Big 3 dealers scared of the new CAFE standards
As our readers surely know, the Senate passed a bill a while back that would require a CAFE of 35 mpg, which is being fiercely opposed by the car-industry lobbies. It seems that these initiatives are making more people nervous: in a recent survey by Automotive News, dealers who sell Detroit's Big Three showed their concerns about the future CAFE standards: It would hurt their sales.
The survey, taken by 698 auto dealers, 374 of them selling US brands shows that 76 percent of them affirmed that higher CAFE standards would hurt sales. On the opposite side, the 117 selling Japanese brands, 70 percent said that it would be good for them.
According to sales activities, 83 percent of Japan 3 dealers are ordering more small cars, compared to 63 percent for domestic brands. And SUVs oders are also down, although the decrease is lower for Japanese brands as well. An interviewed dealer affirmed that people who still SUVs and trucks need them and will keep on buying them so sales might be unlikely to plummet.
It finally raises this question: Has the American auto industry relied too much into SUVs and trucks?
Related:
[Source: Automotive News (subs. req'd)]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sean McDonald 7:28PM (2/02/2009)
Green Eco Tek LLC.
570 Central Ave. Bldg. G
Lake Elsinore California 92530
Subject: Café Standards
Date: 1-29-2008
Dear Mrs. Jackson,
The President's press secretary discussed the CAFE standards this week at a press conference:
"The actions that the President took today put us on the path when we realize a fuel efficiency standard of 35 miles to the gallon -- it's 27.5 now -- 35 miles to the gallon will constitute a savings of 2 million barrels of oil a day, which is roughly comparable to the amount of oil that we import each day from the Persian Gulf."
The President's press secretary further stated:
"I think what ultimately we'll come up with is something that moves along the twin goals of ensuring a strong manufacturing sector while at the same time ensuring that we take the necessary steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
We agree with the President Obama. We have a solution that will make this a reality today and we will not have to wait until 2011 to breathe clean air or reduce our fuel costs. Our patented bio-friendly fuel additive Omstar D-1280X has been extensively tested by CARB and EPA- accredited labs over the last 22 years. Omstar D-1280X is compatible with all fuels and can reduce fuel consumption by 22% on average while also reducing emissions across the board by 52% (GHG reductions between 6-8 percent) for all vehicles. LAX Shuttle Service tested D-1280X for 4 years, and 8,000,000 miles, showing an 89% reduction in smoke opacity (PM), and 15% increase in Mpg.
The Port of LA tested D-1280X on a ship from APL. The results showed a substantial decrease in stack emissions (ash), shorter engine recovery time (74% faster, meaning more usable horsepower), reduced engine heat (46%), and 63% reduction in smoke opacity. APL had got an award for their clean air initiatives from the City of Los Angeles. The US Marine Corps tested D-1280X on heavy diesel support fleet, showing a 77% reduction in black smoke, and a 69% increase in mpg. South Coast AQMD & E.W Saybolt, tested D-1280X, and showed that it is 99.99976% ashless upon combustion, and free from toxic residues and metals.
Let not stop with vehicles and trucks and use Omstar D-1280X for motorcycles, off-road vehicles, trains, construction equipment, ships and airplanes as well. Our additive should be mandatory in all fuel used in the USA. Saving $150,000,000,000.00 in oil imports is 20% of our yearly consumption and we can achieve that by simply putting Omstar D-1280X in the fuel. The money saved can be spent on renewable energy investments, such as wind, and solar.
The Big Three automakers are in trouble and can ill afford this financial burden alone, and do not need to re-invent the automobile as we know it, when cheaper, more effective, simple and immediate solution like D-1280X exists now, with an ROI for the government and consumers. While the oil companies might disagree, reformulating the fuel (hopefully with our additive) is a vital part of the solution. We have waited 22 years to be heard and would like your support in achieving our objective to reduce our foreign dependence on oil while also reducing our emissions and costs.
Please consider what we have stated in this letter as it would be a travesty to ask the automakers to achieve this new Café Standard without first making sure the fuel is optimized to get the best fuel economy. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sean McDonald
President
Phone: (951) 259-5169
www.greenecotek.com
Reply
Chris M 10:28PM (2/02/2009)
Why do I get the feeling that this belongs in the same category as "magnetic fuel line gas savers", "gas booster pills", and other bogus fuel economy boosters?
Oh, yes, it is the extravagant claims and unverifiable testimonials, and the evasiveness in how it is supposed to work. Did "the Port of LA" and "the US Marine Corp" really test the product as claimed? Where are the independent reports from those agencies that supposedly benefited from the product? All we have is your claims, sorry, with so many scams out there that isn't enough.
Sean McDonald 1:03AM (2/03/2009)
We stand by our claims. 22 years of testing is more any other additive on the planet. The tests were performed by EPA-CARB accredited labs. Look at the test data. I use it in a Toyota Tundra and get 80-100 mpg more per tankful. I used to get 13mpg and now get 18mpg. I get 4-5 fillups per month. That amounts to 400-500 extra miles per month for 10oz of Omstar. D-1280x That is a conservative saving of more than 30 gallons of gas each month. That is 30 gallons that was not used and 30 gallons that caused no pollution. They use certified gas when they are running tests to determine the mileage on the cars we all buy. That gas has very little to do with the gas sold at your local station. If I buy gas in Arizona I will get better mileage than the gas I buy in California. Why? We need a national gas standard and the government needs to ensure that the gas we buy is optimum and reduces pollution. I stand by my statement I will put our additive up against all the other additives sold. We have test data, what do you have? You are naive if you think the oil companies are producing fuels that will get us the best fule economy or have the least emissions. Who do you work for and what do you sell? We plan on taking this issue to Congress. Our auto makers cannot share this burden alone.
Sean McDonald 12:06PM (2/03/2009)
Further Proof that inproved fuel quality improves MPG:
The report, Fuel Quality in Canada: Impact on Tailpipe Emissions, identifies opportunities to improve fuel quality, investigates fuel quality characteristics, and examines the effects of fuel on the performance of motor vehicles.
“One year ago, the federal government announced it would be setting aggressive standards for vehicle manufacturers by regulating fuel consumption of new motor vehicles,” White said. “The reality is improved fuel quality can assist vehicle manufacturers to better meet fuel consumption targets, and will further improve the emissions of the 18 million vehicles on the road today.”
The report said that “lean-burn” engine technologies could result in fuel economy improvements of up to 15 per cent, but gasoline currently contains too much sulphur, and Canadians are not experiencing the economic and environmental benefits of these technologies. It further said that several international jurisdictions have already recognized fuel quality as a critical pillar in emissions and fuel consumption reduction strategies, including the European Union, Australia and Japan, but identifies Canada has having amongst the fewest mandatory requirements for fuel quality, combined with weak monitoring and enforcement practices.
However, in a separate release, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI) criticized the report, saying that Canadians enjoy some of the highest fuel quality choices in the world, and that the report is selective in the data used to support the conclusions, and is biased and subjective in its proposed approach to emissions standards.
“This report unfairly casts doubt on the good work of fuel providers, public servants and the cooperation mechanisms already in place with automakers,” said CPPI president Peter Boag. “CPPI has in place collaborative processes specifically to ensure that automakers, fuel providers and government are working together in the interest of Canadians. If I follow the logic of the AIAMC paper, what’s good for Australia is good for Canada, and on a January winter morning, Australia is clearly not Canada.”
mikeinBuilding7 5:43PM (7/11/2007)
Sales won't be down because of CAFE standards.
CAFE standards will save the Auto Industry, if it puts out fuel efficient product to meet those standards.
Nobody needs a 300 hp SUV. Just 4 years ago SUV's "Only" had 200hp, and you could get minivans with smaller engines.
This is PURE BS from the Auto Industry.
Reply
small-wee-wee 6:14PM (7/11/2007)
Mike,
You are right. I certainly know that soccer mom and her two kids need that 300HP SUV to zoom up to the next red light, industry tries to convince you that SUV's are safer.. NO THEY AREN'T! See Honda Fit for proof! 35+ MPG and 4/5 star crash rating.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/3844.html
Reply
Stéphane Dumas 7:14PM (7/11/2007)
"It finally raises this question: Has the American auto industry relied too much into SUVs and trucks"
Yes but we could begin to raise the next question: will the Japanese plans to fit the void left with their own gaz-guzzlers (Tundra, Armada, Sequoia, Titan, Pathfinder and 4Runner all with an optionnal V8)?
Then we can raise the next question, how long they can resist to the temptation of "bigger, longer and wider"? It's could be interesting to compare the dimensions and size of Civic, Corollas, Accords, Camrys, Maximas, Sentra of 15 and even 20 years ago with today (the Altima didn't arrived yet in 1987). Sometimes it works but other times, especially the design one, it failed (the current land-yatch Maxima seems to be a shadow of itself)
small-wee-wee, you can still have 4/5 stars with a Fit but consider also other factors like the size and weight of the opposite vehicule (Crown Victoria, school bus, Camry, Impala, Mazda 6, Mitsubishi Galant for example, the angle where the opposite car arrive, the conditions of the vehicule (it can had been exposed to road salt in the winter or air salt which help rust). I spotted on Youtube, a clip of TopGear featuring a test-crash of a Renault Espace 5/5 star crash on the EUROCAP standards against a train http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knlVLEQ5304 even with 4/5 and 5/5 stars, the train is the winner. You can have all the safest gizmos but don't be attempt to have the felling of being invincible.
Reply
Don M 8:33PM (7/11/2007)
Selling large hybrid pickups which are as low as a ferrari and have a strong structure like a tank would do more for alternative energy cars than any smart, polo or NICE car.
The bigger SUVS and pickups get, the more dangerous they become and the more people need to buy them to feel safe. To break this cycle they have to build cars that will scare people into buying small cars which don't rollover.
Reply
PeakVT 8:53PM (7/11/2007)
"Has the American auto industry relied too much into SUVs and trucks?"
This question has been answered years ago - in the affirmative.
Reply
Grant 11:42PM (7/11/2007)
The CAFE 35 mpg standard is just another example of difficult it is to craft legislation that meaningfully helps the environment. If gas prices remain high, people will stop buying guzzlers whether or not they are on the market. If gas prices fall as global supply increases, people will be willing sacrifice fuel economy for power. If more-powerful, thirsty vehicles are on the market, people will buy them; otherwise they will hang on to today's generation of powerful, substantial vehicles until the wheels fall off - even though manufacturers could sell them new, powerful vehicles that were cleaner and more efficient if the government would let them. These manufacturers will be stuck selling highly-efficient, expensive-to-develop cars that no one wants to buy.
It's easy to see why the Big Three dealers are scared of 35 mpg CAFE standard; it represents incredibly ill-advised legislation. If gas prices remain high, the CAFE standards will do what the market would do on its own - drive consumers and manufacturers towards smaller cars. Otherwise, the standards harm consumers (who want to buy new, powerful cars), manufacturers (who want to sell new, powerful cars) and the environment (new, powerful cars are more efficient than old, powerful cars).
The only way that the government could force us into smaller cars if gas prices fall is to raise gasoline taxes, but let's face it; this is a politically infeasible option (not to mention detrimental to the millions of working-class Americans who don't have access to public transportation). Ask most Americans if they favor greater fuel-economy standards, and they will answer in the affirmative, simply because gas prices are currently high. Ask them if they favor a higher gas tax, and you can guess what the answer will be...
Reply
EGS 6:56AM (7/12/2007)
instead of lobbying the law for change, start developing for the change in law.
Reply
MikeW 11:22AM (7/12/2007)
Engines are too big, transmissions too small.
I remember driving a first generation nissan quest/mercury villager. (VG30 12 valve V6, 151hp@4800 174ft-lbs@4400, 5500 redline 6000 limiter, although power dropped off past 5000 like a rock, 2000 rpm stall speed converter 4 speed auto)
The engine was fine (though that Mazda MPV 3.0 V6 with 3 valve heads producting 165hp & 180ft-lbs looked nice), smooth, the converter stall speed a bit low (good for mileage, and throttle braking) only ~50hp there. 3500-5000 was the 'zone'
There was some sort of governor, in that the speedo (digital LCD) started flashing once it believed you were past 105mph. I didn't really believe it, so I flipped to metric, 170kph. 106mph-liar liar pants of fire.
It could have gone faster if: I removed the roof rack cross bars, take 30 seconds to remove the wiper arm, and fold in the mirrors.
Point being, it could move just fine, just slow in getting there (which doesn't make peoples ego happy, ala a hard sell). Returned 30mpg@70 (without AC) 25mpg@75 with. The transmission programming could have been improved. The torque converter should have locked up in 3rd & 4th gear, not just top gear. And when OD off was engaged, then lockup in 2nd & 3rd (if you were towing, perhaps), there wasn't a second gear start provision (didn't have traction control). It didn't do continous slip, but it was 'smart' enough not to lug the engine. (that is what the low stall speed converter was about)
Nissan upsized the engine for the second generation to 3.3 liters, but left the same four speed auto. They should have had a five speed auto. (even if it was a dual range four speed auto 1,2,3 in underdrive ,3,4 in direct drive.)
Then the current big quest should be on a wide ratio (6:1) 6 speed auto, or a double clutch transmission, (5,10,15,20,25,30) not a close ratio (4.6:1) five speed auto.
Reply
alex 12:00PM (7/12/2007)
@mike
"See Honda Fit for proof! 35+ MPG and 4/5 star crash rating."
you do realize that 4/5 stars is the WORST rating a car can receive from the nhtsa and pass? 3 stars is a failing score.
additionally, those tests are completely irrelevant when 2 vehicles collide. the bigger one will win. always. it's simple physics. just ask my sister, she's a safety engineer for an auto company.
Reply
Chris M 10:15PM (2/02/2009)
Safety is more than just "simple physics". You also have to factor in how well the crumple zones absorb the force of the impact, how well the passenger compartment resists intrusions, and how well the interior cushions the passengers (airbags help a lot). I remember seeing a "head on" crash test involving a Volvo wagon and a Renault Megane, the smaller lighter Renault protected the crash test dummies much better than the Volvo, thanks to a stronger passenger compartment.
Then there is the rollover factor - tall heavy SUVs are particularly prone to rollover in an accident, and rollover accidents have the highest fatality rates of all types of accidents.
Finally, there is the "avoidance factor". A small maneuverable car with good brakes is more likely to avoid an accident than a big lumbering heavy SUV with poor maneuverability and much longer braking distance, due to the weight. Indeed, SUVs and trucks have been known to roll over when the driver tried to dodge an obstacle.
TimJFowler 1:17PM (7/12/2007)
Alex,
Re: NHTSA Crash Ratings.
More stars = safer
see: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/Info.htm#iq8
Reply
UH2L 2:43PM (7/12/2007)
The star ratings are relative to size of vehicle as alex infers. So a 5 Star rating on a Grand Marquis means it's safer than a 5 Star rating on a Fit. That's because the star ratings are figured based on a single vehicle collision with a wall so all the forces are based on the weight of the vehicle being crashed. When two different vehicles hit each other, the laws of physics apply and the lighter vehicle will take on more of the force. It's all a matter of inertia.
Force = Mass x Acceleration
With equal action-reaction force, the lighter vehicle will accelerate/decelerate more. The occupants of the lighter vehicle will get tossed around more.
Reply
alex 1:12PM (7/13/2007)
@TimJFowler
yeah, i know i'm not a retard. read my post again. if 3 stars is failing, that makes 4 stars the LOWEST PASSING SCORE. maybe you're the one who should take a look at that link you posted.
Reply