GM responds to new CAFE standards
It appears as if GM is ready to accept the current CAFE legislation waiting to be decided by Congress. In a statement on the General's media site, Rick Wagoner writes,"There are tough, new CAFE standards contained in the energy bill before Congress that pose a significant technical and economic challenge to the industry. But, it's a challenge that GM is prepared to put forth its best effort to meet with an array of engineering, research and development resources. We will continue our aggressive pursuit of advance technologies that will deliver more products with more energy solutions to our customers."
The release goes on to detail GM's current environmentally-friendly accomplishments, which include the company offering "more vehicles that achieve 30 mpg on the highway," and having "produced over 2.5 million E-85 capable vehicles to date--more than any other automaker." It also says that GM sees ethanol as the "best near-term solution" to reduce gasoline consumption. Yeah, we chuckled at that one, too.
And then there are hybrids, which GM plans to roll out at an average of one every three months over the next two years. We're quite sure that GM has the means and, lately, the desire to do the green thing. The only uncertainty is whether they'll deliver substantially, and in ways that customers want. Their ace in the hole is, of course, the much anticipated Volt. If Lutz and his crew can get it out when promised, as promised, then 2010 will be the year of The Great Leap for GM in terms of brand perception, and, most likely, sales.
[Source: GM]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Thetruck454 6:22PM (12/03/2007)
and diesel... common gm we know you can make those too
Reply
Dave 7:11PM (12/03/2007)
Isnt CAFE based on 2007 hwy ratings?
Diesel (and HCCI) are much better at improving hwy ratings than hybrids are. I expect more diesels/HCCI.
The question is - how will plug-in hybrid mpg be calculated?
Guenther 7:28PM (12/03/2007)
there's no procedure for this currently. the vehicle is run through a "prep" cycle on the dyno, then sits a period of time under "soak" conditions. the vehicle is then run for emissions values and fuel economy, which is calculated based on CO2 emissions. Hybrids don't get any special treatment.
Thetruck454 7:49PM (12/03/2007)
Hybrids do better in stop and go traffic where they can used the brake energy to recharge the batteries. You are right that diesel and hcci engines are the real answer to highway mpg improvements
J.Crew 11:32PM (12/03/2007)
They are for light duty trucks.
Mike 6:28PM (12/03/2007)
Finally the right response from one of these guys. When your in this kind of business, having a can-do attitude will best suit you to winning customers. The old, "it's gonna cost the consumer this much" attitude only serves to make you look like you want to fight what people seem to want.
Reply
tankd0g 6:37PM (12/03/2007)
The probably wrote most of it, what's not to like?
dan 7:13PM (12/03/2007)
The CAFE debate has never been about government against automakers.
GM and every other car company will make what the market will buy. As long as they are given development time to make the transition, building hybrid sardine cans is no different than ushering in any other product line 10 years down the road.
Instead of asking GM what they think of this law, they should be asking ordinary Americans if they want to be forced to drive a Geo Metro.
Reply
Guenther 7:31PM (12/03/2007)
Precisely- the debate should really focus on wheather we need a more stringent version of a standard that has been in-effective in reducing fuel consumption, or legislation that might actually be good for the consumer.
psarhjinian 8:49PM (12/03/2007)
Maybe we don't want to drive a Geo Metro, but do we need to drive a near-5000lb GMC Acadia when an Opel Zafira would be more than enough?
I drive one of two cars: a 200hp Saab 9-3 and a 100hp Honda Fit. Both are more than adequately fast--the Saab, I'd hazard, is faster than I'd need--and both carry enough cargo and people to keep a an average 1.5 kids family happy (though again, the Saab can carry very slightly more than I need; the Fit somewhat less). On the rare occasions I need to pack more than the Saab can carry I'll strap on a roof box.
Heck, if I didn't travel for work, I don't think I'd even need the other car.
I think North Americans need to rethink exactly how much car they really need. 100-150hp is more than enough for a decent-sized automobile of ~3500lbs, 8-10 seconds is an entirely acceptable 0-60 time and it's okay to rent a bigger car when you need one.
dan 9:22PM (12/03/2007)
Most people can at least understand, if not necessarily agree with your viewpoint that 5,000lb CUVs as daily solo drivers are ridiculous.
The 35mpg CAFE they want goes so far in the other direction that even your Fit won't meet it. Neither will the Yaris, the Accent, or any other conventional car sold in the US. Your Saab isn't even close.
I think $3 gas - and $4 next summer, and $5 in the near future - is doing a pretty good job of making Americans rethink their vehicles on their own. There is a sensible middle ground between an Acadia and a Metro. Sweeping CAFE changes (written by congressional millionaires with no technical background) just distort the market and force people into cars they don't want.
elprogramer 9:24PM (12/03/2007)
^I think you need to stop telling people what's acceptable for them.
elprogramer 9:25PM (12/03/2007)
erm, to: psarhjinian
psarhjinian 9:44PM (12/03/2007)
@dan
I think that 35mpg by, what, 2020, is entirely attainable. We've got economy cars that are nearly there now and, with advances in powertrain technology and materials, it's entirely possible we can make it.
I'm an emissions person, not a fuel economy person. I think CAFE is a bad idea because it takes people's eye off the real problem. I'd sooner see a carbon/emissions tax applied to car in direct proportion to their cost to produce, and a similar tax applied to fuel. I'd also like to see more rigorous emissions testing to keep problem machines off the roads.
I'd also like a pony. :)
CAFE has the virtue of being easy to legislate. It's not difficult to come up with the number, and it's not a political hot potato. It's not perfect, but it's better than _nothing).
@gv
I said "I think people can do with less". If that sounds sanctimonious, well, it should. By and large, North Americans are resource hogs and we need to learn better.
There's a lot of people buying a lot more car (and house, and such) than they really need, and the automakers are, in a lot of ways, enabling this via marketing. Its very easy to make a car bigger, better and faster, and it's very easy to market something as bigger. better and faster. I don't believe that, without some incentive, we can reduce consumption voluntarily, and certainly not before it becomes a serious problem.
oby 8:15PM (12/03/2007)
The release goes on to detail GM's current environmentally-friendly accomplishments, which include the company offering "more vehicles that achieve 30 mpg on the highway," and having "produced over 2.5 million E-85 capable vehicles to date--more than any other automaker." It also says that GM sees ethanol as the "best near-term solution" to reduce gasoline consumption.
Not to mention more vehicles that achieve less than 30 mpg on any kind of road. The only reason why GM built so many E85 flex-fuel vehicles is to take advantage of the loopholes in the old CAFE standards. How many of those vehicles actually run on E85. A lot a s**t talk comes out of GM along with the s**t vehicles. Die GM die!
Long live FoMoCo!
Reply
Guenther 8:21PM (12/03/2007)
wow- are you really this misguided?
lad 11:05PM (12/03/2007)
Remember the idea behind CAFE is to reduce emissions and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And, the loop hole of which you speak is necessary because ethanol's energy density is less than gasoline and so there must be some adjusted to encourage it's use. As I remember I think you are talking about 15% less energy for 100% ethanol. While I'm not necessarily happy with all GM does, the so called loop hole does help encourage less oil usage.
psarhjinian 9:47PM (12/03/2007)
He's got a point about FlexFuel being little more than a legislative loophole. FlexFuel credits are CAFE's dirty little secret: they're there to provide manufacturers who choose not to innovate with an escape route, while allowing a nice big serving of pork for agribusinss.
I'd be happy to see the FlexFuel exclusion scrapped.
AlexP 1:00AM (12/04/2007)
lol, he thinks Ford is green.
rgseidl 11:08AM (12/04/2007)
@ psarhjinian -
the House version of the bill actually calls for phasing out the E85 loophole by 2020. While it's true that the current situation is a complete greenwash, plugging the hole immediately would impose heavy gas guzzler taxes on the models currently in production and development.
Given the parlous state of the Big Three's finances, this would lead to further reductions in market share, lay-offs and a higher risk of bankruptcy. The latter would mean hundreds of thousands of retirees (= voters) would look to the federal government for their pensions and health care, albeit at sharply lower levels. Politicians need to balance energy security and environmental goals with the economic reality that the auto industry cannot turn on a dime.
It would be wise to add achievable milestones toward the 35MPG fleet average goal for 2020, though. It would also make sense to insist on using the EPA08 procedures for CAFE + GGT from e.g. 2015 onward. In addition, new procedures are required to fairly compute equivalent fuel economy for PHEVs from tank/battery-to-wheels performance only.
Perhaps the current version of the bill already calls for these measures, but I haven't read that anywhere.