GM slams possible fuel economy changes

dont GM full size trucks get better gas milage then forigns?


i didnt read the article bt it probably has something to do with trucks and suvs are a LARGE part of GM. forigns arnt selling nearlyh as many

 

What a dumbass. Whether he wants it or not, it will happen.

 

Because, as it is said in the article, SUVs and trucks arent Japanese brands first market,nonetheless they are winning market shares all over.

I dont know if GM trucks get better gas mileage than foreign brands, id think its the opposite ??

 

i dont beleive so. GMs trucks and SUVs are VERY fuel efficient for waht they are. Tahoes can get a shade over 20mpgs on the highway and average mid to upper teens suburbans a bit lower. full size extended cabs about the same etc.

their no dodge hemi

GM v8s are incredible with power and fuel efficiency.

 

Hmmm, all I know is that fuel economy is something that should be determined by consumers. Not the government.

 

GM SUV's and pickups do, in fact, get better mileage than their Japanese competition.

What Bob Lutz is talking about is fuel economy credits that the Japanese companies have built up over the years. They can afford to give up some CAFE mileage in their pickups because of this.

CNN is taking his comments somewhat out of context. You can read Lutz's full remarks here:

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2006/12/seasons_ranting_1.html

He's not saying that cars and trucks shoulnd't be more fuel efficient, he's saying that CAFE is not the way to do it. He's basically saying we should be developing alternative fuels, and let the price of fuel drive the market.

 

I believe GM has invested more in fuel efficiency than Toyota.

Then let it happen when gas turns $5/gallon?

 

:lol:


all those flex fuel toyotas...

 

What percentage of those flex fuel Chevy vehicles are running around with anything other than normal gasoline in their tanks?

 

This still sounds like Harley in the 80s complaining about Japanese bikes because they were too well made.

Dale

 

Or they could have taken all that money and actually funded the pensions, instead of paying themselves bonuses, then they wouldn't be in the cash squeeze they're in now. Or they could have done a combination of the two. That's three separate choices they could have made and they did none of them. But, they still get paid as if they'd made the right choice.

 

i dont know but there are MANY e85 pumps in my area...

 

did you miss the part where GMs trucks get BETTER gas milage the forigns?

 

Did you miss the part where you can get a spell checker in Google for free?

Dale

 

Suffice it to say that the percentage of flex fuel vehicles running off of E85 is quite low.

The real problem isn't with the trucks and SUV's. GM does well in that arena, but they will fail if they keep all of their focus there. Investing billions of dollars to develop a full-sized truck/SUV that produces 25 mpg is foolish when only a small percentage of the automotive market is demanding such a vehicle. No one is going to trade in their Prius on a Hybrid Tahoe.

GM's passenger car lineup is rather pitiful, with the Corvette being the only exception that comes to mind. In my opinion, GM must successfully develop this market segment...quickly.

 

Clearly the consumers don't care that much. So why is the government trying to regulate again?

A hybrid Tahoe isn't meant for Prius owners. It's meant for Tahoe owners that want better mileage. Much like how the Hybrid Lexus is meant for SUV owners who want better mileage...

Actually, GM, across the board has improved their lineup over the past 2-3 years. From a product perspective they are doing much better than Ford and perhaps even some European makers (ie: VW). Caddilac has their strongest lineup in years. Saturn, Pontiac, and Chevy are probably better product wise than any time in the last twenty years.

 

Can you point out for me where Dale said anything about fuel economy? Surely you don't equate fuel economy to quality, do you? They are very different things.

It seems GM has gone one direction - big cars, cheap gas, cheap MSRP, and more power. The foreign cars have been higher quality, last longer, better economy. If the US OEMs are forced to improve their mileage, they lose one of their 'competitive advantages', and feel they will lose ground to the imports.

Well, too bad! This is important for our national security. We can develop alternative fuels and increase economy as the market dictates, but as soon as there is a crisis and fuel becomes hard to find, we are *screwed*. This is a sitution that needs to be handled with a macro view on a national scale. Left to market forces, it will not change until a crisis occurs, which would put us in a world of hurt until the problem is solved. Better to force a solution today and never have to experience the alternative.

And while I'm on the subject, what is it that GM can't do that Toyota can? There's no reason they should feel the need to cling to one aspect of car design to win sales over an otherwise superior competitor.

 

Do you really believe that the reason the pension program was underfunded was because executives took that money in the form of bonuses? If so, please provide some backup of that - a source.

The truth is, the union squeezed GM to the brink. When you have workers being paid full salary for life with 100% medical coverage, you have a problem. Janitors making $80k a year - thats a problem. And before folks say "well they shouldn't have agreed to it"... they had no choice. The union was planning to cripple the company if they didn't. The only main difference between GM and Toyota is the unions. They can hire the same people, they can buy the same machines - the difference is the laws (which are better here) and unions (which are much worse here). If the unions hadn't been so greedy all those years, nobody would have agreed to a ridiculous unsustainable pension program that would end up underfunded and crippling a huge company.

 

no. foolish is buying a hybrid car that cost $5k more than a none hybrid resulting in at least 250k miles driven to recoup the cost of purchase differential. development of hybrid heavy duty trucks, pickups and such is where the real efficiencies come in.

 

Letter to the Editor, The New York Times, 490 words

June 2, 2006

Editor:

I’m tremendously disappointed with Thomas L. Friedman’s May 31 column, A
Quick Fix for the Gas Addicts. Mr. Friedman often offers well-supported, rational perspectives on the issues. This column was neither well-supported, nor rational.

He wildly asserts that GM is “dangerous to America’s future” and is “like a crack dealer” addicting Americans to SUVs. He accuses American automakers of buying congressional votes, and suggests America would be better off if Toyota were to take over GM.

What rubbish.

Here are the facts:

GM offers more vehicles that get an EPA-estimated 30 mpg or higher on the highway than any other automaker. That includes 2005’s topselling economy car, the Chevy Aveo.

GM also offers nine E85-capable vehicles – with more than 1.9 million already on the road – that can significantly reduce oil consumption, and we’re working with others to expand E85 distribution nationwide. Toyota has none.

Our Saturn VUE Green Line hybrid, available soon, will feature the industry’s best SUV highway mileage at a price well below those of competing hybrids.

Our sophisticated two-mode hybrid system launches next year on our full-size SUVs.

In 38 cities across this nation and Canada, there are 449 GM hybrid buses saving thousands of gallons of fuel every week. Meanwhile, we continue to invest heavily to develop hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles that promise to take the automobile out of the oil and environmental debate once and for all.

Mr. Friedman views a limited promotion, offering a credit on fuel purchases on
certain cars and SUVs in two states, as a sinister effort to turn unsuspecting
Americans into fuel “addicts.” Does he really think this promotion will persuade
someone in the market for a $15,000 small car to instead choose a $35,000 SUV?

Incidentally, Toyota also makes a full range of SUVs, including three full-size
models that get worse mileage than GM’s full-size SUVs. Toyota’s also opening a large plant in Texas to build a big, V8-powered pickup. Most of Toyota’s U.S. growth in the past decade has come from its expanding sales of trucks and SUVs, not from the sale of imported hybrids. Toyota is a strong company, in part because it offers a wide range of cars and trucks to serve all their customers – just like GM has done for nearly a century.

Finally, the Big Three collectively spend less lobbying in Washington than most
other large companies. GM has 138,000 U.S. employees, and there are millions of Americans whose livelihoods directly or indirectly depend on GM’s success. It is important that their voice be heard in Washington. But we don't “buy votes.” For The New York Times to say so is irresponsible.
Mr. Friedman’s GM is not the GM I know. I invite him to Detroit so he can learn
the facts and get to know the company first hand. What do you say, Tom?


Steven J. Harris
Vice President, Global Communications
General Motors Corp.
Detroit