• 26

General Motors
North America President, Mark Reuss, says that automakers will have no choice (obviously) but to comply with the proposed 56.2 miles-per-gallon CAFE target for 2025, if enacted, but admits that it will be no easy task. Shortly after announcing a $2.5 million donation from GM to the College for Creative Studies, Reuss told Ward's Auto (sub. req.) that:
It's our job to take a look at it, digest it, and put together a data set of what it takes to do it. The auto industry does not get easier. It always gets tougher. That's the challenge and that's what our jobs are. If even-stricter guidelines require billions more in investment, so be it. It's not an either/or thing. It's how we get there with cars and trucks that consumers really want to buy at a [price] that doesn't put unreasonable cost on them.
An official CAFE proposal isn't due to be released until September, but it sounds like GM is ready for the challenge – whatever it may be.

[Source: Wards' Auto – sub. req.]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 26 Comments
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 4 Years Ago
      This beats the Bob Lutz era public whining from GM by a long shot.
      Dan Frederiksen
      • 4 Years Ago
      it's the same old obtuseness of course. 100mpg could be done as well. just making half their cars plugin hybrids with moderate range would probably meet 56mpg even without using lighter materials or improved aerodynamics. in a couple of years a 8-10kWh pack will cost 2000$. and if GM made their own battery fab they could probably do it for 1000$ (perish the thought) the Volt has a combined rating of 60mpg and that's a fat ass vehicle. plus the CAFE ratings are higher, say maybe 70. they could do it even with the same old primitive cast iron bullshit. and if they actually started optimizing their designs they could probably get to a 150mpg fleet average equivalent. if they have to it's even possible to make a cross over type vehicles that is extremely efficient (relative to what it is). tall is not a big problem if you let the air cleanly pass under it. and it can be made aerodynamic too. and of course using a light strong construction will help a lot too. all quite possible. I'd say that a high tech light aero crossover with a minimum plugin range could be profitable at say 26k$ and have a CAFE rating of 100mpg
      wardialer
      • 4 Years Ago
      you kidding me? they already have the 230 mpg volt and they're crying about 56.2 mpg in 2025?
      Dan Frederiksen
      • 4 Years Ago
      btw, looking at the picture, they should have made just one model to accommodate both drive trains. a bit like ford does with the focus but not as a retrofit but designed for both.
      Peter
      • 4 Years Ago
      Its called SPIN ooh that 4ish % increase annually is going to be SO tough, we can do it if we have to (THUS it would be unreasonable for the government to ask for more... say 5%)
      markkiernan
      • 4 Years Ago
      Who in all honesty needs a V8 3.0?
        Woody Becker
        • 4 Years Ago
        @markkiernan
        I have never heard of a 3.0 Liter V-8, I know that Ford produced a 3.4 Liter V-8 in their earlier Taurus SHO. Not sure what you are talking about. I would ask, who needs to have unlimited speeds on the Autobahn?
      Kai F. Lahmann
      • 4 Years Ago
      For sure it's a tough target. That's why you have still over 13 years left to reach it. About the same time in the past (1996) Greenpeace demonstrated a 3l/100km-concept based on a Renault Twingo - 3,4m length, 650 kg and 55 hp. Today you can buy four different 3l/100km-cars with over a ton of weight and, 4m and 70-75 hp.
      erhcanadian
      • 4 Years Ago
      The tough part is not making a 56.2mpg car - they already do that - the tough part will be convincing the majority of Americans to buy it over the big SUVs and throaty V6s and V8s that they feel is their right to own.
        Woody Becker
        • 4 Years Ago
        @erhcanadian
        Well, the last time I was in Edmonton I noticed a boat load of Toyota Tundra and Nissan Armada Trucks idiling in -40C weather....must have been attempting to what? Cool the air to -50C?
      Neil Blanchard
      • 4 Years Ago
      Lessee, GM has several cars that get way better efficiency than this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Ultralite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Precept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 The GM Volt is ~93MPG. The Nissan Leaf is 99MPGe. The Illuminati Motors is 207MPGe. Seems to be possible 20 years ago, and now? Neil
        Woody Becker
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Neil Blanchard
        Hey Niel, I was wondering how many THINKs did you or anyone else purchase? It shouldn't matter how much they are, just know that you are helping the environment. By the way the vehicles you posted above were one-offs except for the EV-1, they cost several million dollars each....
        Danaon
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Neil Blanchard
        You're missing the point. Hitting that number is not difficult, hitting that number AND STILL HAVING A CAR PEOPLE WANT TO BUY is difficult. I know a lot of people here are used to the tiny econoboxes the EU has to deal with, but Americans won't stand for it. We do too much with our cars and rely on them for too much to get by with A segment/B segment for everyone. Also, once again, fleetwide CAFE is stupid. They should break it up into segments. Either that, or they should give automakers with a full line of trucks a different metric.
          • 4 Years Ago
          @Danaon
          If Americans don't change their tastes in cars/trucks they will just have to be willing to spend ever larger percentages of their incomes on fuel. in order to satisfy their traditional tastes. The US was the world's first major producer of petroleum and the first major exporter. It is claimed that six billion of the seven billion barrels of petroleum used by the allies during World War came from the United States. Before oil production in the US peaked in about 1970 the problem was an abundance of easy(cheap) to produce oil. This resulted in the need to drive up demand by encouraging consumption. It is in this context that Americans nurtured their love affair with cars especially big gas guzzlers. Times have changed. While the US is still the worlds third largest producer of oil, the production trends are downward and although the US produces only about one tenth of the world's daily oil production, it consumes almost a quarter of the world's daily total. At the same time consumption is surging in China, the nation with a population of over 1.3 billion that, now manufactures a large and increasing share of the world's (not so) durable goods. Consumption is also growing in India, population over 1.1 billion. To satisfy this growing consumption, the "huge" new oil finds we keep hearing about are mostly offshore, many of them in very deep water, making them very expensive to exploit. I leave it to you to figure out where the American love affair with (large) cars is going. Alan
          Ryan
          • 4 Years Ago
          @Danaon
          They had the Ford Ranger EV, Rav4 EV, Chevy S-10 EV in the 90s. That was before lithium batteries and such. I am working on converting an s-10 BECAUSE THEY WON'T SELL ME ONE! I also know how much it should cost GM and the others to build an EV ($2-3k motor, $1-2k controller, $10k batteries, $8k body/frame, $2k other components) There are plenty of simple things they could do to get there, and they should have to drag Americans kicking and screaming (like half of this country does so well).
          Woody Becker
          • 4 Years Ago
          @Danaon
          Excellent post, and you are correct, the Euros think they are so efficient, yet in Germany they allow 200+ KPH on the Autobahn. I hate to burst your bubble people, but you are not getting 100 MPG going that fast!
          Neil Blanchard
          • 4 Years Ago
          @Danaon
          If a car gets 80MPG, or 100MPG, or 200MPG, then why wouldn't people want to buy it? Because they don't like the "styling"? Gimme a break... Neil
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Neil Blanchard
        Yeah but joe blow can't fork out $40k for a grocery getter..
      • 4 Years Ago
      Wow! A 56.2 mpg target is going to be so tough! So tough that the story about 6 positions below this one about the Volkswagen Passat BlueMotion getting 57.4 mpg on diesel must be false. Anyway, at the astronomical price of about 31 grand there's no way anybody's gonna buy it. Plus it's way too small, even though it's Volkswagen's largest four door sedan, it's really only suitable for those really tiny people in Germany, where it's made. Before anybody points out that this is a diesel, that's true and there's no way the gas powered models are going to be able to even approach 56 mpg in 15 years without the already astronomical costs going into the stratosphere. Just in case you missed it, I'm being sarcastic.
      paulwesterberg
      • 4 Years Ago
      Note that CAFE mileage numbers are based on the old EPA test method that makes it much easier for vehicle to score high mileage. Based on this flawed testing: the 2001 Honda Insight had a combined mileage of 64mpg. the 2004 Toyota Prius had a combined mileage of 55mpg. So the current 2010+ Toyota Prius probably already meets this CAFE standard as do the Leaf & Volt. Since CAFE standards are for the average fleet mileage if automakers sell 30% electric pure/plugin/hybrid vehicles. They will still be able to sell a fair number of vehicles that only get 30mpg and since trucks & suvs are classified separately from cars most manufacturer wont have a problem meeting this weak target with start/stop & mild hybrid technologies that exist today.
        Andrew
        • 4 Years Ago
        @paulwesterberg
        Note quite. The previous method that was in use from somewhere in the 80s until model year 2007 took the raw EPA dyno numbers and fudged the city numbers down by 10% and and highway numbers by 22% before going on the Monroney sticker. With MY08 and beyond, they added 3 harsher test cycles. 56.2 CAFE mpg is about equal to 39 or 40 mpg combined on the Monroney sticker. http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/12/fuel-economy-doublespeak-at-its-best.html and others have talked about this doublespeak for a long time. If you download the 2010 or 2011 data file at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml, you'll see that the current Prius gets "70.7791 mpg" for CAFE purposes. Previous gen Prius (04 to 09) got "65.7778 mpg" for CAFE purposes. You can read more about EPA tests at http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q3/the_truth_about_epa_city_highway_mpg_estimates-feature.
        GeorgeS
        • 4 Years Ago
        @paulwesterberg
        Thx Paul. GSB
      kruisin66
      • 4 Years Ago
      DIESEL! DAMMIT!
    • Load More Comments