GM cancels future RWD vehicles
04-12-2007, 03:11 PM
#91
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chirs,
From time to time I've disagreed with your views but I must say you seem to have a very good grasp of the situation here. You are seeing both the good and the bad as well as identifying external and internal GM issues.
Also, as a general note for all the members here, I HIGHLY suggest reading "All Corvettes are Red". It's a great book and gives a lot of insight into what's involved in a new car program. In a very candid way it talks about what was right and wrong with GM during the very long gestation of the C5 Corvette. It also might help people understand why things that seem easy or simple on the surface aren't at all easy in real life.
From time to time I've disagreed with your views but I must say you seem to have a very good grasp of the situation here. You are seeing both the good and the bad as well as identifying external and internal GM issues.
Also, as a general note for all the members here, I HIGHLY suggest reading "All Corvettes are Red". It's a great book and gives a lot of insight into what's involved in a new car program. In a very candid way it talks about what was right and wrong with GM during the very long gestation of the C5 Corvette. It also might help people understand why things that seem easy or simple on the surface aren't at all easy in real life.
04-12-2007, 03:15 PM
#92
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by s2kpdx01,Apr 11 2007, 11:40 AM
Other posters say CAFE already counts SUVs and trucks...so who's right? 
CAFE applies to trucks and SUVs also. The CAFE standard for trucks and SUVs is 22.2 mpg
The average gas mileage of all the cars a manufacturer sells in America must average at least 27.5 mpg, or that manufacturer is fined for every instance of non-compliance. Same for trucks and SUVs, but the average is lowered to 22.2 mpg.
The penalty for not meeting the minimum CAFE standard for cars is...
$5.50 x every 1/10 mile below 27.5 mpg x the number of cars sold.
So if your fleet of 10 million cars is 1 mpg below 27.6 mpg, then your penalty fine is...
$5.50 x 10/10 miles x 10 million cars = $10 million dollars.
Over the past 25 years, car makers have paid almost $600 million in fines.
BMW, DCX (Mercedes anyway) and Porsche all regularly pay the CAFE fines rather than meet the standards. What do they care? They are all "premium" makes and they just pass the cost of the CAFE fines on to the consumer.
FWIW, Asian and Domestic car makers have never had to pay the fine.
There is a "two fleet" rule for cars that treat "domestic" cars and "import" cars differently. A domestic car is any car with at least 75% domestic content. An import is any car with less than 75% domestic content.
So what does this mean? This means that car makers with domestic and imported cars cannot combine their fuel economy to meet the 27.5 mpg CAFE standard. GM's "import" cars as a whole can pass the 27.5 mpg CAFE standard with flying colors, but not one single "import" car counts toward the average fuel economy of the "domestic" cars. If GM builds 5 million domestic cars per year and if they don't meet the 27.5 mpg CAFE standard, then GM must pay the $5.50 fine on every one of those 5 million "domestic" cars.
CAFE just give GM more incentive to build as many big cars, trucks and SUVs in Mexico and China as they possibly can so they can offset these cars and trucks with lower gas mileage against the fuel-efficient Korean, rebadge-Toyotas and Opels, etc. they import from overseas.
There are CAFE credits, but this is only good from year to year. If your fleet has better than 27.5 mpg one year, you can have worse fuel economy for your fleet by the same amount the next and not pay any fine by carrying over those credits year to year. It is likely that companies that historically specialized in small light cars will have lots and lots of CAFE credits to offset any future rise of CAFE standards. GM is pretty much screwed here. I doubt they have any credits to carry forward for their "domestic" cars.
More information about CAFE, here: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm
04-12-2007, 03:41 PM
#94
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by yellow2001,Apr 11 2007, 12:46 PM
that is another dicussion. people need to change what they drive.
One of the blessings of America is that we are FREE to own what we can afford. I agree with you that we need to use less gasoline and find ways to reduce it or substitute for it. It would help for people to voluntarily change what they drive. This is what happens every time gas leaps through the roof. The free market takes care of this all by itself. The reason why there are so many SUVs is because gas hasn't really been very expensive until lately.
For the longest time, gas was less than $2/gallon. If it stayss over $3 a gallon, many people will definitely change what they drive. And I agree that is how it should be, not by CAFE standards dictating what a free people can own and drive. But that is just my opinion.
04-12-2007, 04:28 PM
#95
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Stack,Apr 12 2007, 02:54 PM
It's real money to the people who shop those cars NOW. But what carmakers should be trying to do is lure people who would be buying a moderate-sized SUV, and those people have fistfuls of cash to spend. Look at the "Went SUV shopping" thread, which mentions a $37k SATURN SUV! I mean jeebus this is getting out of hand.
BMW proved with the Mini and 1-series (in Europe) that people will buy a quality, premium small car. And while the Fit isn't quite on the level of the Mini, the fact that there are dealer premiums suggest it isn't the traditional economy car buyer that is buying them. Heck, even the PT Cruiser drew quite a demand for a while.
I think part of GM's problem is they are approaching small cars using your mindset, that the buyers are poor and dont mind a sh!tbox. But in reality, if you build a decent small car (Mini, Fit, etc), you can draw buyers from bigger cars and get some hype and excitement usually reserved for bigger, more expensive models.
BMW proved with the Mini and 1-series (in Europe) that people will buy a quality, premium small car. And while the Fit isn't quite on the level of the Mini, the fact that there are dealer premiums suggest it isn't the traditional economy car buyer that is buying them. Heck, even the PT Cruiser drew quite a demand for a while.
I think part of GM's problem is they are approaching small cars using your mindset, that the buyers are poor and dont mind a sh!tbox. But in reality, if you build a decent small car (Mini, Fit, etc), you can draw buyers from bigger cars and get some hype and excitement usually reserved for bigger, more expensive models.
BMW and Honda I think have definitely shown that building a nice smal car works. SMART and Scion to a lesser extent, but still, the Scion xB was successful, and it's quite low-powered. The xB is quite the darling of the small business owner looking for something cheap that has maximum surface area for advertising.
Chevy's trio of micros from last week I think have real potential. I emailed Chevy telling them to build them, I liked them so much. I'd totally sport that Groove concept with a 1.0 diesel that'll get (total guess) 400-450 miles on a tank.
Now that the 1-series is coming, and the new Mini is out, I think people will really start buying these cars. SMARTs are also becoming a fixture on Phoenix's roads, so even better.
Basically what it comes down to is, even people without money want to drive something that is respectable. The Geos, Isuzus, Suzukis and Tercels of yesteryear will NOT cut it anymore.
04-12-2007, 05:20 PM
#97
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rai,Apr 12 2007, 02:48 PM
no 55 
I didn't say I want CAFE either.
I said, why not make the tax on gas more. Already the tax on gas is something small (federal 18c a gal) lets say you use 1000 gal a year. Married 2000 gal a year that should be a reasonable average to give you 15K to 25K miles driving or married 30K to 50K miles (depending on fuel efficency).
we're talking about $180 per year for gas tax. That's nothing, I pay that much tax every day (income tax).
The gas tax does not pay for the roads we drive on let alone national defence (protect the oil around the world). My income tax is being used for national defense and roade etc..
The rest of the world (Japan, Europe etc.) tax the gas so people use far less, they buy more fuel efficent cars.
You saw the hysteria post Kitrina when gas was $3.50+ and people were looking to buy Prius and Fits etc..
GM doesn't want to be forced to sell high mileage cars (CAFE), and GM doesn't want people to want high mileage cars b/c they can't make them (what I mean is GM doesn't want the market to shift towards high mileage cars because they will shift more towards Honda and Toyota than they already are).
NOTE: Honda and Toyota have grubed at the low mileage cars and trucks such as the Ridgline, MDX, Land Cruiser, FJ Cruiser (etc...) that's the easy plumb when gas is cheap. But they are not dependent on that segment. GM would not exist if people stopped buying 5000+ pound trucks and SUVs.
I'd rather have $4.50 or $5.0 a gal gas, the extra gas tax could be used to lower the federal income tax rate or pay for medicare or other severly under funded programs.
Even if gas tax was $1.50 a gal instead of 18c a gal, I'd be paying just $1500 per year or $3000 per year tax. Wouldn't bother me a bit, but for sure there would be many people going into smaller cars or living closer to work. Which would drive down the demand for oil, would drive down the price for oil and lower our trade deficet, bitch slap Saudi and Iran (all the oil exporters whu hate us anyway) Supply and demand if the demand goes down they lower the price, and sell less they can't do anything else with the oil, they can't eat it.
There is so much upside to raising the gas tax. But no doubt GM/Ford and UAW lobby would pitch a fit.
I didn't say I want CAFE either.
I said, why not make the tax on gas more. Already the tax on gas is something small (federal 18c a gal) lets say you use 1000 gal a year. Married 2000 gal a year that should be a reasonable average to give you 15K to 25K miles driving or married 30K to 50K miles (depending on fuel efficency).
we're talking about $180 per year for gas tax. That's nothing, I pay that much tax every day (income tax).
The gas tax does not pay for the roads we drive on let alone national defence (protect the oil around the world). My income tax is being used for national defense and roade etc..
The rest of the world (Japan, Europe etc.) tax the gas so people use far less, they buy more fuel efficent cars.
You saw the hysteria post Kitrina when gas was $3.50+ and people were looking to buy Prius and Fits etc..
GM doesn't want to be forced to sell high mileage cars (CAFE), and GM doesn't want people to want high mileage cars b/c they can't make them (what I mean is GM doesn't want the market to shift towards high mileage cars because they will shift more towards Honda and Toyota than they already are).
NOTE: Honda and Toyota have grubed at the low mileage cars and trucks such as the Ridgline, MDX, Land Cruiser, FJ Cruiser (etc...) that's the easy plumb when gas is cheap. But they are not dependent on that segment. GM would not exist if people stopped buying 5000+ pound trucks and SUVs.
I'd rather have $4.50 or $5.0 a gal gas, the extra gas tax could be used to lower the federal income tax rate or pay for medicare or other severly under funded programs.
Even if gas tax was $1.50 a gal instead of 18c a gal, I'd be paying just $1500 per year or $3000 per year tax. Wouldn't bother me a bit, but for sure there would be many people going into smaller cars or living closer to work. Which would drive down the demand for oil, would drive down the price for oil and lower our trade deficet, bitch slap Saudi and Iran (all the oil exporters whu hate us anyway) Supply and demand if the demand goes down they lower the price, and sell less they can't do anything else with the oil, they can't eat it.
There is so much upside to raising the gas tax. But no doubt GM/Ford and UAW lobby would pitch a fit.
04-12-2007, 05:52 PM
#98
Registered User
Originally Posted by candyass,Apr 12 2007, 05:20 PM
You pay 65K a year in income taxes?
yes.
the federal tax system is a punitive system where top earners pay most of the income tax.
NOTE: I'm talking about income tax, this is different than payroll tax which everybody pays the same percentage (payroll meaning SS tax and medicare tax).
This is a bit old statistic but to the point:-->>click
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes
The top 10% pay 64.89%
The top 25% pay 82.9%
The top 50% pay 96.03%
The top 10% pay 64.89%
The top 25% pay 82.9%
The top 50% pay 96.03%
04-12-2007, 05:56 PM
#99
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, whoever thinks there is not a global warming problem is completly missinformed. I recommend everyone to go out and watch "An inconvient truth". That'll set things straight and show you the true facts, not the BS...
Interesting that you'd say that about a movie made by politician. There are many scientists that will argue 'till they are blue about what load of BS 'inconvenient truth' is (and how it has political motives, and not environmenetal ones). Wouldn't it be funny if they just happen to be right, but the gvts still go ahead with trying to limit CO2 gass emissions, only to make zero difference to the environment, or even worse - harm it.
Afterall, there can be no plant-life without CO2. Also there are many scientists that can show that there is no relation between global warming and CO2 emissions. Actually, what they can show is that CO2 emissions are on the raise because of global warming, not vice versa. Also, the majority of CO2 is produced by watter evaporation and mammals/people breathing (ie. exhaling) ... cars/vehicle make almost no difference to CO2 emissions. Even if we stopped all car/vehicles now, there'd be only a measly 2 - 4% drop in CO2 emissions. Power stations are responsible for the bulk of CO2 emissions that human-kind can take credit for.
Have a look at the following article ... I'm sure that it'll rub many people here the wrong way, but does that make it any less accurate? Just scroll down to the '9 facts' if you want the abreviated version and don't have a few hours to read the whole lot:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/article...sninefacts.html
ps.
Also I always find it funny how majority of people focus on fuel 'consumption over distance' so much. What's the point ... why not just address the issues of fuel consumption full stop? Afterall, if you drive a 30m/g vehicle and happen to travel 20,000miles per year then you're 'wasting' a lot more fuel that someone who drives a 15m/g vehicle, but only drives 7,000miles/year. So who is using more petrol now?
So you could have someone who thinks that they are 'environment friendly' because they drive a Prius and get 40m/g, and they frown uppon the Viper driver who gets 20m/g. Though, the Prius driver may travel 30,000miles/year, while the Viper driver travels a measly 5,000miles. Who is the 'environment hooligan' now?
Interesting that you'd say that about a movie made by politician. There are many scientists that will argue 'till they are blue about what load of BS 'inconvenient truth' is (and how it has political motives, and not environmenetal ones). Wouldn't it be funny if they just happen to be right, but the gvts still go ahead with trying to limit CO2 gass emissions, only to make zero difference to the environment, or even worse - harm it.
Afterall, there can be no plant-life without CO2. Also there are many scientists that can show that there is no relation between global warming and CO2 emissions. Actually, what they can show is that CO2 emissions are on the raise because of global warming, not vice versa. Also, the majority of CO2 is produced by watter evaporation and mammals/people breathing (ie. exhaling) ... cars/vehicle make almost no difference to CO2 emissions. Even if we stopped all car/vehicles now, there'd be only a measly 2 - 4% drop in CO2 emissions. Power stations are responsible for the bulk of CO2 emissions that human-kind can take credit for.
Have a look at the following article ... I'm sure that it'll rub many people here the wrong way, but does that make it any less accurate? Just scroll down to the '9 facts' if you want the abreviated version and don't have a few hours to read the whole lot:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/article...sninefacts.html
ps.
Also I always find it funny how majority of people focus on fuel 'consumption over distance' so much. What's the point ... why not just address the issues of fuel consumption full stop? Afterall, if you drive a 30m/g vehicle and happen to travel 20,000miles per year then you're 'wasting' a lot more fuel that someone who drives a 15m/g vehicle, but only drives 7,000miles/year. So who is using more petrol now?
So you could have someone who thinks that they are 'environment friendly' because they drive a Prius and get 40m/g, and they frown uppon the Viper driver who gets 20m/g. Though, the Prius driver may travel 30,000miles/year, while the Viper driver travels a measly 5,000miles. Who is the 'environment hooligan' now?
04-12-2007, 07:33 PM
#100
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ i agree.
It's kind of the height of idiocy to insist people drive high mpg vehicles, but continue to build communities that require excessive driving. If you are going to criticize someone for diving a gas hog, you better have your own yearly mileage down to nothing, IMHO.
We'd be better off in the long run to stop worrying so much about how much gas each car burns in a given mile, and start worrying why it is necessary for people to drive 50 miles a day.
Since most of the energy consumed in the world is for heating and cooling our buildings, it might be wise to put more effort into developing technology that increases efficiency in power generation and insulation than in vehicle motivation. But that's just me
It's kind of the height of idiocy to insist people drive high mpg vehicles, but continue to build communities that require excessive driving. If you are going to criticize someone for diving a gas hog, you better have your own yearly mileage down to nothing, IMHO.
We'd be better off in the long run to stop worrying so much about how much gas each car burns in a given mile, and start worrying why it is necessary for people to drive 50 miles a day.
Since most of the energy consumed in the world is for heating and cooling our buildings, it might be wise to put more effort into developing technology that increases efficiency in power generation and insulation than in vehicle motivation. But that's just me