Lutz: "Forcing us to alter the fleets to hit some theoretical average won't change what consumers want, or what they'll buy."
After the Energy Security Leadership Council, made up of "prominent U.S. executives and retired military officers," called for a four percent annual increase in CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, Bob Lutz spoke out. He said that the proposal is akin to "fighting the nation's obesity problem by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell garments only in small sizes."
Lutz claims on an Internet posting that the U.S. buying public dictates what the automakers build. American drivers usually prefer vehicles with larger engines, often in vehicles larger than they really require; trucks and SUVs have been a large seller for both American manufacturers and imports. However, many import brands have "credits" stored up from previous years that help them meet the current CAFE requirements that the domestic brands do not posses. The CAFE standards currently peg any given automakers trucks at 20.7 mpg, with cars at 27.5 mpg.
General Motors has been playing a game of catch-up lately with hybrid vehicles, selling far fewer than Toyota, Honda or even their Detroit rival Ford. Additionally, many of the latest vehicles released by the automaker have been SUVs and their new line of trucks -- vehicles which make up the majority of vehicles sold in America. Toyota is poised to release the newest version of their full-size pickup, the Tundra, in the coming year. However, Toyota sells far fewer trucks in America than does General Motors.
Related:
[Source: USAtoday.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tim 12:12PM (12/27/2006)
COW PADDIES: The real reason they object is that ethics aside, every company’s first LEGAL responsibility is to their stockholders. http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm They are not here to “save the planet.” They exist only to make money for their stockholders. In this case the same ones that own BIG OIL. http://internalcombustionbook.com http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/autobloggreen/audiointerviews/edwinblack.mp3
Reply
Tim 3:33PM (12/27/2006)
Liar, liar, your business is on fire! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120100737.html You don’t need no EVs, let the M.F. burn! Why? http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm http://internalcombustionbook.com
Reply
judith 5:52PM (12/27/2006)
For one thing, it puts us, the domestic manufacturers, at odds with the desires of most of our customers, namely larger vehicles.
Reply
Ronald D. 8:45PM (12/27/2006)
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/bv/73civic.htm
"In the early 1970s auto emission standards were being established in North America. American automakers resisted strongly, and complained bitterly that they were being forced to fit expensive catalytic converters and other power-robbing devices to meet these standards.
Honda set to work and came up with a low-pollution engine with three valves per cylinder. They called their system Compound Vortex - Controlled Combustion (CVCC), and when tested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1973, it comfortably met all of the pollution standards without a converter or other add-on hardware.
When American engineers responded by saying that this was easy to do on a small four-cylinder engine, but not on Detroit's large powerplants, Honda's engineers went to work again. They quietly took two 5.7 litre (350 cu in.) Chevrolet V-8s, fitted them with the CVCC system, and proceeded to pass the EPA standards with them."
As an American, these endless streams of excuses from American CEOs is just embarrassing -- always dragging their feet, pointing fingers are everyone else but themselves, and claiming change is impossible. Meanwhile other companies hit the drawing boards and show us up on our own turf, playing by our rules. It's simply embarrassing.
Reply
CM 9:56PM (12/27/2006)
Lutz is pretending that the only way to improve fuel economy is to downsize, and GM simply doesn't know how to make a good small car. From his comments it is clear that GM will not even attempt to improve their milage until forced to - by mandate or by falling sales.
GM could improve milage by reducing weight, adding hybrid technology, even by improved aerodynamics or reducing performance. But that would take some effort and skill. Much easier to just keep pushing the same big gas guzzling SUVs.
Reply
Atul 5:17AM (12/28/2006)
GM gets a bad rap for fuel efficiency even though their full size truck products (which sell in high numbers whether you like it or not) and their mid-sized cars are among the most efficient vehicles of their type. GM uses cylinder deactivation and they were the pioneers in making automatic transmissions as efficient as they are with partially locking torque converters. Keep in mind that most people don't buy subcompact vehicles or hybrids.
GM should have had a strong hybrid by now, but they get no credit for the hybrid buses they produce which help the environment much more than the Priuses that were sold. And the Saturn VUE Green Line gives appreciable fuel savings for a minimal price premium
How about we blame the consumers for their conspicuous consumption of guzzling vehicles? Sure GM and other company's marketing departments had a hand in our taste for SUV's but if GM did not offer them, they wouldn't have money to develop fuel-saving technologies. Also, GM doesn't get governmetn money to do R&D or to pay for healthcare for their employees and they have to deal with manipulated currency from China and Japan.
Reply
motorman 6:15AM (12/28/2006)
i would rather pay more for gasoline than cash in a life insurance policy on a loved one. it was in the press the other day these smaller cars are 2 man coffins.
Reply
John 7:04AM (12/28/2006)
#7 your argument makes about as much sense as the arms race that caused the Cold War to rage for years. Somebody is always going to have a bigger, badder vehicle out there that has the potential to do harm to others. Most of the rest of the world has gotten by very well with smaller cars over the last several decades. How long are we going to keep driving gas guzzling monster vehicles, often just to go a few blocks? What is the price that future generations will pay....or is that of any concern?
Face it, you're going to die one day. Your SUV ain't going to help you in an accident with a semi. Drive carefully, pay attention and you'll cut your chances of a bad accident dramatically just by doing that. There is a myriad of ways one can meet an untimely death. Sacrificing the health and welfare and right to a somewhat healthy planet for future generations just so that your fears can be appeased is terribly short sighted.
Reply
SherbornSean 8:10AM (12/28/2006)
John #8,
While I don't disagree with your argument, I think you'll be repeating it until you're blue in the face to an audience that doesn't want to hear it.
I think we'll be more successful at improving vehicles once we've clarified our objectives and found ways of achieving them while still providing vehicles that meet current requirements.
If what you want is to reduce carbon (warming) and improve the trade deficit, then focus on advocating E85 and biodiesel engines for vehicles as they are currently configured.
If you are part of the coal lobby, then advocate electric vehicles for commuters and PHEVs for others.
If you want people to cut out unnecessary trips, then advocate a tax on fuel usage.
If you want all your neighbors to trade in their Tahoes and F150s for Smart cars, you may need to move to be happy.
Reply
Broudie 9:19AM (12/28/2006)
This is ridiculous. What is the difference between domestic manufacturers like GM who are resisting the proposed CAFE increases vs foreign manufacturers like Toyota who are improving the gas mileage without a government mandate? Well, simple. Manufacturers like Toyota will soon be #1 in global production, while GM and other domestics are losing market share and billions of dollars every month. Obviously, Lutz et. al. do not know what the market wants.
To hell with environment, safety or energy security, GM sucks because it thinks it can replace good product with "Buy American" marketing campaigns.
Reply
Peter G 11:57AM (12/28/2006)
Hey "motorman" how is the sex change working out for you? You posted this exact message as "Sarah" on autoblog.
Reply
motorman 12:29PM (12/28/2006)
i always use motorman you better check back there or someone has stolen my line.
Reply
motorman 12:39PM (12/28/2006)
how come you greens are not after the kennedys,palosi and all the other liberal big wigs who fly in private jets burning 1000s of gallons of fuel per hour. they also ride around DC on big limos or SUVs that they claim is causing global warming. do you know how much energy they waste heating and cooling those 35,000 sq foot compounds they live in and you think i should endanger my family in one of those 2 man coffin's so they can have all the energy they want to burn. you guys are after the wrong person here and when i see babs streisand moving into a 2000 sq foot house to save energy i will think about giving up my impala,silverado and my C-6 corvette.
Reply
Ken 1:01PM (12/28/2006)
#10 Toyota isn't voluntarily increasing their economy any more than GM is. The models they offer in foriegn markets have better economy because that's what sells well overseas. In the US Market Toyota has continued to offer larger and more powerful vehicles. This isn't a slap against Toyota, quite the opposite, they know what the consumer wants and as a business will profit by offering that. GM has some very effecient vehicles in foriegn markets but for the US offers what people want, just like Toyota, unfortunately GM hadn't invested the money until recently of trying to build their brand image as a green one which has become a major selling point of Toyota and Honda. People feel good about buying these cars partially because they think them buying a Ridgeline or Sequoia are helping to finance the developement of Hybrids.
Reply
motorman 4:35PM (12/28/2006)
what no comebacks on post #13 i expected more from you greens than giving up this easily. stand up and fight for your cause
Reply
Broudie 7:14PM (12/28/2006)
#15 no one is commenting on your argument because it is ridiculous. I don't think going after a couple of celebrities and politicians and making them use less gas is in any way more beneficial to making tens of millions of cars use less gas. Its like critisizing the mote in my eye but not noticing the plank in yours.
Also, no one is forcing you or your family to buy smaller cars. Fuel economy can be increased by more efficient engines (like Honda, Toyota, Porsche), efficient transmissions like DSG and CVT, use of lightweight metals like aluminum (like Subaru, Audi, etc), lower coefficient of drag, or by simply using a smaller displacement engine.
Basically, the argument that you're going to be forced into driving smaller cars if CAFE is revised is just a scare tactic.
Do you think that if CAFE is revised, GM will spend billions and billions in making all of their cars smaller? Of course not. If they're too cheap to spend for energy-efficient technologies, why would they spring for complete redesigns of their entire product portfolio? The easiest thing for them to do is to just swap smaller displacement engines in their existing fleet. So you still get to drive your Hummer, but you don't get to race the Mustang at the stop light while you safely transport your kids.
Reply
MikeW 10:22PM (12/28/2006)
Where are the 6 speed automatics? 6T70,75 6L50,80
Impala 3.6V6 & 6t70 & 3.16 axle ratio,
Grand Prix same 3.6/6t70/3.16
Maybe an entry level 2.8V6 & 6t70 & 3.39 axle ratio
Let the 3800 retire
Trailblazer, Envoy, Rainer
The entire Hummer brand.
The chevy equinox 2008 will have a 6 speed automatic and the new 3.6V6
Reply
Derek 8:33PM (12/28/2006)
If GM is so cheap, why are they putting billions into hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, 6 speed transmissions, etc?
Small cars are only unsafe by comparison. Of course small cars lose to a 6000# truck or SUV. Level the playing field and if everyone drove ~3000# cars we would save tons of gas without driving "rolling coffins"...
Reply
uncle john 11:39AM (12/29/2006)
I think the problem with the CAFE requirements is that ALL manufacturers will just build vehicles around the loopholes in the law. The biggest loophole is the "truck". The govt. tried to define the minimum thresholds that define a truck. So now, what we have are vehicles like the Subaru Outback and Volvo XC90 classified as trucks. I think the govt. should just call a spade a spade, and say a truck is a truck: body on frame, 2 or 4 wheel drive propelled by the rear wheels, etc. Then, break that up into 2 classes: 1/2 ton's, w/ a gvw of less than 7500, and less than 1250 lbs of payload, and heavy duty: gvw over 7500, payload over 1250. Obiously, the smaller trucks would be held to a higher economy standard. That way all these CUV's minivans and wagons would be classified as cars. then you could break it down to cars that can carry 5 or less and cars that carry 6 or more! Again, cars that carry less must get higher mpg, and those CUV's would be given some leeway. For arguments sake, those small cars could be required to get 33 mpg, while their larger brethren are given say a 15% break, down to 28. Smaller trucks say,27mpg, while their larger brethren get 24. Can they build around these guidelines, sure! But who would want a Civic w/ a column mounted shifter, no console, and a bench seat up front to make it 6 passenger. Likewise, who would want a 1/2 ton pickup that weighs 6300 lbs dry, just so the 1250 lb payload makes it over 7500 lbs. Could they do it, sure. My whole point is, if they want to raise CAFE, fine, just make it harder for the car companies to get around the limits.
Reply
motorman 9:57AM (1/01/2007)
broudie you think it is alright for the rich and famous to be safe in their cars but the poor people should suck it up and drive those 2 man coffins. you sound like rosie o'donnell who preaches against guns but her body guards carry them in NYC where the average person life is in danger after dark and if they catch the average person with a gun he goes to jail.i bet you believe global warming is a problem even if it will save 1000s of barrels of imported heating oil. you guys will never be happy unless you can bitch about something. i would hate to be in your family where all you do i worry about things you can do nothing about.i need the big engine in my silverado to pull my race car trailer to the race track .i also have snowmobiles and ATVs which we trailer to our place in the mountains where the wife and i enjoy our retirement. i did not work hard all my life to have someone tell me how to live especially the ones that say "do as i say but not as i do". you can drive those 2 man coffins,set your home thermostat to 50 and wear a coat in the house while the rich and famous can have their fuel wasting playtoys while you suffer.
Reply