Obama ready to set 35.5 mpg national average

[Angry Dad]

Looks like the "feds" decide either way.

They can't secure and control supplies of energy so they will control the way we use it.

[ndavies]

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 .

WOW, Sorry, you are completely wrong. Your statement even shows how little you know about business in general and the auto industry in paticular.

First the dealerships are privately owned franchises. They are not paid for by the auto companies. They are paid for by the difference between the cost of the vehicle from the manufacturer and the price paid by the customer. The dealership is paid for by about a $1500 gap between the two.

Secondly the profit from a vehicle is the amount of money that you can put in the bank after you have paid all it's development, marketing and build costs. At the moment the big three are losing about $4000 per vehicle sold. Even when the economy was good they were losing money on certain vehicles and making it up by selling pricey trucks. The only company making a profit on cars last year was honda. They made on average $150 per vehicle. So even Honda was losing money on some vehicles sold.

Also small cars can be sold at a loss if you can make up the profit by selling big trucks.

Currently the big three are losing on average $4000 per vehicle sold.

[mjs]

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.

The Prius is your example of Toyota being on the Dole longer than GM? The Prius was funded by the Japanese government in response to Toyota's fears of losing massive market share from being excluded from the $1.4 billion the US Government gave the big three to build electric vehicles. Once the big three had the competitive advantage, instead of supporting a law that would capitalize on it, they used their money to crush the zero emission laws as well as the vehicles themselves. Even Wagoner recognized the mistake and focused on the need for fuel efficient vehicles in GM's line up.

When asked how General Motors found itself in this position — and what mistakes Wagoner personally made to contribute to the company's woes — he talked about the company's slow moves to develop more fuel efficient vehicles such as the electric car.

"The spike up and down in oil prices really got us focused that we need to stay on fuel economy as a day-to-day thing," he said. "It's just a critical requirement. Even if oil prices are lower, we have to stay on it as a long-term objective."

He even told Motor Trend that his worst decision was "Axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids." Yet their supporters continue to fight helpful legislation at every step from more stable gas price [[higher taxes) to a reason to invest in fuel efficiency [[mileage standards) to a way to capitalize on alternative technology leads they claim to have [[alternative fuel vehicles). Financial support to find the solutions, rather than mandates without solutions, was exactly what the government should have done and GM spit in their face.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/1...obs_sales.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...13&ft=1&f=1006
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/01/bu...pagewanted=all

[mjs]

Ford took the Explorer from about 18 mpg in 2006 to 32 mpg in 2009 and people claim the technology challenges mean a fleet average of 35.5 mpg will kill trucks and SUVs? The law does apply to foreign producers the same as American ones; the only way there's a disadvantage to American producers is if they're the least innovative.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/mode..._explorer_2006
http://www.hybridcars.com/make/ford-mpg

[oladub]

from the Freep article: "That bill would grant credits under the “cap-and-trade� program to U.S. automakers that experts estimate could be worth $15 billion to $20 billion."

It wasn't explained in the article if "U.S. automakers" meant Ford, GM, and Chrysler/Fiat or if it also means any auto assembled here by foreign companies. Also, is the "$15 billion to $20 billion" of redistributed new taxes mentioned above in addition to the average price increase of $1,300/vehicle?
'

[Detroitej72]

Here's a my 2cents worth.

I can't believe the myth that people say they will be unsafe in a small car. That is totally false. The reason small cars are more of a danger is because of all the huge SUV's on the road that could crush them. If all cars on the road were smaller, safety wouldn't be a problem.

Now, one problem everyone is missing is that if all cars average, say 35 MPG, yes people will use less gas but you can bet your life that the oil companies will increase the price per gallon. They need to continue their record profits they have enjoyed under oilmen like Bush and Company and less consumption will mean higher prices. So, you can forget about saving money by using less gas.

[mjs]

You assume all future vehicles will run on gas and that the hybrid advances that occur from trying to reach 35 mpg will not improve alternative fuel vehicles.

[Angry Dad]

No matter how you cut it, no matter what bullshit link you post the bottom line is CAFE doesn't save a drip of fuel.

What part of any legislation regulates how far or much you drive?

Since it is none that is the exact same amount of fuel saved.

Now as far being on the dole like Japan is and has been since 1995. The simplest law of economics is that value of a currency or investment is based on return rates. Where will will you put your cash if two banks have different interest rates? The one that pays 5% or more or the one that pays a half percent? Our prime has been cut to an effective zero which means it is below a half percent. The dollar was effectively devalued. Take a guess why. We simply could not sell our goods outside of the states. Japan did the exact same thing in 1995 except they had a trump card. They sat on a massive trade surplus with us. And we have completely irresponsible politicians that know no limits on spending. We paid and pay them our rates on money we borrowed and owe while they exchanged it among themselves at zero rates. Literally they printed cash for nothing off our debts and also lowered the prices on goods they sold us to increase what we owed. Yes we subsidized their growth for 14 years at no cost to them. Now that's being on the dole and you never caught on. Toyota lost more money last quarter than GM and it had nothing to do with sales volume. Our prime caught theirs and the Yen up valued.

Yet you idiots whine about unions and execs, you are so fricking stupid you don't even know who is really screwing you.

[mjs]

No matter how you cut it, no matter what bullshit link you post the bottom line is CAFE doesn't save a drip of fuel.

What part of any legislation regulates how far or much you drive?

Since it is none that is the exact same amount of fuel saved.

You mean to tell me that you believe a guy that traded in his 2006 Ford Explorer for a 2009 Ford Explorer is still buying the same volume of gas every week? If it makes you feel better, I'll state something without an article. I always hear people talk about how long they're willing to drive to get to work, but never how much they're willing to pay. If someone picks 30 minutes as their max drive and thats 22 miles, you can bet the fuel efficiency of their vehicle has a direct affect on the gallons of gas they buy every week.

Gas tax effects price and price effects miles driven and vehicles chosen. Sorry to post more bullshit links, meaning any links, but I like to support my statements with actual facts. http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...33749120080813
[INDENT]The Transportation Department said U.S. motorists drove 12.2 billion fewer miles in June compared to a year earlier, marking the eight month in a row that travel declined in the face of record gas prices as Americans change their driving habits, buy more fuel-efficient cars and switch to public transport.

[darwinism]

Yet you idiots whine about unions and execs, you are so fricking stupid you don't even know who is really screwing you.

Since you are so fricking clever, should we DetroitYes forumers presume that you have the full gameplan and complete solution to get back at the folks who are really screwing us? Do share the details then.

[mjs]

Do you know how many politicians are engineers? I dare say none. . . Yet you want them to make financial and engineering decisions for you?

Very interesting question. It lead me to a fantastic website. Twelve members of the 111th Congress have an Engineering degree and thirty-five more have a degree in Math or Science including our very own John Dingell and Vern Ehlers. Click on a name and it shows their voting records including a section titled Renewable Energy that shows how they voted on different versions of CAFE. Most seemed to support it. Rep. Joe Barton, an engineer, even sponsored HR 6 which created a 35 mpg CAFE by 2020.

http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/111th...grees-by-type/
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...6:@@@D&summ2=m&

[darwinism]

Very interesting question. It lead me to a fantastic website. Twelve members of the 111th Congress have an Engineering degree and thirty-five more have a degree in Math or Science including our very own John Dingell and Vern Ehlers. Click on a name and it shows their voting records including a section titled Renewable Energy that shows how they voted on different versions of CAFE. Most seemed to support it. Rep. Joe Barton, an engineer, even sponsored HR 6 which created a 35 mpg CAFE by 2020.

http://sharp.sefora.org/issues/111th...grees-by-type/
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...6:@@@D&summ2=m&

Fantastic job on backing up your posts with tangible facts, mjs!

There are too many folks here on DetroitYes who spout garbage information that are either heard via rumors, or through other unreliable sources.

In order to be respected and be taken seriously, 2 ways to do it, either:

1) Do the legwork, go to the frontline, get in the trenches and obtain first-hand details.

OR

2) Provide reliable and reputable sources.

[TKshreve]

Instead of demand increased mileage/lower emissions, why not offer significant incentives/tax rebates for people to live close to work? Effectively lowering both fuel consumption and emissions. THAT game plan would make a lot more sense.

Yeah... to you.

[mjs]

Why not do both and increase the gas tax to offset the revenue losses resulting from both? Encouraging innovation helps both the consumers and the manufacturers. And clean air helps the health of everyone and whoever gets stuck with the healthcare costs.

[mjs]

In response to a comment from the Chrysler New thread:

So a company should keep selling a huge money-loser because there are people who'll take the product at the hugely subsidized price? GM lost a ton of money on every EV1. If they sold more they'd lose more. It had limited appeal, serious deficiencies and the proof that it was a dud of a product and of a concept in general is that in the years since the demise of the EV1 no major automaker has seriously pursued the EV market. It was an experiment that showed that EVs weren't commercially viable products.

No, a company shouldn't take a long term loss on a vehicle. I'm saying it wasn't a dud and that GM was trying to kill the technology as other automakers were successfully pursuing electric vehicles, especially the transition vehicles, hybrids. Nobody at GM ever said the EV1 was a dud; they said it cost too much.

I'm saying the EV1, at that time, cost GM $80,000 to produce and they leased it at a $40,000 value and refused to sell it at any price. If they wanted to know if they could make a profit on it, they should have offered it for sale nationwide at a price above $80,000. At that time, they claimed consumers wouldn't want it at that price no matter how much advertising they put into it. Now they claim the Volt will save the company if the government will support them until it gets to market.

Tesla proves Americans will buy an electric vehicle even at $110,000. They expect to see profits in the second half of this year. Their reviews have been fantastic. Even GM has quit with the old excuses that it can't be done yet defeatists keep dragging out that sorry excuse. The quotes in post #54 shows Wagoner thought the excuses were a mistake and this shows GM R&D agrees.

GM R& D Chief Larry "Burns now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: "If we could turn back the hands of time," says Burns, "we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/36484/Page/3

[Angry Dad]

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/05/...equals-26.html

Why are people cheering a standard that they don't understand?

BTW, no way, no how did EV1s cost 80k to build.

But the lessons learned were more about chassis design than anything else.

The Tesla is no breakthrough. Did Telsa design the chassis? No, it's pure Lotus under it all. They took the lightest "crashable" platform and are stuffing a handbuilt battery pack in it with a questionable drivetrain.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Tesla proves Americans will buy an electric vehicle even at $110,000. "

They have?

[Sstashmoo]

It's puzzling why people keep pursuing an electric vehicle. It's a dead end street. They all run into the same obstacle, the battery. The Battery on an electric vehicle is like a gas tank that holds only a few gallons, takes 8 hours to fill, Shrinks by 25% every year and costs $8k to replace every few years. The EV-1 project was a joke and was abandoned because of it.

Not to mention the poor performance. Yes, Tesla's are very fast, but for very short durations.

[mjs]

BTW, no way, no how did EV1s cost 80k to build.

"They cost us well over $80,000 to produce"- Robert Lutz to the LA Times.
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...vive-the-EV1-/
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed....staff-wri.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/sunraycer3.htm
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/11/the-ev...ad-on-arrival/
http://www.ev1.pair.com/charge_acros...html/faqs.html

[mjs]

Sstashmoo, The Roadster goes 244 miles on a charge and the Model S goes 300 miles and offers a 45 minute quick charge. "Even with the demands of charging and discharging the battery pack on a daily basis, the batteries in the Tesla Roadster will give you more than 100,000 miles of peak performance driving. After that point, the battery will see only gradual drops in performance over time. " Americans won't buy enough to keep Tesla in business? They haven't filed for government aid, aren't filing for bankruptcy, and expect to be profitable second half of this year. Poor performance? The reviews are overwhelmingly fantastic. Learn to use google. At the very least, view the Tesla website before commenting on them.
http://www.teslamotors.com/

[Angry Dad]

"They cost us well over $80,000 to produce"- Robert Lutz to the LA Times.
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...vive-the-EV1-/
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed....staff-wri.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/sunraycer3.htm
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/11/the-ev...ad-on-arrival/
http://www.ev1.pair.com/charge_acros...html/faqs.html

Duh,

never said they cost less, they cost a boatload more.

Lessons were learned, you are seeing some of the "development" in "average" cars but no way, no how could the EV1 be built for less than 80k.

[mjs]

The Tesla is no breakthrough.

Hear that GM? You have a R&D Chief knows what he's talking about.

[mjs]

no how could the EV1 be built for less than 80k.

Tesla is selling the Model S for under $50,000. Seriously, look at the website. Since you probably still haven't seen it because you don't want to let the facts interfere with a well held opinion, you may not know what I just did there. It starts at $49,900 so I said under $50,000. Lutz most likely said well over $80,000 because well over $90,000 would have been untrue. Well over $100,000 has a nice ring and further supports his arguments if its true. You said Tesla is no breakthrough, so, according to you, they can't have significantly cheaper technology.

[Angry Dad]

Tesla is selling the Model S for under $50,000. Seriously, look at the website. Since you probably still haven't seen it because you don't want to let the facts interfere with a well held opinion, you may not know what I just did there. It starts at $49,900 so I said under $50,000. Lutz most likely said well over $80,000 because well over $90,000 would have been untrue. Well over $100,000 has a nice ring and further supports his arguments if its true. You said Tesla is no breakthrough, so, according to you, they can't have significantly cheaper technology.

And how many have they delivered?

[[BTW) I know the answer.

[ndavies]

Tesla is selling the Model S for under $50,000. Seriously, look at the website. Since you probably still haven't seen it because you don't want to let the facts interfere with a well held opinion, you may not know what I just did there. It starts at $49,900 so I said under $50,000. Lutz most likely said well over $80,000 because well over $90,000 would have been untrue. Well over $100,000 has a nice ring and further supports his arguments if its true. You said Tesla is no breakthrough, so, according to you, they can't have significantly cheaper technology.

Tesla hasn't built a single S1. They have no idea how much they are going to sell for. If they ever sell. They keep moving the assembly facility around to get better tax credits from the state governments. Many analysts don't believe they are going to survive long enough to build the S1.