Lutz on CAFE; oh and Seasons Greetings too!
.jpg)
On what was to be his holiday greeting to the world, Mr. Lutz has decided that he had a little more than a kiss under the mistletoe on his mind to close out 2006.
In his blog, GM FastLane, Lutz clarifies his feelings regarding the recent initiatives to revise the current CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. He comments that pursuing the idea to increase the CAFÉ in the US by 4% annually, forcing manufacturers to sell smaller and smaller vehicles, is like forcing the clothing manufacturers to only make clothes in small sizes to cure obesity. What really needs to happen is a step-up in the development of alternative fuel solutions to reduce our dependence on petroleum.
In conclusion, Lutz asks for the government to get more involved in the development of alternative fuels, as the Japanese government continues to fund these programs with millions of dollars and will continue to be at the forefront of these technologies unless attitudes change.
Read his' full post here.
[Source: GM FastLane]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Chad C 10:32AM (12/25/2006)
He's got a point. Love the whole sell smaller clothing to cure obesity. It is the same scenario. And yea, so the price of E85 or whatever other fuel is similar to gas, higher octane but less fuel mileage. But remember that its only 15% of foreign oil versus 90%. So when OPEC decides to screw with us, the alternative fuels will shine and we can stop importing so much of the stuff and being so reliant on it.
Reply
akatsuki 10:41AM (12/25/2006)
No, he really doesn't have a point. US car makers haven't bothered to develop fuel efficient cars, nor non-polluting cars voluntarily. Now they want to cry about it.
The more correct analogy would be to say it is like the government only letting you eat 1200 calories a day. Guess what, you will lose weight then.
Reply
Mike G 10:57AM (12/25/2006)
I don't think he has a point either. He's an old guy with his own fighter jet who's lost touch with the mainstream. Aren't the new Honda Civic, Toyota Camry and Mini Cooper larger than their predecessors yet more fuel efficient because of better engine designs?
Reply
Greg 11:03AM (12/25/2006)
When the United States Bombs Iran, which is going to happen sooner rather than later, (my guess is late 2007) oil will be trading around $200 a barrel, gasoline will be $8.00 a gallon, and we will all be screaming at Toyota on why they can't build more Hybrids and Corolla's fast enough.
Reply
Mark 11:18AM (12/25/2006)
I think that Lutz's comment just further illustrate how out of touch American car companies are with reality. American consumers continue to buy cars too large for their needs that consume more gas than before. Buying smaller cars wouldn't hurt most of us. The main selling points for GM, Ford and Chrysler have been size and power. The main selling points for Toyota and Honda have been technology and innovation. I would support the subsidies Lutz is asking for, but first he needs to embrace CAFE.
Reply
tim 11:18AM (12/25/2006)
people vote with dollars. if they want fuel efficiency, they'll buy fuel efficient cars. then, manufacturers like GM have to build them. let's not have a totalitarian state that legislates the market, let's keep a democracy where people decide what is brought to market by what they will pay for. nothing could be more american.
Reply
MikeW 12:10PM (12/25/2006)
So GM has the Tahoe configured as
4x2: 4.8V8, 6L50, 3.73 axle ratio
4x4: 4.8V8, 6L50, 4.10 axle ratio
and Suburban
4x2: 5.3V8, 6L80, 3.73
4x4: 5.3V8, 6L80, 4.10
didn't think so, quit your bitchin' Lutz.
Reply
Steven T. 12:27PM (12/25/2006)
CAFE is hardly the only viable means of increasing fuel economy. However, it is what we have in place, and may be the best that we can hope for given the current political environment. So while I would prefer an emphasis on demand-side tools such as variations on a carbon tax, they may take years to gain approval.
That's why we need to keep CAFE and make it work better. Any policy adjustments should be to plug loopholes rather than give Lutz and Co. another excuse to avoid improving the gas mileage of GM's fleet.
Detroit executives paint CAFE out to be so terrrible, yet this law effectively saved the Big Three in the late 1970s and early 1980s. CAFE standards effectively forced Detroit to downsize its entire fleet. If these standards had not been in place the Big Three would have had even greater difficulty competing against the ascendant imports.
More broadly, to argue that it is "totalitarian" to regulate fuel economy is absurd. That's akin to insisting we don't need basic health and safety standards for the meat-packing industry. Advanced economies require a reasonable amount of governmental regulation. The U.S. has less of it than virtually any other industrialized nation.
Reply
greg curran 12:44PM (12/25/2006)
No.2 Yes you would lose weight if the government made you live on 1200 calories a day, You would also be living in nazi germany.
Reply
Bob Miller 1:59PM (12/25/2006)
#9
Yes - you're right.
Lutz does have a point, although I don't like the idea of Govt. meddling in our affairs that much.
#5 - you're sort of right too, however...
GM already makes fuel efficient cars - it's just that nobody knows or wants to talk about them that much. That's the problem. I noticed that most of the people who post on this blog make it sound as if the Big 3 have no models that get good gas mileage, but that simply isn't true. As a matter of fact, my 305 hp (rated at, but I think it was more) 1998 Camaro Z28 got better mileage on the highway than my 2002 IS300. And it was a lot faster (in a straight line). GM has some of the most fuel efficient cars on the market in their respective categories, but a lot of people NEVER talk about that.
Oh - as a side note - 1200 calories a day will definitely make you lose weight - my friend Nick went from 250s to 210s very quickly by doing that over the summer. He's gained almost all of it back unfortunately.
Reply
tim 2:01PM (12/25/2006)
i can argue totalitarian any way i choose, #8, without absurdity. those that let the government make the smallest decisions for them are destined to have larger decisions forced upon them. toyota seems to be doing exactly what the market wants, hence their rise to the top. when the american auto makers succumb to the needs of the market more directly, their former successes will return, too.
i repeat: buying things forces manufacturers to adjust their focus to your tastes. don't let the government do that for you.
Reply
Zoro 2:28PM (12/25/2006)
Some people make excuses, some people go on to make fortunes.
Lutz is a loser. Give us another excuse, there Lutz.
Reply
Spaceweasel 2:56PM (12/25/2006)
A completely free market might serve consumers, but it would fail citizens. A vehicle purchase has many impacts beyond meeting the real or percieved needs of the consumer. Oil importation has security concerns. Oil purchase has international economic concerns. Oil use has enviromental concerns. And thats just the oil. The company that sold the car, the people who made the car, the nation or state that is home to the plant - all of these factor in. These are not factors to be left completely in the hands of the vagaries of the marketplace. We ask our elected officials to make decisions about these things in our representative democracy. They influence the marketplace to meet those goals using things like tarrifs, tax breaks, and CAFE standards.
But don't blame Lutz for arguing against them. He works for GM, not us. His goal is to maximize returns for GM's stockholders. If he thinks CAFE is bad for the stockholders, he will continue to make clever analogies to attempt to influence the electorate to sway our politicians in his favor.
Reply
Stphane Dumas 3:22PM (12/25/2006)
speaking of CAFE, there some good rantings about the CAFE despite writed in 1999 at http://www.allpar.com/ed/cafe2.html
http://www.allpar.com/ed/old/respcafe.html
Reply
mike 4:46PM (12/25/2006)
You know my favorite part of this whole fuel efficiency debate is this. One says we need to buy small gasoline cars, another one says hybrids ....and out of nowhere a GM or FRAUD driving fool comes in and says .....hybrids are bad we need DIESEL, you can go 50 MPG on Diesel, VW TDI gets 55 MPG on diesel, diesel, diesel..DIESEL.
OK, but here's the sticky point, cars that use diesel are NOT AWALIABLE IN USA. They are not here, in fact I’ll give you a list....FUELECONOMY.GOV lists 4 cars that use diesel, Cherokee, Tourag, ML320 and R320.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm
Search cars by diesel....
My point is this, before opening your dirty yup about hybrids being bad for environment #1 drive next to an 18 wheeler on a Hi-Way and #2 Admit to yourself that Diesel is not for America, it will not be here, NEVER. Why? We had a $3 gas and we have only 4 cars on the diesel driving list. That TDI is not coming here. Diesel will be here on big gas guzzlers like Big cars from Benz(BlueTec) but that is about it.
Reply
John B. 4:24PM (12/25/2006)
Congressman Dingell (DEMOCRAT) will ensure any CAFE improvement legislation is dead on arrival.
Reply
Mr_Oak 4:56PM (12/25/2006)
2. No, he really doesn't have a point. US car makers haven't bothered to develop fuel efficient cars, nor non-polluting cars voluntarily. Now they want to cry about it.
-----------------------------------------------
Total BS. Compare the fuel economy of All hi-po euro cars to the Z06 then let's talk about fuel efficiency.
Most US cars, are ranked very high in fuel-eff. for their respective category. Non-polluting cars? See stinky, sooty europe.
The truth is, Americans will probably never embrace the really miserly little tin cans that are so popular in Europe.
The Corporate fuel economy doesn't mean squat, if the cars are still on the showroom floor. How many units of the most efficient Civic did Honda sell last year?
Most of you here, rant about high (G) cornering ability of your euro cars, the reality is, that is not real world driving. Anyone who drive a M3 within 2/3 of it's capability consistently, would have his license revoked in a matter of months. The same goes for those little tin cans, fine for a run to the supermarket, or to the train station, but not for day to day living.
Reply
mike 4:51PM (12/25/2006)
#15 i love it how Dingell predisesor was the leading denyer of Global warming in USA. Sudnly Republicans lost and by pure magic a Democrat that is a big oposer of CAFE increases becomes a chairman.
Tell me this, how much did Big 2.5 spend to make sure that Dingell would be the guy should Republicans lose.
I bet if GM spent less on lobying and more on making cars they wouldn't be in a s**t hole they are in today.
Reply
Andy 4:54PM (12/25/2006)
I noticed GM didn't post my argument against Mr. Lutz about Toyota and Honda on the Fastlane blog. To shorten it: Toyota and Honda do not DEPEND on big trucks for the majority of their sales. They make class-leading smaller vehicles. Can you really compare the fit & finish of an Equinox to a CR-V? It has weak mileage, a poor ride, and a cheap cabin. CAFE is a foolish idea, but Mr. Lutz has no answer as to why GM, Ford, and Chrysler have continued to produce more and more gas-guzzling vehicles as opposed to competitive small and mid-size sedans and SUVs. Even GM's mid-size pickups rank last in class comparos.
Reply
Mike G 5:23PM (12/25/2006)
In response to poster #6, who suggests that higher CAFE fuel efficiency standards are "totalitarian" and points out that since people vote with their dollars, Americans would simply buy more fuel efficient cars if they really wanted them:
Americans ARE buying more fuel efficient cars. That's why Toyota is surpassing GM as the largest car company in the world next year. They make what people want. They sell more cars.
Reply