Between top X lists and hastily written end-of-the-year musings, the final day of 2007 is looking a lot like last year's run of retrospectives. Although some of the stories are different, many of the players have remained the same, so Tom Walsh from the Freep shot out a dozen emails to some of the leaders in his home state to get their predictions and hopes for the New Year.The General's CEO, Rick Wagoner, echoes the sentiments of many in the auto industry, with hopes that the housing crisis is resolved post haste, while Ford's Mark Fields wishes that "we don't continually talk ourselves into a recession in 2008." Fields either wants to see or is predicting that "cars and crossovers will outsell trucks and SUVs for the first time in many years" and with gas prices holding steady at their current rates, that's a distinct possibility.
Both execs hope that comprehensive reform of the United States' energy policy takes effect, but the every quotable Bob Lutz takes the curmudgeon cake, saying, "Now that we have the 35 miles-per-gallon fuel economy mandate by 2020, I am hoping that in 2008 'Professor Doktor' David Friedman (research director, clean vehicles program, Union of Concerned Scientists) and his 'highly-qualified' band of allegedly concerned, self-proclaimed scientists will turn their energy toward showing the world's automotive industry exactly how those numbers, using existing technology and 'costs of a few hundred dollars at the most' can be attained with a vehicle selection that even remotely resembles the cars and trucks Americans want to buy today."
While on the cusp of another year, it's nice to know that some things will never change.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
GM on Corvette ZR1 cancellation rumor: "Not true."
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Ben @ Dec 31st 2007 5:34PM
MAXIMUM BOB ANGRY!!!
Whitie @ Dec 31st 2007 5:37PM
I agree with Lutz. Legislation was slammed through without any hints regarding how the mileage goals will be achieved. Auto manufacturers agreed to it at gunpoint. If the US auto industry fails at this, the recession will make the current housing collapse look like a walk in the park.
Tom @ Dec 31st 2007 5:42PM
Bob Lutz is an idiot. Fuel economy should be the auto makers number ONE concern these days. Being angry solves nothing. And besides, Lutz shouldn't need anyone to tell him how to make a 35mpg car because they already exist. He just has to use his vast brain power and sell those 35 mpg vehicles instead of gas guzzling SUVs.
Kaptain75329 @ Dec 31st 2007 6:06PM
Tom,
People like you impress me with your sheer arrogance and depressingly out-of-touch ignorance. Someone like you always has all the answers right there from your keyboard.
Hypothetical: GM is now bowing to your alter. Now what would you do? Yea sure, all you'd have to do is reduce the weight and that would instantly improve fuel economy. Except that weight reduction isn't that simple because the buyer wants a whole bunch of features. The government wants a whole bunch of safety equipment. So That stuff has to stay. Lighter materials you say? Who's gonna pay for that? Not the customers -- certainly not you -- and GM isn't in a position to piss money down the drain to build cars with materials that are light AND durable AND cost-effective. What about horsepower? Who needs 250+ hp for a family sedan anyway? Well, you could reduce engine power to increase economy but then you get bashed for not making a competitive product - power reduction only works if every manufacturer out there does it, and that would only last as long as it would take for one maverick to break formation and screw the whole thing up. At this point, we're talking GM looking at hybrids and diesels to increase efficiency - neither of which are especially tempting options. Hybrids are over-priced and under-performing and hippies already think diesels are evil, so good luck fighting that battle.
GM has to walk on eggshells to please too many constituencies when in reality they should be primarily focused satisfying their customers with great product and their shareholders with feasible return on investment. Otherwise known as "profit". But of course that makes too much sense. As is the case with anything politicized, logic and reason are off limits.
It's nearly 2008. Fail to be a complete dumbass.
DS @ Dec 31st 2007 6:20PM
Tom,
Shut your insolent mouth!!!!
No one insults Maximum Bob...
why not the LS2LS7? @ Dec 31st 2007 6:26PM
Yeah, and CAFE was impossible to achieve the first time around. And automakers shot well past it.
Raising the standard makes sense.
Paul P. @ Dec 31st 2007 6:57PM
why not the LS2/LS7?:
CAFE before didn't include trucks/suvs and I believe it was based on cars produced, not on numbers of individual models sold. It's much harder to meet 35mpg now than the 25mpg was in the past. Especially when trucks, suvs, and large cars are your most sold vehicles.
Hell, Even the current 1.8L I4 Honda civic doesn't meet 35mpg mixed. At least when the old CAFE regulations came about there were a lot of vehicles already in production (or in the pipeline) that could meet the number. Now it's going to be a scramble to figure out what's the best way to meet this new number. Be is less weight, less power, smaller vehicles, hybrids, diesels, ect. Either way, it's just going to make things even more expensive for the consumer, especially if you want or need something larger than a Civic. (Like I do.)
dan @ Jan 1st 2008 1:38PM
"Yeah, and CAFE was impossible to achieve the first time around. And automakers shot well past it."
Automakers shot well past it because oil prices were very high from 1979-85 and consumers chose to purchase vehicles they could afford to run. In other words, the free market worked - like it always does when allowed to - and CAFE may as well have not existed.
More recently, CAFE created the SUV and family pickup truck - and largely ruined the cheap work truck - by penalizing any car large enough for a family to want.
These newest revisions will create electric cars, fill the landfills with mountains of batteries, and the rehab wards with hundreds of thousands of gimps crippled in small vehicle crashes.
A gift from Jimmuh Carter that keeps on giving.
brian @ Dec 31st 2007 8:01PM
@Tom
I'm getting the notion that you think that all these automakers have some magical pixie dust or a bag of 35mpg-achieving cars that will meet the CAFE regulations...
I'm sorry to tell you but magical pixie dust (never) and bags full of those cars don't exist (give it 50 years)
The government is overreacting to this environmental claims put forth by these so called "scientists" that have no solid ground to stand on.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Dec 31st 2007 8:35PM
CAFE before was based on cars and light trucks (SUVs are considered either station wagons or light trucks) sold, which is the same as cars and light trucks produced. So yes, it is weighted by what is bought, not just the lineup the manufacturer offers. This is one of the things the manufacturers complain about actually. That people buy whatever they want, even if the manufacturers make a different mix.
But honestly, they're just not taking responsibility. Look at the Accord. It started out smaller than a Fit and is now a full-size car. Are you telling me this is because it just grew with the market? If so, why are there two smaller cars in Honda's lineup now?
The auto manufacturers are just nervous because they don't have any idea how to market cars other than "bigger is better" and "more HP is better". They are afraid they'll have to learn a new way of doing business, to sell cars to people based upon something other than HP.
As to the idea that CAFE is different this time, it isn't. CAFE started low and went up over time, there were cars that passed CAFE when it started and of course many when it peaked at it's highest numbers. There are cars that match 35mpg aready, even though it isn't necessary for many many years.
Most of all, people need to stop assuming auto mpg can't be improved with applications of technology. Just because the fleet average isn't 35mpg right now doesn't mean it can't be later.
To those who say the 35mpg is for all vehicles, it's only for cars. Go check the wikipedia page on CAFE if you'd like. There is a separate light truck standard.
Julius @ Dec 31st 2007 11:45PM
Why not...
35 MPG is currently for cars, not light trucks... that is, until California forces through the Federal courts their version of the CO2 emissions caps. At that point, it'll be 39 MPG for all vehicles by 2016.
And despite the original CAFE, America is importing more oil than ever. (~4k barrels/day in 1985, over 10k today)
So the notion of CAFE "working to wean us from foreign oil addiction" is ridiculous on the face of it. Even European environmentalists are pessimistic on similar lower-mileage one-time taxation methods on cars in Europe, favoring more direct gasoline taxes to make things work.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 1st 2008 12:09AM
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because CAFE hasn't been completely successful in weaning us from foreign oil doesn't mean it is a failure nor does it mean it is worthless. As others point out, we use oil for more things than just cars anyway, so CAFE can't necessarily fix the whole problem anyway.
CAFE is worthwhile. We have more powerful cars now than we did before CAFE and they get a LOT better mpg. It's quite a stretch to call that a failure.
elprogramer @ Jan 1st 2008 1:49AM
The only thing the CAFE standards did was give us a generation of impotent cars and let the average American drive even further to work every day.
Julius @ Jan 2nd 2008 3:04PM
Why not - what's the point of CAFE if it isn't to use less oil?
CO2 production is DIRECTLY linked to oil consumption, so therefore the idea of reducing CO2 production by imposing efficiency standards is backwards at best.
It's like saying we're going to combat America's obesity by restricting cheeseburgers to less than 4 ounces of meat each, but not limiting the number of burgers you can buy.
It's just in this case, we want to mandatorily improve the mileage of a vehicle, but will do nothing to limit the actual consumption of gasoline.
All of that adds up to a failed policy, IMHO.
Julius @ Jan 2nd 2008 3:51PM
Oh, another point about CAFE:
BMW of North America has been in the position of having to pay CAFE fines every year since 1985 - about $237 Billion in all. They still paid $5 million last year, even with the effects of the MINI offsetting their larger cars.(per NHTSA site)
And yet, BMW sales still are climbing (more of their less-efficient "upscale" cars, rather than the MINI, sales of which has been flat).
So I don't see how paying a CAFE fine has truly promoted increased fuel efficiency in this case.
Stephen @ Jan 4th 2008 12:13PM
why the hell cant i just buy what i can afford? if i want better fuel economy, i could buy a prius, but thats not what i want. why does the government have to get involved and tell the automakers what they should build, instead of the customer. obviously if people wanted better fuel economy, they would buy smaller cars, but people want trucks and suvs. the customer should determine the market, not the gov.
Lucas @ Dec 31st 2007 5:46PM
Oh there are plenty of cars I would like to buy that wouldn't take much if anything to make 35mpg. Unfortunately for you, GM doesn't make any of them. Maybe you should make other good and desireable vehicles that aren't big soccer mom SUVs and the Corvette.
motorman @ Dec 31st 2007 7:41PM
the problems is a lot of those soccer moms weight 200# + so they don't fit to well into a econobox size car
mike @ Jan 1st 2008 12:17PM
You haven't been in a modern small car. Try out one soon.
atropos @ Dec 31st 2007 5:48PM
"Now that we have the 35 miles-per-gallon fuel economy mandate by 2020, I am hoping that in 2008 'Professor Doktor' David Friedman (research director, clean vehicles program, Union of Concerned Scientists) and his 'highly-qualified' band of allegedly concerned, self-proclaimed scientists will turn their energy toward showing the world's automotive industry exactly how those numbers, using existing technology and 'costs of a few hundred dollars at the most' can be attained with a vehicle selection that even remotely resembles the cars and trucks Americans want to buy today."
35mpg is not an unattainable number. And here's a hint: few Americans can afford to buy what they WANT to drive.. they end up buying what they can deal with financially.