backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 151 comment(s) - last by bfonnes.. on Dec 14 at 9:07 PM

Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid  (Source: Toyota)

Chevrolet Volt  (Source: General Motors)

2009 Chevrolet Camaro Concept  (Source: General Motors)

Pontiac G8 GT  (Source: General Motors)
Toyota applauds new CAFE standards, General Motors not so sure

A new energy bill passed in the House of Representatives last week which would raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) fuel economy standards 40 percent to 35 MPG by 2020. The measure passed 235-181 and calls for the standards to be progressively implemented starting with the 2011 model year.

Not surprisingly, reaction to the higher CAFE standards have met with mixed reactions from the automotive industry. Toyota, which has recently come under fire for a faux-green facade, is fully committed to working towards the 35 MPG standard.

"We commend congressional leaders for their diligence in hammering out a difficult deal on fuel economy. We at Toyota have long said that we want a bill this year and now the Congress appears poised to deliver," said Toyota Motor Sales President Jim Lentz. "This bill will challenge all automakers to achieve dramatic fuel economy increases. It represents a major step in the right direction that will result in significant oil savings and reductions in CO2."

Toyota is sitting pretty with a current overall CAFE average of 29.0 MPG (34.8 MPG cars/24.1 MPG trucks), so the comments from Lentz are not surprising. The company already has a bevy of fuel efficient cars including the Yaris, Corolla, Prius and Camry Hybrid. The company is also working on making its entire vehicle fleet hybrid by 2020 and will add a diesel engine to its gas-gulping Tundra full-size pickup within the next two model years.

Commentary from General Motors, however, didn't sound so enthusiastic. "Maximum" Bob Lutz, Vice Chairman of GM, was less optimistic about the plan.

"The minute we have confirmation of the 35 mpg rule, that is the point where we go through all of our forward product plans and probably introduce, frankly, massive restructuring of the product plan," said Lutz to Automotive News. "A 35 mpg fleet mix means there is a bunch of stuff out there that is going to have to be 40 and 50 mpg."

Lutz went on to add, "We will have to take a look at everything because we’re going to have to come up with a plan which gets us to 2015, 2017, gets us part of the way there, and with clarity on how we’re going to get the rest. Then we will have to start raising prices as we introduce the new technology."

Whereas Toyota is sitting at 29 MPG for its corporate CAFE average, GM is further back at 24 MPG (28.1 MPG cars/21.3 MPG trucks).

GM has done much to introduce more efficient vehicles over the past few years including the Saturn Vue Green Line, Saturn Aura Green Line and Malibu Hybrid. The company is also lining up its Tahoe/Yukon Hybrids, Silverado/Sierra Hybrids and the all-electric Chevrolet Volt.

However, Lutz's main worries are with regards to the potential gas guzzlers in the company's current roadmap. The company is on the verge of releasing its high-performance Pontiac G8 sedan which comes with either a 3.6 liter V6 engine or a more potent 6.0 liter, 362 HP V8. Also on tap is a new Impala using the G8's platform/engine, a new Camaro with a requisite V8 engine option and a small RWD Pontiac G6 performance sedan built on the Alpha platform.

Bob Lutz is likely one of the most vocal and most high-profile executives in the auto industry, so his comments aren't too surprising. Other auto manufacturers, however, have remained relatively mum on the new CAFE standard. Those with the most to worry include Ford with a corporate CAFE of 24.3 MPG and [former] Daimler-Chrysler with a corporate CAFE of 23.3 MPG.

Honda and Hyundai-Kia are within striking distance of Toyota with corporate CAFE ratings of 28.7 MPG and 28.6 MPG respectively.

The House energy bill also includes provisions for a $21 billion USD tax on oil companies and will require electric companies to get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources. The bill is having trouble in the Senate because of these two provisions.

"[Oil] is the most profitable industry on earth and we need to pay for the bill," said Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow. On the opposite side of the spectrum was Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas. "This bill could pass in a day if they stripped the taxes out and the renewable portfolio standard" for electricity production."

Tougher fuel economy standards are likely to come down eventually no matter how long politicians and car companies tried to avoid the possibility. It's likely in the best interest of auto manufacturers to buckle down and plan ahead instead of hoping that the "worst thing possible” -- i.e. tougher fuel economy standards -- will never happen.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Progress vs Status Quo
By gradoman on 12/9/2007 1:00:02 PM , Rating: 1
How long were they expecting to push out these gas guzzling cars and trucks? I guess our American car companies are gonna be crying into their pillows since they're bleeding money like a stuck pig and are gonna have to rethink their focus (bigger, more powerful) if they want to compete. Boohoo.




RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By Ringold on 12/9/2007 1:05:22 PM , Rating: 1
You speak as though their gas guzzlers are what has hurt them, but of course you really are probably aware that their gas guzzlers are some of their best selling most profitable vehicles. The lack of a decent mid-size car has probably hurt them more then trucks & SUVs.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By Alexstarfire on 12/9/2007 1:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
He never said that they always hurt them. I believe he's just talking about now. Sure, they may have been popular for a long time, but so was disco, jazz, and the hula-hoop. Things go out of style, and GM and Chevy haven't really moved on yet.

Lack of a decent mid-size car is your own personal opinion. You must be one of those people who thinks you need 200 HP and all the space an SUV has.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By Ringold on 12/9/2007 3:13:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Sure, they may have been popular for a long time, but so was disco, jazz, and the hula-hoop.


That'd be a cool little phrase, if not for the fact the three best selling vehicles of 2007 were:
1) F-series pickup truck
2) Silverado
3) Camry

quote:
Lack of a decent mid-size car is your own personal opinion.


It's my opinion, but it is also the verdict of the market, shown by the fact that GM & Ford cars come in near the bottom of the top 10 list, thoroughly beaten by Toyota and Honda's Camry and Accord. Sales fell of the trucks and SUV's, but would you of said jazz as out of style when more people were still in to jazz then they were anything else?

quote:
You must be one of those people who thinks you need 200 HP and all the space an SUV has.


You could've looked up data, as I just did, with 30 seconds of googling, but instead tried to put words in my mouth. Nice. Bite me.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By retrospooty on 12/9/2007 3:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yup... Cars are definetely the US car makers week spot. They have not had a decent mid size (or small or full size for that matter) car for decades. Constantly outperformed by Japanese cars in price, performance, mileage, style. Generally outclassed in all areas.

Some Great trucks and SUV's , but lousy cars. That may be a matter of opinion, but its also a marketable fact.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By JAB on 12/9/2007 8:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
True there just are not any stand out American cars the trucks are good but they will suck you dry with fuel costs and insurance. Ironicly the big trucks and SUV's etc often have a higher fatality rate due to rollovers and difficulty avoiding accidents they just don't have the same handling breaks etc. I have seen plenty of SUV drivers in accidents with smaller card and the person in the small car waled away and the SUV was FUBARD.

The huge car/truck syndrome is no diffrent than the huge wings on the cars in the 50's 60's.
There is a reason GM is no longer #1 people are willing to pay more for quality. Just making cars and SUVs bigger and bigger without improving the quality just makes them dangerous and wasteful. If GM and the other big US companys had not started looking at cars as a necessary evil to make more gas wasters they would not have gotten themselves is so much trouble.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By djc208 on 12/10/2007 8:02:48 AM , Rating: 4
There's a couple of reasons for this though. The two biggest ones are first that GM and most of the American auto industry has always had this tiered structure. If you're buying a base Chevy Cobalt you're getting basic transportation, you want a nicer interior then "step up" to one of the other GM brands (like a Pontiac), even their trucks and SUVs work this way. You can buy a base Chevy, or the "better" GMC, or go all out for the "top end" Cadilac. Why would anyone want a high end economy car. Problem is that's changed now, some people do want a nice small vehicle, and GM (and many others) are having a hard time figuring that out.

The second one, and this is one of the biggest problems, is that it's tough to compete financially with the Japanese auto makers because the big three and the UAW have contracted themselves into massively expensive contracts. Paying all those UAW workers $30/hour plus benefits is crazy in this day and age (hence the big shakeup during the last contract negoitation). The Japanese auto companies don't have to do it, they also don't have 100+ years of employees since most of their American plants are much newer.
So if Toyta can produce a car for $5000 less than GM, they can sink $2500 back into the car to pay for nicer interiors, better quality components, and a few extra toys and still make $2500 more than GM off every vehicle. GM still needs to compete on price, and the UAW isn't going to give up their benefits easily, so you get cheaper materials and build quality.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By retrospooty on 12/10/2007 12:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
"If you're buying a base Chevy Cobalt you're getting basic transportation, you want a nicer interior then "step up" to one of the other GM brands (like a Pontiac)"

Their lies the problem. If a Pontiac is a step up, no wonder they are losing it all. Pontiac is one of the least reliable POS I have ever seen. At least through the 90's and early 2000's everything they made fell apart.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By retrospooty on 12/10/2007 12:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
/edit - I gotta say that Pontiac G8 looks nice though. I hope it hold together better then their recent stuff.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By theapparition on 12/10/2007 12:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
FYI,
The G8 is not true "Pontiac".
It is a Holden Commador, badged as a Pontiac. Holden is GM's austrailian subsidiary. The car has been on sale there for a while.

You may know them from the last car they brought over, the Holden Monaro, aka Pontiac GTO.

Holden is also the company developing the new zeta real-wheel drive platform that will be the new Camaro.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By retrospooty on 12/10/2007 1:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
It figures... I should have known it wasn't a Pontaic design LOL. its nice.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By theapparition on 12/10/2007 12:48:04 PM , Rating: 1
Nothing like your personal experience to speak for the entire brand.

Right now GM is second to Toyota in quality, and ahead of Honda/Nissan/Hyundai/BMW/Mercedes.

Don't let the facts get in the way of personal bias though.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By retrospooty on 12/10/2007 1:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you READ my post before commenting on it, you will see I said it was through the 90's and early 2000's.

As for recent cars, I cant say, but sales have left and bad history is a tough hill to climb. It will take many years of quality and long term proven reliability before people start coming back. Lets see how they do when vehicles are 5 years old, and again at 10 years. I really hope they do well.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By darkpaw on 12/10/2007 2:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree with this statement. GM's quality went to hell in the 90s. My first car was a 80s Olds, that still ran great at 260k miles until the body fell off.

Got my wife a 97 Olds a few years back and the thing was the biggest POS ever. Only 80k miles before it needed a transmission overhaul and everthing on the car was falling apart by 100k miles.

I'd chalk it up to one bad experience, if I didn't know at least three other people personally with similar issues, including my parents.

Maybe they have fixed their issues as the current results suggest, but after sinking thousands into one bad car I'm not likeily to ever buy from them again. Especially when my last Nissian topped 200k without any major issues before it was totaled, and my current one is pushing 140k.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By retrospooty on 12/10/2007 4:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
I know several people that have had the same experience.

One friend with a 92 trans am. and another with a 2000 trans am WS6. The first back to the dealer 5x in the first 2 years, the second back to the dealer 6x in the first one year, including replacing the manifold for a faulty seal.

Dont even get me started on my own Z28... Never again, never ever again.


RE: Progress vs Status Quo
By theapparition on 12/11/2007 8:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't even get me started on my own Z28... Never again, never ever again.

Which gets me back to my original post about GM quality.

You screamed back at me for not reading your post. I did, quite clearly in fact. Yes I saw that you mentioned 90's, but you also put the spin on it for all future car designs.

Your post above just confirms it, you think all GM is crap, when in fact, they have made significant strides, and now are at the top of the pack.

Camaros/Firebirds are notorious for problems, simply because they are low budget-very high performance cars. That's always a recipe for disaster. Ford Mustangs, EVO's, WRX's, et al all fare no better in repair history.

I've had more Camaros and TransAms than can be counted, so I know just a little about them. I've had some that have had no issues, including my current 2001 WS6, and other with some bad issues.

I had a friend with a 90's Honda Accord that rusted and constantly broke down, so should I go around screaming that Honda is crap and they rust out, due to personal experience? Or should I look at the facts that maybe the way he drove it and took care of it were less than optimal? Especially since "overall" the Accord gets good marks and is relatively trouble free for a car. See my point, you can't let a single personal event affect your overall opinion of a brand. All I'm asking is to look at the facts.