’s ecoboost equipped F150 should get close to the mark (pre 2008 standards). That’s got PLENTY of power to build any house you want. In fact, if they’d tone the hp down to the mid 200’s then it should beat the standard.

On cars: One example, what if the young go fast crowd decided they’d rather have a 305hp Focus RS instead of a 422hp old school straight line camaro? What if they already have?

http://www.newcarnet.co.uk/Ford_Focus%20RS_roadtest.html?id=1485&pt=1

/ and how are BEV’s going to average into this CAFE equation?
—-

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=316&sid=200
Schmeltz Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:40 am

#56 Statik said:
“What we need is some humility here, make the tough decision thats affect our lives RIGHT NOW, and make a real committment THAT STARTS TODAY to do better, not flag waving. Words mean nothing…patriotic rhetoric means less.”

———————————————————————————

WELL SAID.
MarkinWI Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:42 am

I don’t suppose its occured to many of the posters here that if GM and the other companies have agreed to get on board, the likely reason is that they already know that they can meet the new standard? Light truck standard? Easy. Hybrids already beat it. New car standard? Ford Fusion hybrid beats it, so does Prius and Insight, even without lithium ion batteries. Welcome to a world where hybrid vehciles are the mainstay of the lineups. Enough with the carping that it “can’t be done.”
Mike H Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:42 am

I get it! If your vehicle does not get 42MPG you will have to buy one that will or pay an annual gas guzzler tax for exiting autos that you currently own that do not meet the new standard, almost all.
Now I know how they will pay for the massive budget gap and get the auto indusrty back on their feet. Can wait to see the new 2016 Yugo!
john1701a Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:44 am

When GM announce the building of the Volt, the CEO of Toyota laughed at GM. Now, Toyota is not laughing and are now late starters.
______________________

Price of the battery-pack continues to be a concern. We still don’t know what the efficiency will be in charge-depleted mode either.

What do you claim has changed?
k-dawg Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:45 am

I dont like the CAFE approach. Let the car makers make what they want and the people buy what they want. Raise gas prices, or make people pay a fee if their car gets 25mpg, or give incentives for being greener, or whatever you can come up with…., but dont force everyone to drive a Prius and eliminate all the options. Let the market decide on its own.
LWesson Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:45 am

zack@10 LOL!

In “short” summation: The Obama Group seems to see itself so empowered as to have no reservations about changing rules or challenging long established “cartels” like Oil and Wall Street. Thus the sudden increase in gas mileage after decades of willful nothing.

The so called media are in lock goose step with their beloved leader more than their undercover affairs with Oil and Wall Street $.

The media likewise has an equally bizarre attachment to anything that will tax carbon output that will be a burden on The Western Dying Civilization. That Obama is calling for this to reduce carbon output, then it must be right.

Remember this, the STATE will eventually want your $ for the miles you travel and will put GPS on the cars to garner tax for the miles driven! But that is later.

Das Volt and cars like it will greatly assist the fleet MPG average and will be more $ attractive to bring out. Will someday the Volt be called Obama’s car? I certainly hope not!

And yes, the price of oil and gas is beholden to Wall Street speculators and not true market place competition.

As per those who say tax tax tax, Europeans have done that on their little subcompact ancient piece of bloody dirt. No fantastic tech advancements. Small Peoples Car YA!, and mass transit but Europe is not the giant sprawl of the US and does not contain the individualism or FREEDOM that we in the US, still have. Tax will just go to the STATE and then wasted in eye watering amounts.

Off to work in my Saturn.———–LWesson
Tim Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:47 am

Fritz has quickly learned the proper way to kiss the King’s ring.
Van Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:48 am

Just a little on light duty trucks. I had a 1991 Chevy pickup with a 7 liter V-8 (215 hp) that was rated to tow 10,000 lbs. So using the Raser design (200 hp electric motor and automatic transmission) an E-Rev could get better than 26 MPG, and tow 6000 lbs plus loads.

The key is as always, the battery. If the next generation battery, perhaps with lithium sulfur chemistry, has 3 times the energy, but the same cost of production, thus lowering the cost from about 750 per kWh to 250 per kWh, we could meet those CAFE standards without breaking into a sweat.

The new CAFE standards really are only an effort by the left to take credit for the coming electrification of the auto, and 2/3 of the voters will buy the ploy. Or so it seems to me.
Jim in PA Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:48 am

#5 Statik

I think your cynicism on this issue is rooted in you not fully considering the effect that an outlier can have on an overall average value. Not only is this achievable via widespread implementation of hybrid and other technologies, but it may end up giving GM a huge marketplace advantage. Anyone patient enough to slog through my back-of-the-napkin analysis below will see why.

–GM–
Selling only one 150 mpg Volt allows GM to sell nine 30 mpg Malibus and still achieve a 42 mpg average fleet rating for that sample group. Similarly, selling a single 150 mpg Volt allows the sale of fifteen 35 mpg Cruzes to achieve an average of 42 mpg. A 15:1 sales ratio for standard compact cars to EREVs may seem like pie in the sky now, but could be a reality in several years if battery prices drop as expected. (And all of this pessimistically assumes a Malibu will only get 30 mpg in 7 years, which is unlikely since they could all easily be hybrid ala today’s 42 mpg Ford Fusion hybrid.)

—Toyota—-
By comparison, Toyota would need to sell a wopping FOURTEEN 50 mpg Priuses to offset the sale of nine 30 mpg sedans (as opposed to one 150 mpg Volt). In other words, their hybrid sales would have to outnumber their standard auto sales. So, look for Toyota to make many hybrid units plug-in, even if nobody wants to use that feature, just because of the positive effect it has on raising their overall CAFE. And just like **snap* THAT, Toyota will become a convert to the EREV concept. Sure, offering more affordable basic hybrid models is still smart business, but the positive effect of EREV sales cannot be ignored.

But the big question is… will GM get credit for leading the way?
KenEE Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 8:58 am

I love how he can skirt the three branch system and simply speak laws into existence.

This kind of efficiency has worked so well in other countries. It’s refreshing to see us finally giving it a try.
Jim in PA Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am

Here’s a good question (well, I think so anyway);

Can you assign an mpg value to a true electric car? Not directly. It is unfair to any car company that sells electric cars, if those sales cannot raise their overall CAFE value. Any increase in the CAFE standards would wisely also include provisions for providing CAFE credits for the sales of electric vehicle. This doesn’t affect the Volt because of its comparatively short all-electric drive range, so it does use gas sooner or later. But when you NEVER use gas (as with a BEV), obviously applying any kind of mpg number is ridiculous. A credit system must be developed.
Muhammad Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:01 am

Steven J @ 29

Incorrect. Tesla created the S sedan from the ground up in 8 months. Maybe 3 years miniumum for an old school car company, but most newer companies are far more nimble.
———————————————————

Tesla hasn’t created the model S. They’ve only showed a concept. Actually, all they have created is the exterior design — not even the interior was finished. All the work of developing the production model, production process and facilities, testing/tuning the vehicle, etc. is still ahead of them. You won’t be able to buy a model S in less than three years.
manufacturing process, tuning the vehicle,
CorvetteGuy Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:13 am

#38 hermant
The full size pickups that build you home, your street, your stores are not able to even approach those numbers, even with the 50 thousand dollar hybrid drivetrains that we have now.
________________________________

I haven’t checked yet, but I will when I get to work today, however I’m pretty sure the new mileage figures are for “light-duty” trucks and passenger autos. (The average consumer vehicles. Not work vehicles.)

In addition, I’m sure those EPA figures are NOT calculated while towing a maximum load. Mileage figures seem to be those “under ideal conditions”.

The “medium and heavy-duty” trucks that are used to build America’s infrastructure probably will not be included for the very reasons you’re up tight about.
Van Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:17 am

I see that Daimler has increased its share of Tesla to 10%. I suppose we could blame them for the delay in the introduction of the model S, or give them the credit for rapid deployment. Time will tell
Jim in PA Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:17 am

#73 KenEE –

***Sigh*** So many ill informed conservative minds… so little time to set the record straight. Ken, my good man, there is a difference between laws and regulations. Laws are enacted by Congress with a general goal in mind, and those laws usually allow the Executive branch the leeway to implement those laws via detailed regulations.

Congress (Branch 1) passed the “Energy Policy Conservation Act” in 1975, explicitly giving the EPA the right to implement the CAFE standards in question. The EPA is a part of the Executive Branch (Branch 2) which does in fact answer to the President and set the standards. And the Supreme Court (Branch 3) has ruled that the EPA does in fact have the right to regulate fuel economy.

So now that all the details are laid out, don’t you think that your fantasies of a totalitarian dystopia are a little baseless? It is pretty exhausting to give factual rebuttals to the sporadic shouts of “Nazi! Commie! Free Mason!”, but I think it’s valuable to keep all debates based in fact. Don’t you agree?
carcus1 Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:25 am

Just to re-emphasize.

As contra@31 mentions. We’re talking about pre 2008 epa numbers for cafe standards. (inflated approx 20%)

So with new epa numbers, the CAFE would be:

Light trucks: 22 mpg
Cars: 35 mpg

These numbers are doable with better aerodynamics, better transmissions (6 speed dry clutch) weight reductions, and increased engine efficiencies (turbo direct injection). This is BEFORE we even start talking about hybrids, plug in hybrids, or BEV’s.

And this is average fleet. Plug in Hybrids and BEV’s are going to do a LOT by pulling on the average from well above 35 mpg.

Don’t have a cow.
Jim in PA Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:26 am

#75 Muhammad (or anyone else!)

To what extend will Tesla actually PRODUCE the Model S? Does anyone know? Do they make their own frames and suspensions? Where is their stamping plant for body panels? Or are they planning on just buying the shell from a third party again? My point is that it is much easier to get to market quickly when you are assembling parts form outside sources, and just doing battery and drive train design internally. This could go a long way toward explaining Tesla’s rapid schedule. Go knows there will be plenty of auto parts suppliers with time on their hands who can help them out…
Van Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:29 am

In Japan, hybrids are selling like hotcakes. Lets see, they have high gas taxes so gas costs twice what it costs here, and they have government subsidies to lower the cost of the vehicles. Standby for an EPA regulation that effectively raises the price of gas.
Mitch Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:32 am

Jonh 1701a

That is one car, even Toyota fought the patchwork being raised. A unified standard levels the field, and Toyota is NOT the almighty mileage god either…

Some samples from http://www.toyota.com/tacoma/trims-prices.html

Tacoma 20/26
Tundra 15/19
Sequoia 14/19
4Runner 16/21
Landcruiser 13/18
FJ Cruiser 16/20
carcus1 Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:33 am

If I have to pick between:

1. CAFE standards
2. Gas tax
3. Economic chaos and oil wars

I’ll pick #1
SteveK Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:47 am

Meeting these standards is costly. Why? Is it more ‘costly’ to design a gas-guzzling behemoth than a high-mileage car? I suspect not. It has been difficult to sell small cars in the past and the profits are lower. The way to increase demand for high-mileage cars is to raise gasoline taxes, but that is impossible in the good ol’ US of A, so CAFE is the only way to accomplish this. Not optimal, but better than nothing.
LauraM Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:52 am

#56 Statik says:

The thought that ‘we are America, so we can get it done and do it better than everyone else’ is a terrible sentiment. The fact is America has been the leader in ‘not getting it done’ when it comes to MPG, the environment, pollution and having some personal discipline (and my country Canada is no better).

What we need is some humility here, make the tough decision thats affect our lives RIGHT NOW, and make a real committment THAT STARTS TODAY to do better, not flag waving. Words mean nothing…patriotic rhetoric means less.

————

I’m an American, and I agree with you.
Jim in PA Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 9:53 am

Either I am losing my mind, or Lyle just changed the posting. It now reads:

The new requirements will be total fleet average of 35.5 mpg breaking down to 39 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks by 2016

Didn’t it say 42 mpg before for cars?
Van Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:03 am

Hi Jim in PA. I think they call it “scrubbing” where they go back in and change things without indicating the article has been “updated.” I do it all the time when I edit within 6 minutes.
NZDavid Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:05 am

New Prius pricing announced today for NZ. $37,000.
The iMiev on sale next year at $60,000.

Tick Tock, Tick Tock.
Hurry up Volt.
solo Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:10 am

The law of unintended consequences will apply just as the original CAFE standards did.

Back in the late 60’s, a full size car could tow a substantial trailer, 5000 pounds or so. By the late 70’s that was all but impossible because of CAFE standards and the downsizing that took place to meet those standards.

The end result was the Ford Explorer and all the other SUV’s that followed. Caryall vehicles like the Chevrolet morphed into the Surburban/Tahoe/Escelade we know today. CAFE created the SUV market.

Now the tougher standards for both cars and trucks will eventually push those who need a HD vehicle (weather the liberals think we NEED one or not) into the next higher weight class. If you want to know what your outdoors type neighbor will be driving in 10 years, look at this link.

http://www.rvtruck.com/rv_truck_003.htm

Heil Obama, Heil Pelosi, Heil Congress.
Bob Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am

It’s crap. CAFE wrecked the big three. Now the president is compounding the mistake.

If you want people to use less gasoline, tax it. Raise the tax gradually, over a period of years, so people can adjust.

But no, that would be unpopular.

The effective IQ in Washington is the average IQ divided by the number of days since the last election.
LauraM Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:15 am

#83 carcus1

But a gas tax would be much more effective. Right now, the government is basically forcing the car manufacturers to build cars that Americans aren’t going to want to buy. It’s like Detriot’s old “if we build it, they will buy it” attitude. Only this time it’s the government forcing them to do it.

No wonder the auto companies, and the dealers are begging Washington for a gas tax!
ThombDBhomb Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:16 am

I want cheap gas for my monster truck! I want the neighbors to feel and smell my power as I speed to the grocery store. Alas, you can’t always get what you want.

Personal desires aside, it seems like the status quo needs to be shaken up a bit. Bubbles are bursting. We are in a “reset” period out of necessity.
Muhammad Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:17 am

Tesla just sold a 10% stake to Daimler.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/19/daimler-buys-10-stake-in-tesla-will-supply-parts-and-engineeri/

That means that Tesla (in the future) will be getting more advanced batteries from Daimler, and getting accessing to their platform or parts bin. I wonder what Daimler looks to get from Tesla down the line…
kent beuchert Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:19 am

Two possible scenarios:
Scenario 1 : electrically propelled vehicles become much cheaper
and more practical : in this case CAFE requirements become totally
irrelevant. This I deem very likely, given recent MIT battery advances in fast recharging without added cost.

Scenario 2 : gas prices remain reasonable but prices for electrically propelled vehicles don’t – they remain high and the vehicles remain
impractical : people simply won’t move out of their current cars – even during the highest gas price periods recently, there wasn’t any mass exodus into smaller cars (to do so would have been economic stupidity). The ever-idiotic and dopey Feds can force the automakers to only sell small cars, but apparently don’t realize that they cannot force anyone to buy them. We have 240 million private vehicles on the road. We sell less than 17 million per year. You do the math to estimate how long it will take to achieve that stupidly claimed 30% reduction by 2016. Another gem from Obama and his fellow dopes and tax cheats. And the cars they are pushing are cars that Amercian automakers simply cannot build. At least not if they in any way involve the UAW wage rates. This amount to a death knell for American automakers. The solution was to reinstitute free market and competitive labor into the obsolete auto industry. This Obama and his fellow Dems could not and would not do – they have gotten tens of millions in campaign contributions from those folks and do what they are told, like good little bought-and-paid-for pols.
wrigley Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am

@5 Statik,

Any deadline that falls outside of the current administration’s term is worth what? ….yupe, not too much
————————————————————-

Obama will be president until January 2017.
k-dawg Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am

(scarcasm on)
How about we just have a government approved car/van/truck design? Everyone has to choose one of the 3 vehicles. GM Ford Toyota all make them, but they are identical down to the bolt, because every item is regulated by the government standard. Your only choice is gray, white, black, or beige. The only way for individual car companies to gain market share is to make/sell the cars cheaper and outsourcing to China.
(sarcasm off)
jeffhre Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:32 am

#96
k-dawg Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am

(scarcasm on)
How about we just have a government approved car/van/truck design? Everyone has to choose one of the 3 vehicles. GM Ford Toyota all make them, but they are identical down to the bolt, because every item is regulated by the government standard. Your only choice is gray, white, black, or beige. The only way for individual car companies to gain market share is to make/sell the cars cheaper and outsourcing to China.
(sarcasm off)
_____________________
Your wasteful request for gray or beige has been summarily rejected. Our apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.
Van Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:35 am

Hi k-dawg @ 96, sounds like a really good idea to me. Central control and elitist wisdom for the masses. No to vouchers, but send my kids to private schools. And remember, 2/3 of the voters agree.
ArkansasVolt Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:36 am

#95 wrigley

What makes you so sure he will win a second term? he has plenty of time to screw up.
CaptJackSparrow Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:37 am

@CorvetteGuy 18

Yup, you got it right dude…..
“We’ve put men on the moon.
We invented SPAM as a tasty alternative to meat.
42 MPG average for a car? No sweat.
This is America! We can do anything we set our sites on to do.”

Says it all right there!
Guy Incognito Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:39 am

Thirty one years to go from 27.5 to 35.5 mpg

ok
jeffhre Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:47 am

#92
ThombDBhomb Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:16 am

I want cheap gas for my monster truck! I want the neighbors to feel and smell my power as I speed to the grocery store. Alas, you can’t always get what you want.

Personal desires aside, it seems like the status quo needs to be shaken up a bit. Bubbles are bursting. We are in a “reset” period out of necessity.
___________________________
You’ve got it all wrong my friend. The higher gas prices go, the more your power to bend economics to your will, will be apparent to the unwashed masses that you look down on as you ride far above the commoners(mere neighbors, Bwahhahaaaaa), in one of the few remaining monster trucks on the road!
k-dawg Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:47 am

I’m actually for a gas tax vs. CAFE to push to efficient cars, (disclaimer: only if the gas tax money goes towards green tech, making it cheaper)

Its sort of like the Sugar/Alcohol tax they are talking about now, to make America healthy and cover healthcare costs.

Would you rather (choosing between 2 evils):
A. Have to pay an addition tax on sugar & alcohol products.
B. Only allow manufacturers to make healthy foods, and get rid of sugar and alcohol.

This is an extreme example, i know, but I use it to illustrate a point. That is, I dont like the government taking away my options. They can tax me for my indulgences, but dont take them away.

Even better, reward us when we are good. If we drive a green car, or live a healthy life, we get rewarded. (the health part will never happen, I know. I’ve harped on our HR people for years on this. I can’t even get $ for a gym membership)
carcus1 Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:52 am

#91 LauraM.

“But a gas tax would be much more effective. . . ”
___________________

From a free marketer perspective (me), I’m picking the lesser of two evils.
A gas tax would be a huge Heroin I.V. to a government that’s already an atrocious junky. Once they’re on it, you’ll never get them off. And if the supply starts to dwindle, they’ll need to get a fix from somewhere else.
Jason M. Hendler Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:55 am

I just don’t understand why they are doing this now. Are they afraid of losing the midterm elections in 2010?
DonC Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:59 am

#63 carcus1 says “For years the U.S. manufacturers just fought the standards.”

This may be the most important aspect of the new CAFE standards, namely, that the car companies see it as inevitable and so are actually going to hire engineers to meet the goal rather than hiring lawyers and lobbyists to fight it. So far the engineering route has always paid off and the lobbyist route has never gotten us to where we want to go.

Steven Chu uses refrigerators as a prime example. The refrigerator companies fought higher efficiency standards for years, arguing it would be impossible to meet those standards without prohibitive price increases. Guess what happened after their lobbyists lost and the standards went into effect? Efficiency went up by a factor of five and costs went DOWN by a factor of two. Score one for engineering.

Gas Tax — What’s up with this gas tax stuff? There will be no gas tax. That decision has already been made. There may/will be cap and trade, which essentially gets the same result. But there will be on gas tax.

Basically complaints about the gas tax should be redirected as complaints about cap & trade. While we’re on that toot, perhaps complaining about education spending would be appropriate. Education of course does increases the costs to business and prices to consumers since businesses have to spend considerably more to hire engineers than workers who haven’t graduated high school. And guess who ends up paying for this as these costs get passed along in the form of higher prices — we taxpayers!
carcus1 Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 10:59 am

#103 K-dawg,

“disclaimer: only if the gas tax money goes towards green tech, making it cheaper….”
___________

That’s the problem. You are absolutely dreaming if you think a gas tax would work this way.
DonC Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:12 am

Jason Hendler #105 asks “I just don’t understand why they are doing this now”

It’s something of a no-brainer. The Supreme Court has ordered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. So that has to happen. While the Bush Administration gave the Court the proverbial finger and more or less ignored the order we now have the fact that states, lead by California, are suing for the right to regulate greenhouse gases. That case is on track for a decision and, in the absence of EPA standards and the earlier Supreme Court decision, guess how that one will turn out? The car companies understand this. Since the last thing they want is to have to meet different standards in different states, they want to avoid the court decision on state regulation of greenhouse gases.

The end result is that at this point the opponents want to come on board because fighting the regulations is useless and, from their perspective, a single federal standard is preferable to the alternative.
statik Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am

#88 NZDavid said:

New Prius pricing announced today for NZ. $37,000.
The iMiev on sale next year at $60,000.

Tick Tock, Tick Tock.
Hurry up Volt.
============

I’m guessing/hoping those are New Zealand dollars? So that is like $23,000 and $37,000 respectively?

Side note: Do you actually have a official Mitsu source on pricing direct you could link me to? All I have seenso far is a article or two saying they are selling in the UK to corporate customers ranging from £20,000 to £25,000 (which is $30,900 – $38,700USD)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am

@carcus1 107

“That’s the problem. You are absolutely dreaming if you think a gas tax would work this way.”

I agree. What will happen is the funds will be siphoned off to some other budgetary sh|t that people will depend on and when the electric revolution conquers the OPEC demon, the budgetary sh|t that people will depend on will scream foul and say it’s all everyones fault.

So I say tax it anyway for purposes of funding Education from Elementary all the way to College.
DonC Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:19 am

#91 LauraM

Gas tax. Cap & Trade. What’s the difference? They both get the same result, the only difference being is that under Cap & Trade polluters will initially get pollution permits for free. That’s a transfer from taxpayers — and is on theoretical grounds objectionable — but it’s the necessary political lubricant.

The other objection to the gas tax is that it makes an international system more difficult to police. Knowing whether local authorities are cutting corners or deals is far harder than monitoring carbon emissions at the macro level.
noel park Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:40 am

#18 CorvetteGuy:

Amen! Let’s get on with it.

Did anyone else hear the feature on NPR last night about the report of a panel of retired 3 and 4 star Generals on national security threats? They said that one of the biggest threats to our national security is our massive dependence on foreign oil. Among other things, they said that competition for oil resources will almost certainly lead to more armed conflicts around the world, and that the flow of $$ into the hands of countries unfriendly to the US creates massive security risks for us. They strongly urged that all possible measures be taken to reduce this dependence.

Nothing new for GM-Volt.com bloggers, but very interesting, and validating to the long expressed concerns of many here.

So whatever can be done to reduce this dependence is all to the good. “Politics is the art of the possible.” Thank you for your leadership, President Obama.
k-dawg Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:42 am

#106 DonC
Efficiency went up by a factor of five and costs went DOWN by a factor of two. Score one for engineering

———–
I dont know the details of the refridgerators… but does it have anything to do w/outsourcing to China? Would this be a score one for China?
ThombDBhomb Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:44 am

I’m ok with a gas tax…after I get my BEV.
k-dawg Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:48 am

The other problem with CAFE is say i buy a gas-guzzler.. but i drive it 1000 miles a year. Someone who drives a 100mpg car 100K miles a year may use the same amount of gas as me. The CAFE takes no account for the amount of driving people do. A gas tax would. It would not only create more pressure for people to buy greener cars, but also car-pool, take public transportation, inflate their tires, etc.
ThombDBhomb Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:51 am

#115 k-dawg

Why buy a gas-guzzler only to drive it 1000 miles a year? Renting might be a better option for you; less maintenance and insurance.
k-dawg Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:55 am

I guess this is good, but prob too little too late to avoid CH11.
————-
GM, UAW Hope To Reach Labor Accord By End Of This Week-Report
May 19, 2009 09:23:13 (ET)

General Motors Corp. (GM) and the United Auto Workers hope to reach a new labor agreement by the end of this week, the Detroit Free Press reported Tuesday. “Things are going well,” the newspaper quoted a person familiar with talks between the company and the union as saying.

Changes in labor terms – expected to save the auto maker more than $1 billion a year – must be agreed to by June 1 for GM to avoid having to seek bankruptcy protection, the U.S. Treasury Department has demanded.
CaptJackSparrow Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:55 am

@k-dawg 115

“say i buy a gas-guzzler.. but i drive it 1000 miles a year. Someone who drives a 100mpg car 100K miles a year may use the same amount of gas as me.”

That’s an unreasonable comparison in that NOBODY drives only 1000 miles a year. That negates the purpose of buying a car. I can walk that in 1 year if my fat a$$ got up to do it.
However, I do understand your point and where it is more “effective”.

OK, I saw your post at 120….
N Riley Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:56 am

I think the auto companies already knew how to accomplish this target, they just did not want to have to sell vehicles into different states having multiple requirements. I don’t blame them one bit for resisting California’s and other states trying to force them into restrictive rules not available in other states.

What I don’t understand is why Henderson says this is leadership by Obama. It is not leadership when you just accept what some other entity has proposed. Not saying it is not the right thing to do, it probably is. I have read reports that say it is going to cos $600 per car while others are saying the cost will be $1,300 per car. Either way, it will be more expensive and will take several years to recover the additional cost in fuel savings. But, again, it is not just about the money, is it?
k-dawg Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:59 am

116 Thomb

I was just throwing some #’s out there. I was thinking of people’s summer cars, kit cars, hobbyist cars. No really like renting a truck to move to a new house, but more recreation vehhicles that people own & tinker with, customize. There’s probably other vehicles that fall in this catagory that people like to own, and not rent.
CaptJackSparrow Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:59 am

@k-dawg 117

“Changes in labor terms – expected to save the auto maker more than $1 billion a year”

Umm……
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t GM losing over 2Billion a quarter?
It is very possible I am wrong though…..
N Riley Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 11:59 am

#118 CaptJackSparrow

That’s an unreasonable comparison in that NOBODY drives only 1000 miles a year.
—————————-

Well, I know of some. Not many, but some. Mostly older people who don’t drive much. But, I know what you were getting at. Most people average at least 10,000 miles per year. Some a lot more.
k-dawg Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Yeah, those were just some crazy extreme #’s to make a point again. I may know 1 person that drives 3000/year, and 1 person that drives 50K/year. I dont know anyone that does 1000 or 100,000 myself. I just didnt feel like doing math to make the #’s equate.
hermant Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Light duty trucks form the vast majority of the construction and maintenance vehicles on the road today; in sheer numbers, medium and heavy duty truck don’t even come close. Think about when you last saw a plumber, electrician, construction worker, landscaper, pest control, roofer, home security, appliance repair, dog groomer, building inspector, cable installer, or anyone else you may have hired recently drive up in a medium or heavy duty truck. By having these new standards affect light duty trucks (1/2, 3/4 and 1 ton), the prez is ignorantly crippling the very industry that makes our cushy ‘merican lives possible.

Presently, these trucks new are priced from the $20K’s. The necessary technology to up the mileage of these vehicles to meet this proposed standard will not be just $1300. Existing implementations suggest at least a $10K upcharge (Silverado, Tahoe, Yukon, Escalade, etc.). This will price most of the smaller business fleets out of business and only the large (say “Walmart sized”) players will be able to afford new vehicles. The only smaller operators that will continue to compete will do so by keeping their older trucks on the roads longer and longer.

We have our glorious prez to thank for this rosey future picture. Mega-construction companies dominating, forcing down wages, stamping out the small businessman. The remaining small operators out on the same roads as your wife and kids mini-car, driving twenty something year old 1 ton duallies with feeble brakes and flapping, corroded fenders. Welcome to the Obama-nation!
LauraM Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

#111 DonC

Does cap and trade mean that consumers will pay more at the gas stations? Because I can’t figure out how they will work that one out. (An end of year carbon assessment based on milage?) But, if it does, you’re right. Although I think that the gas tax would be simpler to administer, it’s better than nothing.

And I’d prefer the government got the money, but I agree that we need to take political reality into account.

I’ve heard the arguments about cap and trade and international compliance, and I completely disagree. (And that’s assuming China agrees to cap and trade in the first place.) There are a lot of ways to get around cap and trade. All they have to do is fake some numbers, or “overlook” some factories emitting without having permits. (Or, more likely, emitting twice as much as they have permits for.) Or issue a larger number of permits than they have on the books, etc.
LauraM Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

#104 carcus1

They’ll spend whatever they want to anyway. At least this way they’ll have some more money coming in. It’s not like budgetary restraint is practiced by either party in Washington.

And, right now, I’m for anything that cuts the national deficit.
Jeff Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

#48 Joe

Is the TV industry making money?
I remember when not long ago, the TV’s you can buy today were selling for over $10,000.00 not to mention many other products that were once extremely expensive.
Do you get my drift?
It is this kind of thinking that gets us in trouble! !!
———————————————————

It seems that you misunderstood my meaning. See #56 from Statik…I agree.
Jason M. Hendler Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

108, Don C,

The Supreme Court did NOT tell the executive branch to advance the timeline from 2020 to 2016 – Obama did that. They could have simply and correctly stated that current economic conditions make such a move imprudent, as we all shall see.

I really think this has more to do with Obama’s sinking poll numbers.
Zach Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Who changed this thread? It now says 30mpg for trucks, and 39mpg for cars… wtf is going on? lol.
solo Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

93: Muhammad

If you want to know what Daimler can to to a small well managed car company by taking ownership of it, take a look at Chrysler.
solo Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Kent Beushart says:

We sell less than 17 million per year. You do the math to estimate how long it will take to achieve that stupidly claimed 30% reduction by 2016. Another gem from Obama and his fellow dopes and tax cheats. And the cars they are pushing are cars that Amercian automakers simply cannot build. At least not if they in any way involve the UAW wage rates. This amount to a death knell for American automakers.

I partially agree with you. The magic 30% reduction won’t happen until 10 years or so after 2016 when the fleet is completely re-cycled. It’s like, ‘95% of Americans will have lower taxes’. Well only about 50% of Americans (or those living in the U.S. legally or otherwise) actually pay taxes. It’s all a big B.S. numbers game that sounds good on CNN.

The American auto makers, and every company that actually manufacture(d) something in the U.S. cannot compete with FREE labor rates. I do meen FREE. When you calculate the cost of labor for most manufactured products imported from China, the cost of the box the product comes in is far more expensive than the labor to build the product.

I’m about as right wing as they come, but despite what the GOP thinks, but the answer to America’s problems is a tax on imported goods. And a high tax at that. Nothing else that I can think of will stimulate American business more than having and even playing field as far as labor costs go. Nothing else will help ofset the huge budget gaps and national debt than an import tax. Hundreds of billions of tax dollars are NOT being collected because companies base their manufacturing in China and other places. Hundreds of Billions of tax dollars are not being collected by high wage earners in the manufacturing industry because those jobs were outsourced. Not everybody can go to college and be a lawyer or work on Wall Street. Some of us are just too damn honest to make a living that way.
fred Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

If GM shuts down American jobs and imports it’s vehicles from mexico,south korea,china, canada, and japan. I will not buy a Volt.
KenEE Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

Jim in PA,

It says “Obama has decided…”

He seems to do that a lot. Which is fine as long as his bulldozer decision de jour happens align with your ideas. But in a democracy of varried ideas and goals, many prefer a process to a personality to decide such deep and far reaching mandates.
Scotland Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Gas tax is preferrable to Cap and Trade. Why? Cap and Trade leads to gaming – plain and simple. It will feature politically motivated handouts and set-asides to favored industries and companies. How will these be doled out? Well, just like tax breaks – to the industries and companies that contribute the most to their sponsors election funds…

A carbon tax, on the other hand, makes it fair across the board (ok, yeah, you can have rebates – but that is tougher to hide since it is more readily understood by the average voter). The only downside, though, is the word TAX. Noone running for office says they like raising taxes and wants to be burdened with that label. We’ve fundamentally lost our ability to prioritize what behavior we want to encourage and then use taxes to promote or discourage such behavior. This is a shame. If Obama and the Dems wanted to responsibly use their power for change – they would take this on. However, they’ll hide behind Cap and Trade instead – which is less efficient, allows them to avoid the negative stigma of being a tax (which it really is – voters will catch on eventually), while at the same time promotes their reelection campaigns through selective use of “incentives” for worthy industries (further corrupting our political system).

The Supply side solution, CAFE, will not work if gas prices remain low. Perhaps Cap and Trade will result in higher taxes on gasoline restoring some sort of balance but history has shown that CAFE ONLY worked when gas prices were high (early 80s) – they had no effect when gas prices were low (all years since – until 2007-2008). During years when they didn’t work, automakers sold small cars at a loss (remember Ford Escort and Chrysler Neon?) and, even then, there still wasn’t sufficient demand. Electric cars are not the answer in the next few years – they cost MORE – not LESS – therefore they will not be high-volume anytime soon (certainly not by 2016). The only way these higher CAFE standards can be met by 2016 is by reduction of choice – no cars other than subcompacts could meet the standard and be sold profitably. Result – cars that don’t meet the standard become more expensive (and unaffordable), severe cutbacks on new car production, loss of jobs, etc.

If you want a good case study on the possible effects, just check out what happened to the General Aviation market after product liability lawsuits and higher aviation fuel prices decimated the industry in the late 70s. In the space of about 10 years, the market for new small planes went from 10s of thousands of planes to hundreds and used planes became the only way to affordably buy a plane. Cessna ceased making small planes (they have mainly made corporate jets since), Piper has been in and out of bankruptcy with many different owners. Beech and Mooney changed hands and stopped/started operations many times. Kit planes became popular because the builder was the user and assumed the liability.

But this same situation (as in GA) won’t be allowed to happen – the auto marketplace is too important. But I find it is just ridiculous to regulate market behavior this way and particularly on this timescale. I agree on the goal of reducing carbon emissions but the most effective way is to slap a carbon tax on all fuels and let the overall marketplace figure out where and how to gain the efficiencies – no bureaucrats and lobbyists are required and it gives a far more effective result!!!

(P.S. We very badly need campaign finance reform. Lack of it is the root cause of a lot of problems.)
MRB Says:
May 20th, 2009 at 8:20 am

In reference to the headline, let’s not pretend GM has any real choice in the matter. We all know who’s calling the shots for the company now.
Jeff Says:
May 21st, 2009 at 12:04 pm

GM’s commitment to the new CAFE standard suprising??
Certainly not since their very existence is dependant on the Federal Government.

Will they attain it??? Probably not unless the Federal Government “tinkers” with the economy (oil, gasoline, taxing vehicles that don’t meet these standards) which will in the end force Americans into these vehicles.

Unfortunately, I can see this present administration (Congress included) doing this. They are not afraid to Choose Winners and Losers in any situation.
Scrubs Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Informative and entertaining. I’ve added your blog to my “reading material.” Keep me updated!
whoot1 Says:
September 4th, 2009 at 12:07 am

Since when does the standard SUV you see driving down the road get 30 mpg?????

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Volt Test Drive by Vancouver EV Association February 8, 2010
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- General Motors issued a very special invitation to the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association last week to drive the... […]
WopOnTour
gasoline cars are like smoking . . . . February 8, 2010
interesting article, better presenting what I've had a hard time putting into words (which is why HE's a writer and I'M... […]
prowler
A common European strategy for electric vehicles February 8, 2010
I coudn't resist to cut and paste the next excerpt : Link :... […]
Jean-Charles Jacquemin
Run flat option or standard? February 8, 2010
I suspect that run flats might be standard because they get rid of the space and weight taken by a spare tire and may result in less fatal accidents... […]
1nk
Engine Thermal Management in a Series Hybrid February 8, 2010
I've just recently discovered how different the environments under which a conventional (even parallel hybrid) ICE and series hybrid ICE are... […]
XGC75
electric car with wind generator February 7, 2010
My design of ELECTRIC CAR WITH WIND GENERATOR: http://velkovelkov.blogspot.com/ I think this conception is original and realistic. The low position... […]
Velko Velkov
Please provide complete home solar systems. February 6, 2010
Please provide both a volt charging solar system and a complete whole house solar system that takes the user completely off the grid and stays on... […]
1nk

Obama Announcing New Strict Federal Fuel Economy Requirements of 35.5 mpg by 2016, GM Commits to it

138 Responses to “Obama Announcing New Strict Federal Fuel Economy Requirements of 35.5 mpg by 2016, GM Commits to it”

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts