Obama ready to set 35.5 mpg national average

[East Detroit]

I suppose this is why Toyota and Mitsubshi as well as every euro auto company is in the same boat as the US industry? Toyota lost more money last quarter than GM. If GM is on its last legs, what does this say about its chief competitor in the world market?

Don't forget to mention that Toyota is and has been getting government bailout money [[not to mention their free R&D money), as well. Of course that would be the Japanese government who appreciates them bringing the profits home.

[ghettopalmetto]

Detroitplanner, SuperSport, and East Detroit, you're all using a disingenuous argument. Automakers worldwide are hurting now because we're in a [[drumroll) GLOBAL RECESSION. Get out your yardstick, and tell me what the financial picture of GM and Chrysler looked like before October 2008, vis-a-vis your Hondas, Toyotas, and Volkswagens of the world.

Now tell me that had nothing to do with clinging to the ridiculous and romantic notion that we all "need" rolling barges when gasoline costs $4/gallon.

[ndavies]

Who the hell are you to decide what other people need?

[darwinism]

You all know we're talking about FLEET averages, right? Yeah, didn't think so.

Can we dispense with the fear-mongering? The automakers aren't exactly in any kind of shape to be dictating policy. They can't even run their own businesses, yet suddenly we *know* that improved fuel economy is a bad idea? The automakers already make higher mpg European models. This isn't brand new, folks.

Man, look at all those European and Japanese automakers and how poorly they're doing with their higher mpgs. It's a wonder they're able to remain in business, what with all the crashes and people dying they have all the time.

Ditto! Do some of you self-elected "automotive experts" even know what you're talking about on a global international multi-national scale, such as the environment GM, Chrysler and Ford is in?

ghettopalmetto is correct. I can personally attest to the fact that Ford itself, already has a series of car models in European, Asian, Australian markets that are very fuel-efficient and easily top the 35.5 mpg requirement. No problem there. The actual problem is in bringing those model lines within our coasts.

[ghettopalmetto]

Who the hell are you to decide what other people need?

So you're saying that in the early 1990s, people suddenly started carrying more shit in their vehicles? There is such a thing as renting a car or a truck for a day, if you really need to do so. Hell, I've been moving once every year or two. I don't go out and buy a 26-foot UHaul to put in the driveway.

Who are the automakers to decide that I need nothing less than a fully-armed assault vehicle? Where were the quality high-mileage cars for people who wanted them in the 1990s and early 2000s?

[Linda from Detroit]

I had a little 93 Ford Escort wagon that got 30 mpg with mostly highway driving and it was a great little car. Finally had to get rid of it at 300,000+ miles because the bottom was rusting out. Knowing how great that car was I wouldn't think it would be all that difficult to hit the target.

[ndavies]

Ditto! Do some of you self-elected "automotive experts" even know what you're talking about on a global international multi-national scale, such as the environment GM, Chrysler and Ford is in?

ghettopalmetto is correct. I can personally attest to the fact that Ford itself, already has a series of car models in European, Asian, Australian markets that are very fuel-efficient and easily top the 35.5 mpg requirement. No problem there. The actual problem is in bringing those model lines within our coasts.

The problem isn't getting them here. The problem is getting americans to pay for them. Why buy and expensive little car when I can buy a much bigger vehicle for the same price?

[ghettopalmetto]

The problem isn't getting them here. The problem is getting americans to pay for them. Why buy and expensive little car when I can buy a much bigger vehicle for the same price?

You can't get Americans to pay for them if you don't make them available for sale.

What you're saying is equivalent to saying "Detroiters don't like to take the subway to work."

[mwilbert]

These standards would be hard to meet fleet-wide at current gas prices, because they don't match up with current consumer preferences. However, by 2016 it is probable that fuel prices will be much higher, and if so I don't expect there will be much of a problem.

[DetroitPlanner]

Detroitplanner, SuperSport, and East Detroit, you're all using a disingenuous argument. Automakers worldwide are hurting now because we're in a [[drumroll) GLOBAL RECESSION. Get out your yardstick, and tell me what the financial picture of GM and Chrysler looked like before October 2008, vis-a-vis your Hondas, Toyotas, and Volkswagens of the world.

Now tell me that had nothing to do with clinging to the ridiculous and romantic notion that we all "need" rolling barges when gasoline costs $4/gallon.

Toyota Landcruiser gets 13 mpg, VW Toureg gets 15, and Honda Ridgeline 14 mpg. The real issue is how much and how we use the cars. Want to use less energy, reduce pollution, and solve congestion? Live close to work! It makes transit the more viable option, and if you drive, you use less energy! Public Policy shaped by California's poor land use decisions is not what this country needs to solve problems. California is the land of the 50 mile commute to work. It is the reason why they have the inversions.

[ndavies]

So you're saying that in the early 1990s, people suddenly started carrying more shit in their vehicles? There is such a thing as renting a car or a truck for a day, if you really need to do so. Hell, I've been moving once every year or two. I don't go out and buy a 26-foot UHaul to put in the driveway.

Who are the automakers to decide that I need nothing less than a fully-armed assault vehicle? Where were the quality high-mileage cars for people who wanted them in the 1990s and early 2000s?

The automakes didn't decide what the consumer needs, the buying public did. Smaller vehicles have always been offered. People just weren't satisfied with a small car.

The cars were there. Nobody was buying them. Where did the Geo metro, the Ford Fiesta or the Dodge Neon disappear too. Where did all the mini pickup truck that used to own the roads in the 70's and 80's go? Why did Toyota's Tundra just go through a huge upsize to better compete against US manufacturer's pickup trucks?

None of these smaller cars sold in large enough volume to allow the manufacturers to recoup their development costs. Product lines need to sell to allow for the future products to be designed. No manufacturer in the world is going to dump money into a product that isn't selling.

Why should an automaker build a car that sat on his lot for months and only made $100 on, when he can build a truck, have it fly off the lot and make at least $3500 a unit in profit. The american public chose the kind of vehicle they wanted and that's exactly what they got.

[ghettopalmetto]

Toyota Landcruiser gets 13 mpg, VW Toureg gets 15, and Honda Ridgeline 14 mpg. The real issue is how much and how we use the cars. Want to use less energy, reduce pollution, and solve congestion? Live close to work! It makes transit the more viable option, and if you drive, you use less energy! Public Policy shaped by California's poor land use decisions is not what this country needs to solve problems. California is the land of the 50 mile commute to work. It is the reason why they have the inversions.

I don't disagree with you. Not one bit.

Ndavies, the Geo Metro, Ford Fiesta, and Dodge Neon disappeared because they were chunks of shit.

My point is this: In 2008, the top ten selling vehicles in the United States were:

10. Honda CR-V
9. Dodge Ram
8. Chevy Impala
7. Nissan Altima
6. Honda Civic
5. Toyota Corolla
4. Honda Accord
3. Toyota Camry
2. Chevy Silverado
1. Ford F-150


SIX out of the top ten vehicles were passenger cars. What was that about everyone wanting to drive enormous trucks? It is presumed that 3 of the 4 trucks in the top ten [[all but the Honda CR-V) will see heavy usage in business-owned fleets or occupational use, such as building contractors.

Of the six passenger cars in the list, only ONE is American. Why is this? Is it because everyone is waiting for the price of gasoline to fall so they can buy a Lincoln Navigator? Or is it, perhaps, an issue of quality, real or perceived?

[darwinism]

The problem isn't getting them here. The problem is getting americans to pay for them. Why buy an expensive little car when I can buy a much bigger vehicle for the same price?

Exactly! The pricing games must stop. A compact, or even mid-size sedan, should be priced accordingly. It should NOT be priced near an SUV, or a cross-over.

Why would anyone with a sound mind buy a little car when they can buy a bigger vehicle for the same price? I agree with you there, ndavies.

[ghettopalmetto]

Why would anyone with a sound mind buy a little car when they can buy a bigger vehicle for the same price? I agree with you there, ndavies.

I can think of three:

1. Want to get better gas mileage and pay less for gas
2. Want to pay less for insurance
3. Don't want to have to park a tank everytime they go somewhere.

And the wild card:

The smaller vehicle might be of better quality. That might be why you see more BMWs and Mercedes on the road than Ford F-350s.

[otter]

Ray,

Not so hard!

http://thenehrings.com/funny/Car%20l...%20plywood.jpg



O.

[rb336]

Ndavies, the Geo Metro, Ford Fiesta, and Dodge Neon disappeared because they were chunks of shit.

no, the Ford Fiesta was a great little car. I owned one and drove the daylights out of it [[even off-road) and never had a single thing go wrong with it. I know many others with similar experiences. That is why it has survived in Europe for 30+ years

[ndavies]

Exactly! The pricing games must stop. A compact, or even mid-size sedan, should be priced accordingly. It should NOT be priced near an SUV, or a cross-over.

Why would anyone with a sound mind buy a little car when they can buy a bigger vehicle for the same price? I agree with you there, ndavies.

Unfortunately they are not pricing games. They are market realities. A small car costs almost the same to build as a big car. The difference in cost of raw materials is dwarfed by the marketing, development and labor costs. That's why an SUV in a functioning market has a huge profit marging compared to a small car. they both cost he same to develop market and build. The only difference is the tiny cost difference in materials. The consumer is just more willing to pay for the larger vehicle than the tiny shitbox.

[ndavies]

I don't disagree with you. Not one bit.

Ndavies, the Geo Metro, Ford Fiesta, and Dodge Neon disappeared because they were chunks of shit.

My point is this: In 2008, the top ten selling vehicles in the United States were:

10. Honda CR-V
9. Dodge Ram
8. Chevy Impala
7. Nissan Altima
6. Honda Civic
5. Toyota Corolla
4. Honda Accord
3. Toyota Camry
2. Chevy Silverado
1. Ford F-150


SIX out of the top ten vehicles were passenger cars. What was that about everyone wanting to drive enormous trucks? It is presumed that 3 of the 4 trucks in the top ten [[all but the Honda CR-V) will see heavy usage in business-owned fleets or occupational use, such as building contractors.

Of the six passenger cars in the list, only ONE is American. Why is this? Is it because everyone is waiting for the price of gasoline to fall so they can buy a Lincoln Navigator? Or is it, perhaps, an issue of quality, real or perceived?

Don't you think the american manufacturers would have improved all of those little cars if they thought they would sell. At the time those cars were on the market their competition was not selling either.

And your best selling list is only a tiny snapshot of top 10 sales. This doesn't have the history of the 15 years that led us to this place. and if you haven't noticed 1/3 of your top ten list is dominated by pickup trucks. Also the list is by brand, if you totaled up the various versions of the american vehicles they would appear on the list. Just like GM always outsells Ford in pickups but always ends up below Ford on the list. GM sells them under 2 nameplates, GMC and Chevy. Ford only sells pickups under the Ford brand.

[otter]

Darwinism'c comment about small cars is a common sentiment in the US, and a large part of why small cars have occupied a relatively small part of the market. Not all markets think the same way about small cars, though, nor are small cars always associated with low price as they are here.

As far as the Metro, Fiesta and Neon go, the neon was replaced by the Caliber, which was not quite a direct replacement but took its place in the lineup and was at more or less the same price point. The Fiesta was too close to the Escort and the market wouldn't support both. As for Ndavies' comment about those cars, they are gone but there are plenty of small car choices available now - Fit, Yaris, Aveo, Fiesta [[soon), Versa, the small Scions and maybe a couple I'm forgetting.

As for another poster's comment about higher CAFE requirements somehow inevitably resulting in us all driving really small 'deathtraps' with no power, this is an old warhorse that has been around for years and hasn't been true yet. Remember that in the late 70s and early 80s even something big and comparatively powerful like, say, a Caprice, was only about a 10-11 second car 0-60, performance that is considered quite slow today.

O.

[jiminnm]

http://freep.com/article/20090518/NE...a+game-changer


This is great news! It's not nearly enough, but it's definitely a great start and a fantastic turnaround from the Bush administration. I understand this puts another strain on the auto industry, but accountability for the environment is a must, and needs to be top priority - without a healthy environment, then we have nothing at all, so what's more important?

I'm excited to see the affects of this taking place, I'm constantly dissappointed with the mpg which the cars that are being released recently have. Plus, less of the nasty gasoline smell I have to smell when I'm walking around the city.

My only concern is that once 2016 hits, they won't have the next level which we need to reach, I'm worried that the politicians will become fat and happy once again and not enact even stricter regulations. 35.5 is a great short term goal, but it's certainly not the end.

Don't worry, you'll get your wish. I hope you can still afford to own and drive a car then.

It's currently estimated that the new standards will add $1,300 to new car prices [[which is probably low). If the standards are successful, gasoline consumption will drop. That will, of course, reduce gas tax revenues to the feds and the states. So, I expect both of those will go up. It could even reduce sales tax revenue sufficiently to require states to increase that.

GM and Chrysler now owe their continued existence to the Feds, so they'll build whatever the Feds tell them to. I'm not sure about Ford, but if they can produce a few gas misers, they stand to make a lot of money from larger vehicles.

[Angry Dad]

I don't disagree with you. Not one bit.

Ndavies, the Geo Metro, Ford Fiesta, and Dodge Neon disappeared because they were chunks of shit.

My point is this: In 2008, the top ten selling vehicles in the United States were:

10. Honda CR-V
9. Dodge Ram
8. Chevy Impala
7. Nissan Altima
6. Honda Civic
5. Toyota Corolla
4. Honda Accord
3. Toyota Camry
2. Chevy Silverado
1. Ford F-150


SIX out of the top ten vehicles were passenger cars. What was that about everyone wanting to drive enormous trucks? It is presumed that 3 of the 4 trucks in the top ten [[all but the Honda CR-V) will see heavy usage in business-owned fleets or occupational use, such as building contractors.

Of the six passenger cars in the list, only ONE is American. Why is this? Is it because everyone is waiting for the price of gasoline to fall so they can buy a Lincoln Navigator? Or is it, perhaps, an issue of quality, real or perceived?

No, all the Japanese large trucks are garbage. Hell, Toyota is buying back 5 years worth of Tacomas and now the same problem is showing up on Tundras, the frame rusts out. No lie, they are working OT scraping these deathtraps.

In a backwards way you've pointed out the failure of any legislation. Almost half the sales of vehicles are trucks. And if you haven't noticed, the standards are "easier" than they are for cars.

[Angry Dad]

GM and Chrysler now owe their continued existence to the Feds, so they'll build whatever the Feds tell them to. I'm not sure about Ford, but if they can produce a few gas misers, they stand to make a lot of money from larger vehicles.

Don't kid yourself, Toyota, Honda and Nissan have been on the dole longer and harder than GM & Chrysler. The pace car for the smug generation, the Prius was funded the Japanese government. And don't get started about currency manipulation because anybody that digests the numbers will agree it's been a long term game played by Japan. And you've been paying whether you want to or not.

[softailrider]

The automakes didn't decide what the consumer needs, the buying public did. Smaller vehicles have always been offered. People just weren't satisfied with a small car.

The cars were there. Nobody was buying them. Where did the Geo metro, the Ford Fiesta or the Dodge Neon disappear too. Where did all the mini pickup truck that used to own the roads in the 70's and 80's go? Why did Toyota's Tundra just go through a huge upsize to better compete against US manufacturer's pickup trucks?

None of these smaller cars sold in large enough volume to allow the manufacturers to recoup their development costs. Product lines need to sell to allow for the future products to be designed. No manufacturer in the world is going to dump money into a product that isn't selling.

Why should an automaker build a car that sat on his lot for months and only made $100 on, when he can build a truck, have it fly off the lot and make at least $3500 a unit in profit. The american public chose the kind of vehicle they wanted and that's exactly what they got.

They make way more then 100.00 on whatever vehicle they sell, if you think you can run a business as complex as an automobile dealership, with that kind of overhead and make 100.00 on a sale you're kidding yourself .

[ghettopalmetto]

Okay, got it.

So what we'll do is let the Big Three continue to build nothing other than trucks and SUVs, because "that's what people want". And somehow, magically, they'll start to make money again. Lord knows Honda and Toyota and Nissan never made a damned dime selling passenger cars with high fuel economy in the U.S.

If anyone says anything different, we'll just tell they they know nothing, that they hate America and Detroit, and how dare they try to change a business model that works so well.

[jiminnm]

Don't kid yourself, Toyota, Honda and Nissan have been on the dole longer and harder than GM & Chrysler. The pace car for the smug generation, the Prius was funded the Japanese government. And don't get started about currency manipulation because anybody that digests the numbers will agree it's been a long term game played by Japan. And you've been paying whether you want to or not.

Even if true, this is irrelevant to the point I made [[unless you're going to argue that the Japanese government is telling those companies which cars to make).

I am concerned about what is going on with our government, and our federal government has put itself in the position to dictate what kind of car GM and Chrysler will manufacture. If folks don't buy them, then the Feds will use CAFE to force us to buy them. Ford is the only one of the three that has a chance to succeed in the market against other manufacturers.