Ford, Chrysler irked at feds' potentially biased email
Charges of anti-Americanism have followed the transmittal of an e-mail from the US Department of Health and Human Services to 67,000 federal workers. The e-mail, written by an unnamed member of the department, gives advice on buying a personal car and suggests making fuel efficiency the first consideration, citing the 2007 Toyota Camry Hybrid and Nissan Altima Hybrid by name. Then, based on a list from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, it suggests 12 cars to look at, all of them imports. It also specifically recommends staying away from SUVs.
[Source: Detroit News]
Chrysler's position, via a spokesman, was blunt: "clear bias against American manufacturers." A Ford spokeswoman took a more diplomatic stance, saying "We find it puzzling that a government agency such as Health and Human Services is advising its employees on what they should choose as a personal vehicle." A GM spokesman didn't think the e-mail was intended to slight American makers, but then again, the correspondence did mention GM's E85 promotion program.
An HHS spokesman said the agency has nothing to do with auto policy, and the e-mail wasn't intended to be an official stance of the HHS. It was just a newsletter put together from available public sources. But with presidential candidates and Congress increasingly making a bad environmental example of the auto industry, especially the domestics with their once popular SUVs, it is to be expected that The Big Three would be a bit put off by that kind of official-sounding message to 67,000 potential customers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
John 4:40PM (9/04/2007)
Sounds pretty accurate to me. The gap is narrower than it has ever been, but Imports generaly are more efficient than domestics.
Reply
far jr 11:03PM (9/04/2007)
Sounds like personal agenda to me. If they truely want to tow the "HEALTH" and human services line, they should promote bigger vehicles. The facts prove larger is safer.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-19-small-cars_N.htm
Sorry that facts do not jive with the personal preferences of the individul writing the memo. I like small cars too but physics is physics.
hydrogen_wv 12:27PM (9/05/2007)
I agree with what they have said in the email. Maybe the Big 3 should quit whining and fix it. Also, There is more to health than 'vehicle safety'. Wouldn't it be better for a family to buy a car with exceptional gas mileage than spend twice as much on a SUV that's fuel efficiency is only about 20% of the cheaper car? What if the ownder of that vehicle has to drive 100 miles to work each day? Now, let's assume that family is on the lower end of the income continuum in the U.S.
You also have to consider the fact that by driving these gas guzzling SUVs, more fuel will be used, demand will increase, and prices will increase much faster than they already do.
And Environmental health... better fuel mileage GENERALLY equates to less emissions and harm to the environment... Less emissions also means less air pollution. Less air pollution means... you guessed it... HEALTHIER people.
Injury control (such as driving a larger vehicle), is only a very small part of what the department of health and human services is concerned about. I seriously doubt there is any bias in that article. If it recommended going out and buying 'any American-made car', then it would be biased. They have nothing to gain by recommending people buy an import.
Your argument about safety in vehicles was a desperate struggle to find a counterpoint to their article. One could just as easily make the argument that it'd be safer if no one drove big vehicles. If everyone drove little mid-size sedans or compacts, accidents involving two vehicles would be less likely to result in a fatality compared to, let's say.. a prius and an H2 colliding.
I refuse to make that argument though, as I realize that some people actually have a need for a larger vehicle. Not everyone that drives one, though.
digitalzombie 4:42PM (9/04/2007)
Maybe Big 3 starts making some hybrid SEDANS with some nice quality or some diesel powers then it won't irk.
I see the main point of the email is fuel efficiency and since there aren't that many diesel sedans and since Toyota is one of the few companies that pioneer the the hybrid technology it make sense to choose Toyota.
If Toyota had shitty mpg and no hybrid technology I'm sure the email would have chosen the big 3.
Reply
DriftPunch 4:43PM (9/04/2007)
I'm so sorry that I angerd Angka with my SUV!
(for those who don't get this, Angka was the name for the Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia, of which you had to pledge total allegiance. Even that was not likely to save you)
Reply
Louis Duran 6:32PM (9/04/2007)
This is such an asinine comment on so many levels. Comparing an email recommending car buying choices to the Khmer Rouge belittles those who survived or perished at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.
If the American car manufacturers are offended by this e-mail, maybe they should first understand if the comments are true. Rather than silencing the messenger through legal action, they might consider silence though better performance relative to the competition.
Having said that, I think GM has made recent moves in the right direction. Unfortunately, they damaged their reputation with poor products for so long that it is going to take years for them to claw their way back.
Drewboy 4:44PM (9/04/2007)
We're on the tail end of peak oil production. Things are only going to go downhill from here, with regard to supply. Since demand is only increasing, so will prices.
Reply
SPG 5:02PM (9/04/2007)
The big three Have Hybrids. I'd love an Aura Hybrid.
I think the letter in question was made without enough thought and an apology should be issued.
Reply
Sam 5:05PM (9/04/2007)
Aura Hybrid? Did you not read the EPA numbers on that? Did you not read the Autoblog writeup on that? How about Motor Trend and Car Adn Driver reviews? They all called it slow, no real gain in fuel economy over the 4 banger, and no advantage in buying it over the 4 banger.
Mild Hybrid is not hybrid. Its just a computer that shuts off the engine at traffic stops.
Come again.
500 5:15PM (9/04/2007)
Ironic that the new MINI Cooper gets an entire Autoblog article today for a computer that shuts off the engine at traffic stops.
yankee 8:05PM (9/04/2007)
Then its time they did something to get it back
Reply
eckre 5:15PM (9/04/2007)
Notice if it's TRUTH and not in your favor, it's "biased."
Cost != Price != Value
Competition is good, THAT is American.
Getting better is good THAT is American.
Relaxing, not evolving and getting better and better, knowing you have good cushy government contracts to pay for your retirement... THAT is stupid. You can't just keep hoping people won't read about reliability or won't remember how crappy your car company is is bad policy.
Reply
Andrew 5:30PM (9/04/2007)
qft. although i will say, the big 3 capitalized on the SUV craze and they are stuck with that image. toyota and nissan both make some big honkin trucks/SUVs, but they aren't the staple of the company.
that being said, i still think hybrids are crap. give me a diesel any day. VW TDI for life! =D
SHOTT3R 6:07PM (9/04/2007)
QFT again.
A staple of the rich and/or powerful is do as I say, not as I do. Competition and the free market are GREAT [so long as they don't apply to me]. Tax breaks for moving production to Mexico? Thank you very much, capital should be used where it is most efficient [but how dare the government not protect me from the more nimble and efficient "foreign brands" who build their cars in America and hire Americans?]
Adapt or perish.
Chivo 6:31PM (9/04/2007)
GM, Ford, and Chrysler builds way more automobiles in the United States than any Japanese automaker. People that keep mentioning that American automakers make there cars in Mexico and that Japanese automakers make their cars in the United States are plain stupid. Most Toyotas are still manufactured in Japan.
Shott3r, get your facts straight, idiot.
Muhammed 5:07PM (9/04/2007)
It would be very interesting to see how many vehicles on the list are manufactured in the USA. I'm willing to bet that even though several of the vehicles have "foreign" nameplates, they may be manufactured locally using local parts suppliers and workers.
GMs E85 program was a hoax used to allow them to realize lower fleet MPG numbers based on the way the EPA did calculations for Ethanol-Compatible vehicles.
Perhaps this will be a wakeup call for the Big 3, and they'll start realizing that they need to start thinking seriously about vehicles which are practical as well as fuel efficient. To GMs credit, they do have a Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle in the works, which is a step in the right direction.
Reply
Lithous 5:07PM (9/04/2007)
Easy fix...
Find a Japanese person who scores higher on an IQ test (and other qualifications) than the person or people responsible for the email and replace them with that Japanese person. Tell them the only reason is that they weren't as efficient as the Japanese person.
I'm sure the employee being replaced would still be into the best efficiency and would not complain a bit and just take it and move on. Yeah, right.
They should be in their garage building a better mouse trap instead of sending out such emails if they are that concerned.
Reply
Jared 5:55PM (9/04/2007)
Damn right.
Not to mention American car companies pay more in taxes that in turn pay for these 61,000 federal employees. Not only that but how well domestic auto manufactures do also affect one in three domestic jobs. These affected jobs also contribute in taxes which also help pay for these federal employees. Stop eating the hand that feeds you.
Nuff said.
howard 1:49AM (9/05/2007)
they should take all the people who work in the SAFETY& HEALTH AGENCY and put them a BIG round building out in the desert and tell them the toilet is in the corner!
Jason 5:24PM (9/04/2007)
When did Nissan come out with a hybrid Altima? And why is it only sold in 8 states??
Regardless of intentional bias or not, someone should have clued in that a US government agency recommending all import cars to its employees might not be viewed very well before sending that email (and hopefully emails that get sent out to 67,000 employees have some type of review process). And I have to side with the Ford folks here, why on earth where they giving car buying advice in the first place??
As for HHS claiming that the email wasn't "intended to be an official stance of the HHS"... IMHO sending an email to 67,000 employees kinda makes it an official stance.
Reply