GM RWD On Chopping Block?
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 08-20-2006
Posts: 21,640
From: Hillsdale, Michigan
800HP Biodiesel here: Bio Rocket
Last edited by HillsdaleHHR; Apr 23, 2007 at 10:02 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: 02-19-2006
Posts: 473
From: Kentucky
I don't have a problem going "green". I also believe that technology is very close to being completely green and friendly. BUT, what torques me off is all the politicians telling me I WILL HAVE to drive a 1000 pound car that runs on hydrogen or whatever when they continue to drive their Limos, SUVs, Airplanes, Helicopters, Yachts, etc. I stand with CH on this one. When the leaders lead...........I will follow. When the leaders dictate............I will protest. (Off my soapbox now)
Senior Member
Joined: 03-10-2007
Posts: 211
From: Ottawa, Ontario
I found the articles interesting, but something about Lutz's comments didn't ring true.
While I agree that raising the price of gasoline would push fuel economy up more quickly than CAFE standards, I think it can be done with a RWD car. What makes it so special? Try comparing two similar cars. The DTS and the Town Car are both large cars with V8s. Their combined fuel economy, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, is identical. A combined 20mpg. Even the Ford Mustang GT gets a combined 20 mpg, compared to 21 mpg for a Mitsu Eclipse (w/V6), and it does so using regular fuel.
As well, CAFE is calculated based on the number of cars sold. The Malibu and Cobalt can be the models with great fuel economy, the Impala need only be “okay”. CAFE is an average done over the entire vehicle line-up. They can still do RWD and get the CAFE figures.
What is Lutz’s motivation? Perhaps it’s to stir up a bunch of controversy so that voters will call Washington and get them to back off. Just so GM doesn’t have to tie up cash on fuel saving exercises when they need that cash for other operations like increasing quality, e-flex propulsion, and new vehicle models.
I’m not calling Lutz a liar…. He is just doing his job – looking out for GM.
While I agree that raising the price of gasoline would push fuel economy up more quickly than CAFE standards, I think it can be done with a RWD car. What makes it so special? Try comparing two similar cars. The DTS and the Town Car are both large cars with V8s. Their combined fuel economy, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, is identical. A combined 20mpg. Even the Ford Mustang GT gets a combined 20 mpg, compared to 21 mpg for a Mitsu Eclipse (w/V6), and it does so using regular fuel.
As well, CAFE is calculated based on the number of cars sold. The Malibu and Cobalt can be the models with great fuel economy, the Impala need only be “okay”. CAFE is an average done over the entire vehicle line-up. They can still do RWD and get the CAFE figures.
What is Lutz’s motivation? Perhaps it’s to stir up a bunch of controversy so that voters will call Washington and get them to back off. Just so GM doesn’t have to tie up cash on fuel saving exercises when they need that cash for other operations like increasing quality, e-flex propulsion, and new vehicle models.
I’m not calling Lutz a liar…. He is just doing his job – looking out for GM.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 08-20-2006
Posts: 21,640
From: Hillsdale, Michigan
Update:
Senate Approves Higher Fuel-Economy Standards
Date posted: 06-22-2007
WASHINGTON — Despite intense lobbying by car companies, the U.S. Senate has approved a compromise amendment to the energy bill that would impose a single average fuel economy standard of 35 mpg on cars and light trucks by 2020. Automakers had been pushing for a weaker requirement of 30 mpg for light trucks and SUVs.
The Senate action late Thursday is the most significant increase in fuel-economy standards in 20 years. Automakers have claimed the measure will ruin the domestic auto industry, but proponents say it could eventually reduce American gasoline consumption by more than 1 million gallons a day.
The debate now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, where legislators may push for even tougher regulations. Automakers today are required to meet two separate fleet averages: 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for trucks.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, according to The New York Times.
The Senate measure also requires that automakers enable half the vehicles they make to run on up to 85 percent ethanol by 2015. As of Friday morning, the car industry's main lobbying arm, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, had not yet commented publicly on the measure on its Web site.
Senate Approves Higher Fuel-Economy Standards
Date posted: 06-22-2007
WASHINGTON — Despite intense lobbying by car companies, the U.S. Senate has approved a compromise amendment to the energy bill that would impose a single average fuel economy standard of 35 mpg on cars and light trucks by 2020. Automakers had been pushing for a weaker requirement of 30 mpg for light trucks and SUVs.
The Senate action late Thursday is the most significant increase in fuel-economy standards in 20 years. Automakers have claimed the measure will ruin the domestic auto industry, but proponents say it could eventually reduce American gasoline consumption by more than 1 million gallons a day.
The debate now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, where legislators may push for even tougher regulations. Automakers today are required to meet two separate fleet averages: 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for trucks.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, according to The New York Times.
The Senate measure also requires that automakers enable half the vehicles they make to run on up to 85 percent ethanol by 2015. As of Friday morning, the car industry's main lobbying arm, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, had not yet commented publicly on the measure on its Web site.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-26-2007
Posts: 1,554
From: ...
I believe that the HHR counts under CAFE as an SUV for GM. That helps GM's truck & SUV CAFE immensly. Same with Chrysler and the PT (?)
In other news, diesel-electric hybrid is clearly the way to go for low CO2 and high MPG. Also low FP (Fine Particulate) if you factor in the new regs, ULSD fuel and the new FP filtration units Robert Bosch Corp is coming out with.
P.S. I think the recent Supreme Court decision on CO2 is great news.
In other news, diesel-electric hybrid is clearly the way to go for low CO2 and high MPG. Also low FP (Fine Particulate) if you factor in the new regs, ULSD fuel and the new FP filtration units Robert Bosch Corp is coming out with.
P.S. I think the recent Supreme Court decision on CO2 is great news.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-03-2006
Posts: 882
From: Newfoundland, Canada
Update:
Senate Approves Higher Fuel-Economy Standards
Date posted: 06-22-2007
WASHINGTON — Despite intense lobbying by car companies, the U.S. Senate has approved a compromise amendment to the energy bill that would impose a single average fuel economy standard of 35 mpg on cars and light trucks by 2020.
Senate Approves Higher Fuel-Economy Standards
Date posted: 06-22-2007
WASHINGTON — Despite intense lobbying by car companies, the U.S. Senate has approved a compromise amendment to the energy bill that would impose a single average fuel economy standard of 35 mpg on cars and light trucks by 2020.
By 2020 there may not be any gas to worry about at the rate we are using it. By 2020 there might hopefully be other alternatives like hydrogen for example.
Banned
Joined: 10-14-2005
Posts: 9,121
From: Rochester,N.Y.
Rick Wagoner put an end to this crap forever ago. GM RWDs are still a go. Here is a small bit but if you do a Google search you can find a bunch of interviews and stories. F**k the government trying to tell you what you can and can't drive! 
http://jalopnik.com/cars/whew!/gms-w...ack-262416.php
http://jalopnik.com/cars/whew!/gms-w...ack-262416.php
Senior Member
Joined: 03-10-2007
Posts: 211
From: Ottawa, Ontario
It just sounds more like Lutz's motivation was to stir up the masses, and in fact, had nothing to do with government rules and regs.
At least the RWD cars are coming. GM needs to have competitive cars in all segments.
At least the RWD cars are coming. GM needs to have competitive cars in all segments.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-01-2006
Posts: 2,507
From: New London, CT USA
Competitive cars in all segments makes sense.
Glad they will still be made. We should be able to buy what we want and drive what we want.
I likely won't go there since I've been there for years and have different needs these days than a rocket or sedan, but still, there are folks who may want them. If they use a lot of gas or a little gas should be a personal choice.
Granted economics are at play here, not just government standards. Any company can produce a huge gas guzzler and sell it to suburban moms. Been there don that.
However,
With CAFE the company can still comply by having some econoboxes selling to offset the guzzler. So the government , while not MANDATING any form over another IS causing some interference at the same time helping to move along the push towards more efficient cars.
Still the other hand of economics, demand, will have an effect. No sense in a manufacturer mass marketing something that few will purchase.
I used to be all about free economic growth and the market will solve everything, but I've learned that every cause has a dark side and that people are corrupt and evil if unchecked. Deregulating the telephone and electrical power industries has shown just how bad things can go. Enron any one?
So I guess I'm for the government sometimes interfering with some private businesses that effect us all. Not something I would recommend lightly though, the fox in the hen house as it were. It would definitely help if the government was more transparent and less secretive.
Not in our lifetime I'm guessing.
Glad they will still be made. We should be able to buy what we want and drive what we want.
I likely won't go there since I've been there for years and have different needs these days than a rocket or sedan, but still, there are folks who may want them. If they use a lot of gas or a little gas should be a personal choice.
Granted economics are at play here, not just government standards. Any company can produce a huge gas guzzler and sell it to suburban moms. Been there don that.
However,
With CAFE the company can still comply by having some econoboxes selling to offset the guzzler. So the government , while not MANDATING any form over another IS causing some interference at the same time helping to move along the push towards more efficient cars.
Still the other hand of economics, demand, will have an effect. No sense in a manufacturer mass marketing something that few will purchase.
I used to be all about free economic growth and the market will solve everything, but I've learned that every cause has a dark side and that people are corrupt and evil if unchecked. Deregulating the telephone and electrical power industries has shown just how bad things can go. Enron any one?
So I guess I'm for the government sometimes interfering with some private businesses that effect us all. Not something I would recommend lightly though, the fox in the hen house as it were. It would definitely help if the government was more transparent and less secretive.
Not in our lifetime I'm guessing.
