A public hearing in Detroit for the proposed 2017-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards on Tuesday heard some feisty and impassioned arguments either for or against, and the auto industry is split on the issue.
The deliberations were required by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration prior to finalizing fuel economy standards later this year that would mandate a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (about 40 mpg on sticker) by 2025.
The proposed rules are poised to amend standards already set to rise to 37.5 mpg by 2016, and automakers in favor include General Motors, Toyota and Hyundai, while several others are against, including Volkswagen and Daimler.
GM’s Vice President-Sustainability and Global Regulatory Affairs, Mike Robinson, told Wards Auto that GM would be open to accelerating the pace of fuel-economy improvement if substantial technological advancements are made in coming years.
“If there are breakthroughs in technology that exceed what the assumptions are, it works both ways,” Robinson said.
On the flip side, Don Chambers, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers’ Association (NADA) government relations committee said government projections of the actual cost of forcing fuel savings technologies into place are way low.
According to an NADA study to be released in February, the real costs will be higher by as much as 60 percent, which work out to new vehicle sticker prices rising by as much as $5,000, Chalmers said.
Or sliced another way, he contended that new CAFE rules will jack up monthly payments by $60 to $70 or more, and as others have said, this will result in unsold vehicles.
“I want to sell more fuel-efficient cars,” Chalmers said. “If the customer can’t get financing, it makes no difference.”
The NADA represents 16,000 new-vehicle dealers who operate 32,500 franchises.
And speaking of large-scale representation, for its part the United Auto Workers Union has come out on the side of environmentalists and is in favor of the CAFE rules.
UAW President Bob King said Tuesday that he is convinced the new standards will promote new technologies and thus help to create new American jobs.
“The proposed rules are sensible, achievable, and needed,” King said, adding “the incremental increase in the price of a vehicle will covered by the money consumers will save by using less fuel,” said King, who added the UAW not only wants clean factories, it also wanted clean lakes.
King has previously been quoted saying the UAW needs to reestablish ties to various groups in the environmental movement to improve its place in American society.
“They are good for the auto industry and its workers, good for the broader economy, good for the environment and good for our national security,” said King. “The drive to bring innovative fuel-saving technologies to market is transforming the auto industry in the United States and creating good jobs from the research lab to the factory floor.”
And among those who have spoken directly from the environmental movement, Larry Schweiger, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation was quoted as touting the benefits of the federal enforcement of green goals that is the CAFE standard.
“With these rules in place, there’s a much smaller chance you’ll see ugly pictures of beautiful birds covered in petroleum,” said Schweiger. “We’ll reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 2 billion tons, and cut our consumption of oil by 3.4 million barrels a day. That will reduce the need for risky drilling in fragile habitats,” Schweiger said.
Whether this is true or not, Daimler AG and Volkswagen – which already sell some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S. – won’t back the CAFE proposal because there’s no incentive for diesel-fueled vehicles.
And for his part, the head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Mitch Bainwol, said at the end of the day, consumer buying habits will ultimately decide whether automakers can actually meet the CAFE rules.
Bainwol proposed a thorough mid-term review of the CAFE policy to see if the rules actually relate to fuel price trends, technological advances and consumer buying habits.
“Looking into the future, consumer purchasing patterns will be the biggest unknown,” he said, adding that in the past CAFE has had a hit-or-miss track record, and looking at past lessons could help portray a clearer picture of what’s to come.
Legislating green
Two more hearings are scheduled: one on January 19 in Philadelphia, another on January 24 in San Francisco.
The federal initiative mirrors goals being set in Europe to regulate greenhouse gases and mandate wiser fuel usage habits.
So what do you think of this? Are carrot-and-stick tactics enforcing green tech a good idea or not?
The auto industry wants to sell cars. The government and environmentalists are mindful of waning petroleum supplies and pollution.
Issues involving money to be made or lost, energy security, technological competitiveness and much more are being decided.
Is the government right in assuming a shepherding role here to coax things in a direction it sees fit? Or is it overbearing and meddling where it ought to let free market forces decide?
Or is the truth somewhere in the middle?
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
Dear GM-Volt Readers: We value everyone’s feedback on our daily stories, but – please – don’t post breaking news or other stories that we could be working on as a post here. Doing this will help ensure fresh daily discussions, and will be better for everyone. If you would instead, please e-mail story ideas to jcobb@verticalscope.com Thank you!
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+30
Jan 19th, 2012 (6:57 am)There are national security and economic considerations in play which suggest that consumer preference can not be king.
After Iran nukes a city somewhere, everyone will ask “Who paid for their nuclear program?” and the answer will be that we did. The United States has been fighting, or preparing to fight, in the Middle East pretty much continually since 1990. It must eventually stop because we can not continue to pay for it.
Not only should the United States enforce more rigorous CAFE standards for new vehicles, we should levy substantial taxes on title transfers of inefficient vehicles. This will get the gas hogs off the road sooner.
Unreasoned whim can not be the basis for a sound national energy strategy. As during the Cold War, society needs some rules set for it.
James McQuaid
+29
Jan 19th, 2012 (8:12 am)“Is the government right in assuming a shepherding role here to coax things in a direction it sees fit? Or is it overbearing and meddling where it ought to let free market forces decide?”
The Government has been skewing the free market through oil industry subsidies long enough. I say eliminate those subsidies, and let the price of gas truly reflect its cost. Only then will the auto consumer and manufacturer be able to make the right product choice. At $9.00/gallon, who wouldn’t consider buying an EV or EREV.
NPNS!
Volt#671
+3
Jan 19th, 2012 (8:24 am)According to an NADA study to be released in February, the real costs will be higher by as much as 60 percent, which work out to new vehicle sticker prices rising by as much as $5,000, Chalmers said.
Or sliced another way, he contended that new CAFE rules will jack up monthly payments by $60 to $70 or more, and as others have said, this will result in unsold vehicles.
—————-
Possibly more than that if everyone has to buy a VIA motors Truck for $80K.
I’m glad the Gov is trying to do the right thing, but they are doing it the wrong way. What if every car company makes 90% of their cars get 100MPG, and 10% of their cars get 10mpg, but everyone BUYS the 10mpg cars because gas is cheap and they want the power?
Just make the gas cost more and the rest will follow. (dont want to get into a gas-tax debate, so I’ll try to nip it in the bud by saying you will get a income tax deduction (or some other tax deduction) to make this gas-tax tax-neutral)
This statement hit it on the head:
And for his part, the head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Mitch Bainwol, said at the end of the day, consumer buying habits will ultimately decide whether automakers can actually meet the CAFE rules.
+16
Jan 19th, 2012 (8:27 am)The government needs to step in on this. It is amazing what the true price of oil has cost America. Oil is the single common denominator to several of America’s biggest problems from debt to energy security to national security. We cannot keep sending trillions overseas for both oil and war and stand idle with the same old “well it is the free market” mentality. This is an issue we should all be able to get behind Obama on.
+23
Jan 19th, 2012 (8:47 am)Which situtation is better?
A) Have cheap oil, have high income taxes to subsidize the oil, have high MPG cars available but you can’t afford them, oil profits continue to go to the middle-east.
B) Have expensive oil, have low income taxes that allow you to buy more expensive high MPG cars, profits go to domestic car manufacturers and domestic energy producers
(the answer is B)
+9
Jan 19th, 2012 (9:01 am)Our government is like a bunch of kids playing with our lives. Instead of working together to get programs instituted, they bicker at each other to see which side can win, just for the sake of winning. They have no idea what needs to be done or the will to do it. To begin with, why is diesel fuel higher priced than gasoline when it cost less to refine? Using more diesel fuel would lower our energy consumption in one easy step, and would promote new car sales. Wake up politicians!!
I supposed they don’t look at this site much, because it makes too much sense.
-26
Jan 19th, 2012 (9:01 am)(click to show comment)
Jan 19th, 2012 (9:07 am)Why does this CAFE standard equate to “green”?
Why isn’t the whole “we’re going to run out of [cheap] oil in a few decades (or years)” come into these meetings and why isn’t that actually more important than green issues? Bickering about vehicle component costs? What about $6.00 gasoline or embargos? What about our neighbors over in Europe already paying $8.00+ for petrol (highly taxed)? What about the national deficit and using future gas taxes to help pay it down factoring in some day? I guess they don’t want to speak of the inevitable and would rather speak from assumptions.
Solving “green” issues with CAFE will never work on its own. It only works on the “north” side of the economy – the people who can afford showroom-new vehicles. There will then be eventual used cars 4-5 years after the high mpg vehicles hit the market and people will drive those as well but we will always have a contingent of low mpg vehicles from construction trucks to 20-30 year old vehicles on the road which negate the whole green program’s efforts.
If they really want high mpg – allow more diesels, more electrification and keep the public interested in investing in their own future by choosing higher mpg over other vehicles they may choose by default (SUVs, muscle cars, pickups). Maybe a good program of easy rental of pickup trucks versus people buying and using them mainly to commute and then occasionally to go to Home Depot. Think about it – where can someone rent a 1/2 ton pickup for the weekend?
+5
Jan 19th, 2012 (9:20 am)joe,
I am sorry I accidentally click on the – instead of the reply.
I would imagine the oil companies have more to do with the price than the government. I am just tired of how gas prices change on a weekly basis and how dependent we are on gas.
+7
Jan 19th, 2012 (9:52 am)I do wish for cleaner driving, and the Chevy Volt is just the beginning. So if this forum discusses “green” issues, the majority will agree to it (no poll needed). As for Daimler and Volkswagen, they can either join and accept the new CAFE standards, or stay out and lose money, since they know that their largest sales are from misguided American buyers who have the fake illusion that German cars are the best. So if they join or stay out, it will be a win for the American environment, with lesser oil imports and more domestic sales.
Go GM, and go “green”!
Raymond
+2
Jan 19th, 2012 (10:12 am)Found this on Wiki (now that Wiki is back up)
———————
The price of diesel traditionally rises during colder months as demand for heating oil rises, which is refined in much the same way. Because of recent changes in fuel quality regulations, additional refining is required to remove sulfur, which contributes to a sometimes higher cost. In many parts of the United States and throughout the United Kingdom and Australia,[9] diesel may be priced higher than petrol.[10] Reasons for higher-priced diesel include the shutdown of some refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, diversion of mass refining capacity to gasoline production, and a recent transfer to ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), which causes infrastructural complications.[11] In Sweden, a diesel fuel designated as MK-1 (class 1 environmental diesel) is also being sold; this is a ULSD that also has a lower aromatics content, with a limit of 5%.[12] This fuel is slightly more expensive to produce than regular ULSD.
———————
Also found this:
http://38.96.246.204/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=9&t=9
————————————-
Why has diesel fuel been more expensive than gasoline?
On-highway diesel fuel prices have been higher than regular gasoline prices almost continuously since September 2004, a break from the historical pattern of diesel fuel prices usually being lower than gasoline prices except in cold winters when demand for heating oil pushed diesel fuel prices higher. The main reasons why diesel fuel prices have been higher than gasoline prices in recent years are:
•High worldwide demand for diesel fuel and other distillate fuel oils, especially in Europe, China, India, and the United States, and a tight global refining capacity available to meet demand during the period of high economic growth from 2002 to mid-2008.
•The transition to less polluting, lower-sulfur diesel fuels in the United States affected diesel fuel production and distribution costs.
•The Federal excise tax for on-highway diesel fuel of 24.4 cents/gallon is 6 cents per gallon higher the gasoline tax.
This Week In Petroleum discusses petroleum markets. The May 20th, 2009 and March 26th, 2008 editions discuss this FAQ topic in more detail.
Today in Energy: Retail prices: diesel outpaces gasoline
Today in Energy: 2011 Brief: U.S. average gasoline and diesel prices over $3 per gallon throughout 2011
Diesel Prices and Outlook
For EIA’s latest diesel fuel price forecast, see EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook
+3
Jan 19th, 2012 (10:12 am)The Malibu video looks good till you see the 25 mpg city and 37 mpg high way. If i were Mark Reuss, I would never market it when fusion offers 47 mpg city, and 44 mpg highway.
I think GM looks to me like some TV company who tries to sell tube televisions when every one else is selling LCD or Plasma. The LCD GM tries to sell in too expensive and comes only in one size ( say 32 inch ) not available in 40 inch or 50 inch.
As a person who pays gas tax ( vancovuer ). I prefer green cars with less emissions or even alternatives ( ex: diesel electric power train – which for sure will be able to go 100 mpg+ on a midsize size car till alternatives like fuel cell is affordable ) .
+3
Jan 19th, 2012 (10:22 am)I think it is in our nation’s best interest to promote: much more clean domestic energy, cleaner air policies; especially in high population areas and we need a long term clean water plan. These higher CAFÉ standards are a necessary component for the Nation as a whole to create good jobs in these areas I mentioned above. As our automotive factories are being transformed into much cleaner and more energy efficient; so should our Nation as a whole. We will end up with a healthier society with plenty of good jobs. This is a “Volt” site which represents all the above JMO.
+6
Jan 19th, 2012 (10:54 am)Instead of CAFE, the government needs to implement a comprehensive future-thinking energy policy.
All of these little pokes and prods here and there (subsidies, rules, etc.) are doing nothing except placating an uninformed public. Heck, they’re not even doing that recently. The US public is pretty fed-up with the gridlock in DC.
We need a five-year, ten-year and twenty-year energy vision with some necks on the line in DC to make it happen.
It is totally ridiculous that we have influence peddlers instead of representation making policy.
Draw a line in the sand already.
+5
Jan 19th, 2012 (11:12 am)I”ve posted this before, but its worth posting again. I dont know whether to laugh or cry.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future
+1
Jan 19th, 2012 (11:26 am)#14
I agree. +1
Alas though, given the level of political “discourse” I have been hearing recently, I don’t see it getting done any time soon. If anything gets done at all, it is by “little pokes and prods”.
“Politics is the art of the possible”
+3
Jan 19th, 2012 (11:55 am)The Government gave, (what was it?), a couple of TRILLION dollars to the banks with the mandates to “help the homeowners who are underwater”, and they didn’t do JACK SQUAT. They just pocketed the money and didn’t even say “thank you”. So if this same Government is going to mandate $60 to $70 per month higher monthly payments for these cars, then they should mandate that the banks lower their credit scoring requirements. Not to the point where we end up selling cars to those who can’t afford the payments, [car bubble?] but I’ve seen many cases where 20 points on a FICO blows my deals out of the water… or, the many many many people who had a bankruptcy 1 to 2 years ago getting turned down even though they can afford the car. A little common sense from our leaders would be refreshing.
Oh… Did I say all that out loud?
Jan 19th, 2012 (11:59 am)Heh – so you want to treat people who go BK as though they didn’t? heck – everyone should go BK then
FICO (though contrived) does give a usable number to indicate “past activity implies future actions”.
Semi-related. Green-ness discussion today at 1pm EST from Chevy.
http://generalmotors.posterous.com/chevy-to-discuss-carbon-reduction-investment
This is about their physical projects of going-green (not eco-efficiencies for the cars).
+3
Jan 19th, 2012 (12:12 pm)NOT getting help from the banks is one reason why I’m fixing up a ’79 Vette instead of buying a new one. To the banks, I offer a big oily “FU”. ‘Nuff said.
+4
Jan 19th, 2012 (12:21 pm)It was actually 7.7 trillion and they didn’t do nothing with the money. They took it and bought US Treasuries which paid a guaranteed percentage of interest. So they got money at 0% interest from the taxpayers, then loaned it back to us at a percentage, made 13 billion in profit, then gave themselves bonuses for doing such a good job making money off all of the money. On top of that, those bankers/investors will only have to pay 15% tax on the millions they make from their capital gains, where schmucks like us pay 25~30% on our work pay (you know pay for actual work).
Don’t you just love our rigged system.
-9
Jan 19th, 2012 (12:25 pm)We only get about 20% of our OIL from this area.. .how can you say this?
We get most of our foreign oil from Canada and South of the border…. and our air is cleaner now than it was 100 years ago… the last thing this country has to worry about is CO2 in the air… especially since we make up about 1/25 of the worlds population… We better start concentrating on supporting American industry and getting this country back on track… more people are losing their house than in any time in our history… when you lose your house and your job you could care less about how much CO2 is in the air.
+4
Jan 19th, 2012 (12:56 pm)pjkPA – one more thing we don’t need in this country is the never-ending growth of college tuition costs and ball-and-chain of student loans that pull people down after they graduate. We’ll soon not be able to afford to send students to colleges if the increase keeps up – or only rich kids can go to “good schools”. To be world-competitive, we may need a national effort to solve this. We should also look into colleges who promise too much upon entry. The “yes you will get a job” type of schools. Some of them are the “for profit” enterprises.
+10
Jan 19th, 2012 (1:04 pm)When I read your comment it had been voted down to -13. I guess you’ve got the results of your unofficial poll.
+12
Jan 19th, 2012 (1:05 pm)As James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA, has explained time and time again, it’s not really where WE get our oil from. It’s where we and our allies get our oil from. Or stated differently, it’s where the oil is coming from that’s the issue, not where our oil is coming from.
In economic terms oil is a world commodity. Our demand and Chinese demand and Indian demand all push up the world price of oil, and a higher prices for oil means more money flowing to terrorist sponsoring states. Moreover, as the price of oil moves higher our economy is crippled irrespective of whether a particular barrel of oil comes from Saudi Arabia or Canada or even Texas. That’s why it’s not “foreign oil” that threatens our national security it’s just plain “oil”.
The error in approaching the problem as you do is readily apparent in current events. If your idea that the only relevant factor is where we get our oil from is correct, please explain why are we sending carriers to the Straits of Hurmuz? According to the view you’ve expressed our oil doesn’t come from there so why do we care? Well the reality is that if the Straits are blocked the world economy will be crippled and our economy will suffer hugely along with it. We don’t exist on some separate planet.
The truth is that our economy collapsed not because of housing but because of a huge spike in the price of oil. And if we continue to let our economy be tied to the prices of a volatile commodity then we’ll have even more people losing homes and not being able to buy anything. Basically if we want to get the economy back on track we have to have our economy less dependent on oil. It’s really just that simple.
Jan 19th, 2012 (1:11 pm)I gave him a +1 even though I do care about CAFE and I think the CAFE discussion is both interesting and important. Yes it’s a car cite but the car in question is an electric one, a benefit of which is that it allows us to power our cars on US electricity rather than terrorist oil (and I don’t care much if the electricity comes from American coal though that will sort itself out quickly). I think the negatives should be reserved for really asinine stuff and his comment is hardly that. I encourage others to give him a +1 as well. No reason to vote someone down just because you don’t agree with them.
+7
Jan 19th, 2012 (1:17 pm)#21
You will soon enough. Or your kids will.
+7
Jan 19th, 2012 (1:18 pm)He asked people to vote. Some people voted him up and some people voted him down. I live 30 miles downwind from the second most mercury polluting coal plant in the United States. I’m not a big fan of mercury pollution or CO2 emissions.
+5
Jan 19th, 2012 (1:22 pm)#25
Well he asked for a referendum on his comment and he got it, LOL.
Jan 19th, 2012 (1:33 pm)Who and why did someone segregate political candidates into parties? It’s a tactic to divide a unified country. I am anti-party association. I will Vote for the candidate that is best aligned to my take on issues. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Tea Party… doesn’t matter. We are, “…one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
in•di•vis•i•ble
adjective
1. not divisible; not separable into parts; incapable of being divided: one nation indivisible.
United we stand, divided fall. Our enemies know that too well.
NPNS!
Volt#671
+4
Jan 19th, 2012 (2:26 pm)A side benefit of raising CAFE standards are the jobs that are created when engineering vehicles that get better fuel mileage. It also forces all companies world wide to create high mpg vehicles if they wish to sell them in this country. More jobs, less pollution.
(I just searched the whole thread after posting and see that this benefit has already been brought up. Sorry for the repetition.)
+1
Jan 19th, 2012 (3:29 pm)#30
You can’t say it too many times. +1
+3
Jan 19th, 2012 (3:47 pm)…in an ideal world…
Parties started forming from the beginning in this country. George Washington was a Federalist-in favor of stronger central government. He was at odds with those who wanted more independence of states, like Jefferson. Never forget that we had no President AT ALL in this country until 13 years after we declared independence. The Articles of Confederation were nearly a complete failure. Would we want to exchange currency in visiting another of these United States?
Unfortunately, people like to package themselves. Even in third world countries, where the electorate is illiterate, symbols are used for party alignment. I know what you are saying, but reality is quite different from idealism.
+1
Jan 19th, 2012 (4:25 pm)#32
And the colonists brought the tradition with them from England where it went back to time out of mind.
Alas, too true. I think it’s getting worse. I heard a couple of the commercials from South Carolina this morning. It was some of the nastiest political rhetoric I have ever heard, and this from the Republican circular firing squad, LOL. I shudder to think what it will come to this fall. “Food stamp President” is just the beginning I fear.
Jan 19th, 2012 (4:59 pm)From post: …which work out to new vehicle sticker prices rising by as much as $5,000, Chalmers said.
I always buy used, so my increase will be about 1/4 or 1/2 that amount. Plus a few years later than new car buyers.
+3
Jan 19th, 2012 (5:00 pm)Why the goppers say No to anything …was talking to goppers on driving EV hybrids and reduce oil imports from voltaile region of middle east .. of course cud not convince on any issue their end swipe at our discussion was “who am I to tell them how to run their lives” geez far from it we are discussing something which cud help US to reduce oil imports and also save energy both for consumers and nation. These goppers as I had said they are fed the propaganda and are against anything the current adminstration does. There std reply is NO for everything.
on 2nd note went to Toyota to look/see the prices .. except corola/camry all cars were priced at $35 to 50K including the new Prius at $37K. And Volt which is all new technology plus EREV cheaper than these expensive gas guzzlers except Prius. And folks moan about Volt price.
Jan 19th, 2012 (5:02 pm)I’m not a big fan of mercury pollution or CO2 emissions.
Let me guess were you live Smithjim1961? You may live near Gary,IN
Unless I’m wrong but I’ve been there before when me and my family has gone to a suburb not to far from Chicago. Ill
Yeah maybe that’s were you live hmm I wonder?
It’s one of the ugliest and most horrible city’s or town’s I could not imagine living in at all! Even my mom hates that place no joke.
One more thing it’s also were the King of Pop was born Michael Jackson if you want to know.
-1
Jan 19th, 2012 (6:34 pm)Raymondjram,
you said :
“their largest sales are from misguided American buyers who have the fake illusion that German cars are the best. ”
so you think that american cars are better than bmw & mercedes ? not to mention porsche & audi and volks.
you think we are misguided to like these cars………..poor you.
l own a bmw and a mercedes………but also a dodge caravan and a cavalier…..l believe the quality and handling and safety is superior in the german cars but l also know there is a difference in price…l accept that……l am not misguided….l can’t understand why you are attacking the german cars.
why bash us for enjoying german cars ?
just my humble opinion…….
+2
Jan 19th, 2012 (6:49 pm)#37
Because you are helping to sell our country down the balance of payments river.
“Buy American, the job you save may be your own”
+3
Jan 19th, 2012 (6:58 pm)#3
Don’t worry, it’s gonna happen. This CAFE number comes into effect in 2025, 13 years from now. Anybody who can’t figure this out in 13 years doesn’t belong in the car business anyway IMHO. I promise you that in 2025 the price and economic/political realities of oil will be such that anybody who can’t reach the CAFE won’t be able to sell cars.
A $5K increase in the MSRP will seem like a bargain in the face of $6 Or $8 or whatever the price of gas is in 2025. Plus, if you think that we are being held hostage by the likes of Saudi, Iran and Venezuela today, just wait 13 years and see what it’s like.
All credit to GM and the UAW for their support of these CAFE standards.
Jan 19th, 2012 (7:14 pm)Noel Park,
maybe you miss-read…l said l had two german AND two american cars……..
l would love to have a volt but l can’t afford the price…….l spent $1824 on gas last year…how much can l save ?
+1
Jan 19th, 2012 (7:27 pm)OT-
At least 1 of the Chevy Super Bowl Ads is funny:
http://spr.ly/hpgd
Jan 19th, 2012 (8:52 pm)Excepting Volt, and some other $45,000+ American cars, the only reason for buying American would be to get by for what seems like an affordable price. Some day the banks will realize that a 4 or 5 year old European car is just as, or more reliable, than a New American car, and adjust their interest rates accordingly.
Jan 19th, 2012 (10:27 pm)Raymondjram,
Misguided? I think not.
Anyone who buys a product based solely on a ‘Buy American’ mantra may be considered misguided. Competition is healthy and companies who thrive under competition usually benefit in the long run.
The Ford Focus and Fusion are globally engineered cars which are built and sold worldwide. Ford partnered and bought companies (Volvo, Mazda, etc.) which enabled Ford to improve quality, safety, and marketability. Ford is a stronger company because it competes with German brands and maintains strong market share.
When the 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid arrives this year, I will be proud to add it to my inventory. GM needs several class-leading volume products (beyond trucks) to remain viable in the long term. The 2013 Malibu is an example where GM brings and improved car to the market BUT not one that can take market share from the big players in the segment.
+1
Jan 19th, 2012 (11:36 pm)Remember content. Many times, you could find USA-content percentage in a Toyota higher than in a Chrysler or GM. I know when I owned Chryslers, they were usually made in Canada or engines made in Mexico. The Volt’s componentry is just slightly over 50% USA content. Sure wish we made the traction motor and electronics packages in Silicon Valley or Michigan. Of course, an imported Prius is 100% offshore.
I hope we can get our companies moving again. But I also see some serious problems in terms of our working base and students out there. So many have a desire to get onto American Idol and not design the next successful products and services for society. Do we need more Tiger Moms here to make the kids want to have some kind of interest in something other than social media and reality tv shows? Will lethargy and ambivalence toward hard work be our lasting legacy? We just have too much of a lean towards media careers and not enough towards engineering (in my opinion).
Jan 20th, 2012 (12:09 am)GM’s plant for there elctric motor’s for there hybrids and plug in’s will be opening next year.
Jan 20th, 2012 (3:54 am)kdawg,
Too much critics for Nicson. His nuclear program was implemented and over 20% of US electricity generated by nuclear power. Car efficiency grew from 10 MPG to 20 MPG. In contrary others have done nothing. Solar panel???? Straw??? What impact could this have on energy setup?
+1
Jan 20th, 2012 (9:48 am)I can see you’ve done your research. Sorry, but I always thought it was common knowledge that gasoline was more expensive than diesel. Things have changed, but I do know at one time diesel was cheaper.
Jan 21st, 2012 (12:43 pm)kdawg,
My understanding is that there is only so much diesel produced per barrel of oil. Therefore the price of diesel has been increasing because more cars have begun using it, and they can’t just produce more diesel without producing more gas. Therefore a country or continent switching to diesel (as Europe) does not actually save any oil, it just means that you decreased the demand (and thus price) of gas and increased the demand for diesel (and thus price). The fact that diesel gets better mpg is nice, but eventually that energy density advantage will equilibrate with the price premium, which it has. This is why it bothers me that people think diesel is an alternative to gas. Diesel used to be considered a less desirable byproduct of gasoline production because diesel cars were less desirable (for a multitude of reasons that have mostly been addressed in today’s diesel engines). Now in Europe, its the opposite. But someone has to burn the gas that’s being produced at the same time all of that diesel is being made for Europe. Therefore, anything the government does to promote diesel is just going to make it make more expensive due to supply and demand forces, for an overall null effect. The bottom line is that from now on, diesel will probably always stay in tight equilibrium with gasoline prices on a cost/mile basis.
If this understanding is incorrect, someone tell me.