Just because GE built a nice new shiny toy is no reason for government to take my money and throw it away! The fact that they choose my bid, regardless of my price, doesn’t mean I’m “RAPING” the government.
When you charge $1500 for a ashtray it sure as hell does. But keep believing what you want.
I couldn’t agree more. U.S. auto co’s won’t do anything but build cars and trucks that maximize profits.
I never said I was against limos. I referred to stretched Hummers, which use lots of fuel without the added weight of being converted to limos. It isn’t because a person has money that I don’t think he sould waste. I don’t think anyone should unnecessarily waste fuel. In this I have been pretty clear. A millionare has a right to use fuel resources as long as he doesn’t inflate the cost for the rest of us without a ligitimate reason. Stop trying to fit my beliefs into a single sound byte. I think that extravagent waste of fuel unfairly raises the cost of living for the little guy. I think it is noble and prudent to do something about it. So why not set a higher fuel economy standard for Hummers? Why not set a separate standard for limousines? The point of the Iacocca quote is to point out that left to regulate itself the automotive industry could not be trusted to do what is right. I think that quote does a REALLY good job of demonstrating that.
The wasteful millionare that I used in my example has no motivation to use fuel efficiently. That is why I think we need higher federally mandated fuel economy standards. We need them for all of the folks who, without the law, would waste fuel. This goes for anyone, not just the millionare in the example. We need these standards for cars, big trucks, motorcycles, and lawn mowers. We need them for anyone who is not already motivated to use fuel efficiently. Keep your trucks and SUVs. I don’t want to outlaw them. I don’t want to make them less safe. I just want them to have better technology that will make them more fuel efficient and I don’t believe that we innvative Americans need to be boxed in my the narrow belief that fuel economy and safety are mutually exclusive. I also believe that how you drive has more impact on safety than what you drive. There will always be skeptics that tell us what we can’t do. I choose not to limit myself by your lack of confidence in American innovation.
History is an important lesson Here. Way back in the late sixties, the Muskie clean air act was introduced. All 4 (there were 4 then)US car manufacturers hired expensive lawyers to tell Congress it could not be done, would bankrupt the companies, etc. At that time, Honda bought a standard GM car off the showroom floor, shipped it to Japan, and Honda’s president told the engineers to “Muskie-ize it”. They accomplished this fairly quickly, and then offered the technolgy to GM, to rub salt in the “wound”. The rest is history. Honda is the world’s largest manufacturer of internal combustion engines and has impressive engineering depth to meet standards thrown its way.
Fast forward to early 1990s; the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles (PNGV). This was a federal-industry effort to build demonstation vehicles that got three times (3X)the normal gas mileage. It required companies to get 3 times the mileage from their standard sized family cars. Ford took a Tauruss design and had it get 80 mpg hightway; yes, that’s right!!! They concentrated on getting the weight down, streamling and went to hybrid power train. In Ford’s case, a 3 cylinder tubo diesel and electric motor, much like Toyota’s layout today. They made the body/chassis out of Aluminum, Carbon Fibre, Titanium, and other light materials. The cost was high, but they proved it could be done. Nissan, Honda and Toyota also participated. At the end of the program, the US compnies buried their efforts, while Honda and Toyota thought it needed further development since they saw a future in hybrids. Again, the rest is history. I leson here is that government has a role to set standards and guidelines and industry can compete free market style to mee the needs.
Ideally, both the marketplace and the govt. can work together. The govt. can incentivise the consumer market, and then let the free market flurish. It works better. Consumers with rebates for higher milage low polution cars and tax penalties for gas guzzlers. NOTHING response faster than a business trying to make a profit.
I built a passive solar addition in the 70’s for 40 cents on the dollar with tax incentives. If those insentives (and others) were continued today, we would be a lot further along in polution control and energy independences. Unfortunately, short term corp. interest and lack of long term forsight got in the way.
By the way, the electric car with zero pollution is a viable alternative, that unfortunately will have to wait for “Gates” and Apples “i car” to take hold…go NASDAC.
I have some scary news, Mountainbike. About 75-80% of the world’s oil reserves are in the hands of foreign government oil companies. Most of these are unfriendly to the US, unreliable, and almost all are corrupt i.e. they cheat like crazy, and as a result cannot really control the oil supply. The real scary part is that they are quite incompetent compared to the big Western Oil companies, such as EXXON, SHELL, BP, etc., and cannot produce as much oil as they should. Venezuela, for instance has lost one million barrels per day capacity to produce since Chavez “threw out the Gringos”. Many other oil countries would really benefit from the presence of Western firms, since they could rapidly increase production, but not forever, of course. US oil companies have lots of money, but they don’t have lots of places to drill for oil. As a result, their reserves are dwindling. So we have a situation where there are no new sources of cheap oil left and those that have the reserves are producing at their own pace, and raking in the cash because of the high prices. Of all the suppliers to the US, only Canada is friendly, reliable and competent enough to maximize production when required. But Canada can only supply part of the total imports. The US imports more than 50% of its oil, putting the country in a vulnerable position. A hundred years ago countries went to war over key commodities. This is no longer fashionable, nor militarily possible. So, regardless of how much we like big cars, boats and other toys, the outflow of dollars, and the unreliable supply of oil will dictate reduced consumption and a push for alternative transportion fuels.
I’m shocked, shocked I say… an american business that’s only interested in maximizing profits. What’s the world coming to?
Seriously, if you want to decrease energy consumption (not just oil), make energy more expensive. That’s the only approach that will actually work. Yes, I understand that it’s “unfair.”
…and what is wrong with an auto company maximizing profits? Isn’t that what all companies are supposed to do?
I agree with your position but your reasoning escapes me. In fact, I could argue that wasting energy resources is counterproductive to the auto companies’ goal of maximizing profits, but it seems that you are suggesting that maximizing profits is somehow evil. Making fuel effieient cars has given the Japanese car makers a competitive edge, increasing their profits and allowing them to gain dominance over Detriot’s big three. The problem is that Detriot’s big three needed to be forced to do everything that they should have been willing to do on their own. They seem to be their own worst enemy and since what is good for GM is what’s good for America, I would rather find a way to both maximize profits and increase fuel economy at the same time. Then everybody wins. If detroit’s big three had the same foresight that Japan’s auto makers have, none of the legislation for fuel economy standards would be necessary. The same goes for auto safety features that are mandated by government. It should not be necessary for a government mandate, but unfortunately, it is.
I drive a 2003 Cadillac full size Northstar V8 Deville that consistantly gets better gas milage than my wife’s 2006 Chevy HHR 4 cylinder. This is the case even though I try to drive her car to get the best milage possible. I have gotten 32mpg on the Caddy under the best conditions and the best have been able to get on the HHR is 28.
I think all cars could get much better gas milage than they do now if designed to do so. That design then does not necessarily mean smaller, lighter and tiny engines. I think it means a careful match of engine to drive train to body style. Much could be done to provide Americans with high quality American made cars that get better gas milage and at a reasonable price. If we demand it we will get it, we just don’t demand it. We continue to accept what the advertisers tell us we want.
That said, I still think we need to pursue alternative sources of energy. Electric cars would be viable if made available to the general public in large quantities at a reasoble price and not an ugly little box or jellybean.
Give me an electric car that looks as good as a 57 Chevy for about $20,000 and I will surely consider it.
By the way, electric (or hydrogen fuel cell) cars are NOT zero pollution. They just shift the pollution to some other place where it may be easier (or harder) to clean up. Truly renewable electrical generation with zero environmental impact is still very rare. And I don’t want Billy Gates anywhere near my car. He’s a monopolist who crushes all competition, and we will pay through the nose for the privilege of driving his car (if he can come up with one that doesn’t have to be rebooted every 5 miles).
Part of the solution is to get rid of all those “Monday holidays”. Holidays used to be held on a date that meant something (e.g., November 11 for Armistice Day/Veterans Day). In the late '60s, wishing to increase gasoline sales, the oil companies “prevailed upon” (bribed) Congress to move most of our holidays to Mondays so that people would travel more and yes, burn more gas. There actually was a time when the oil companies were worried that we weren’t using up the stuff fast enough! Now most of our holidays are meaningless, just occasions to travel and shop. Move them back to where they belong, and reduce travel and gas use.
You’re right on the money with solo performances in SUV’s. Those things are capable of stopping an airplane, as shown on T.V., yet are an excessive waste of fuel, while an impressive display of pride.
There’s way too much driving. I don’t compute fuel economy while walking to work.
My 0.02 is to force the issue. It really annoys me that I cannot buy an American made car that gets better than the mid 30’s for milage. The diesel VW I had over 20 years ago got 50 MPG. The diesel version of the Kia I now drive gets in the mid 40’s. Of course, you can get it everywhere in the world but the US. I know it can be done. The '98 Intrepid I used to have go 30 MPG – not bad for a full sized car.
Tired of listening to folks whine about dependence on forign oil? I am. The solution is simple, STOP BURNING SO MUCH OIL!! Look areound you, how many folks do you see driving a < 20 MPg vehicle all alone?
I wanna know where the “gas guzzler” tax goes. I’ve seen it as little as $1000 and upwards of $3000+
Tom and Ray, your letter is spot on. It’s hard for Americans to have foresight sometimes, and think about how the future can’t just be direct extension of the past: going down the path of reducing MPG for horsepower/torque and increased profit (through reduced development costs at our automakers) is not something the world’s oil supply can sustain for the next 100 years. (Or for the next 20 years, for that matter…not to mention the world’s climate). 35 mph is absolutely possible, using the comprehensive list of technologies you nicely summarized. I especially like the auto stop/start and higher-voltage electrical system ideas, myself. Mate these to regenerative braking and we’re well on our way. We need to break through the 30 MPG barrier we’ve set for ourselves relying solely on gasoline-powered engines alone… idling at stoplights, turning stopping momentum into brake rotor heat… We can start small, using little technological assistance to capture and recapture inefficiencies, and work our way to concepts (soon to be in-production) like the Chevrolet Volt.
Furthermore, if our capitalistic system is allowed to function as it always has, we will inevitably see the natural environment get much worse before it gets better. At some point, the government needs to step in an redefine our national priorities. When this happens, we get things like our national park system, safe regulation of our food supply, and better working environments to name a few. Sure, these things were all costly from the viewpoint of short-term business/capitalist professionals, but the long-term rewards have been very helpful in keeping our nation afloat.
This next 5-15 years gives our nation a chance to pull together once again to convert a land run entirely on fossil fuels to one run on renewable energy with the occasional assistance of said fuels. Trust me, the light on the other side of the tunnel will be much brighter, and less hazy, when we eliminate our reliance on burned hydrocarbons and their resultant pollution (pollution in the air, water, and minds of the world’s money-hungry oil men).
As of today, 15 states, representing over 50% of the US population have already signed on the California Pavly rules, requiring 35 mpg combined for cars and light trucks by 2020, with no exceptions. California, because of its unique problems has always led the way in this area. Tom and Ray live in Massachusetts, which unfortunately, has not signed on yet. We now have the strange situation where the majority of the people are telling an elected president what they want and the president sides with the Oil and Car lobby to deny this request. The federal version of the CAFE program has numerous loopholes, and has provisions for opting out if industry finds it too difficult. The New European, Japanese, and even the new Chinese rules are all more stringent than even the Pavly rules.
My prior post on the PNGV, a program form the early 1990s to get 3 TIMES the fuel mileage from a family car, proved it can be done. We don’t even need to drive tiny cars to get there.
This letter is well crafted and timely. We are propping up hostile governments with atrocious human rights records by funnelling them untold billions to fuel these inefficient vehicles. We have the skills and technology to markedly increase mileage and decrease dependence on Saudi, Iranian, Venezuelan oil. "The marketplace" has clearly not gotten the job done for us.If they don’t increase mpg they’ll be gone by 2015
I live in Texas on an island. Every weekend and every day in the summer we have at least one or more fishing tournaments. The husbands/fathers trailer the boat, usually on a king cab truck, and the moms and children will come in their seperate Suburban or equivalent. On our island, parking is limited, it is a 10 minute ferry ride to the island, which the ferry lines can be up to 2 hours waiting in line on a busy weekend. So lots of fuel is used and pollution emitted (don’t forget the boats). However, just as in the 70’s, if fuel becomes expensive enough, people would think of ways to economize. Also, I have a daughter who goes to college about 200 miles away, who is usually coming home or against this traffic of humongous vehicles and until Everyone goes to smaller transportation, its viewed as a dangerous thing to be in a vehicle that is not up to the level playing field as the big behomouths, eventhough I would love for her to drive something more economical. So I think you are right on. It has to be mandated, otherwise the market will never follow. Thanks for your jousting against the giants.
The VW Beetle was the first small car that would stand up to daily hard use and long distance driving on US roads. That, with a good dealer network, assured its place in history as the ultimate cult car. This was an extremely difficult act to follow for British, French,Italian, US, and early Japanese cars like the Toyopet, the Datsun Bluebird, etc. The Japanese persisited, and adapted their cars to North Amercan requirements. The British, French and Italians did no such thing and are no longer around. One more example of Charles Darwin’s “suvival of the fittest” theory.