Autoweek: Bob Lutz on diesels and emission standards set forth by CAFE

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Diesels are nonstarters for U.S., Lutz says, cites upcoming emissions standards as hurdle

Small quote from the article:

Without the benefit of lower fuel bills, Lutz said, "At some point, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it" to try to push diesels into the U.S. vehicle mix.

Reiterating a theme he and other GM executives have raised, Lutz said the best way to curb U.S. energy consumption would be to raise gasoline prices to European levels of about $4 per gallon over the next several years.

Although that obviously would wreck the market for large trucks - the industry's profit cow - Lutz said, "If we're really serious about fuel economy and cleaner emissions, the only way we're going to get there is to use the tax mechanism to curb demand.

"If your kids are eating too much candy, you take their allowance away.

"If you want people to eat less, you raise the price of food. Instead, what the government is trying to do with CAFE is fight national obesity by making the clothing industry manufacture only small sizes."

Lutz said higher fuel taxes would provide many benefits other than fuel economy.

"Those additional tax revenues could do a lot of good for American society in the form of better schools, roads and health care," he said.

"But instead of enjoying those benefits, we price gasoline far below international levels and put the auto industry at war with its customers through CAFE.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hmmm, I wonder if that is true. Not exactly an unbiased opinion. Besides, if the Europeans cannot do it, neither can Detroit. I expect that technology will "suddenly" appear to meet the standard, if there is a will.

 

[Triumph]

I like CAFE and higher gas prices.

Although I admit that I don't know what the emissions standards are in Europe. They have both 1. better quality diesel fuel than us and 2. better diesel engines. But if a European model with European gas couldn't meet CA emissions right now, then he's right, there would be no point in having more diesel engines here. Too bad, though, I like diesel. Torque rules.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Hmmm, I wonder if that is true. Not exactly an unbiased opinion. Besides, if the Europeans cannot do it, neither can Detroit. I expect that technology will "suddenly" appear to meet the standard, if there is a will.

True. Lutz has the auto industry's best interest in mind. The politicians have their own careers in mind.

 

[tcsenter]

True. Lutz has the auto industry's best interest in mind. The politicians have their own careers in mind.

Umm, Lutz just endorsed a measure that would dramatically hurt sales of SUVs and light trucks, the auto industry's highest profit vehicles (and in many cases, their only profit vehicles).

Use your brain to analyze the merits or flaws of a position instead of taking 'easy' way out (ad hominem).

 

[RU482]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

True. Lutz has the auto industry's best interest in mind. The politicians have their own careers in mind.

Umm, Lutz just endorsed a measure that would dramatically hurt sales of SUVs and light trucks, the auto industry's highest profit vehicles (and in many cases, their only profit vehicles).

Use your brain to analyze the merits or flaws of a position instead of taking 'easy' way out (ad hominem).

How would that "dramatically" hurt sales of SUVs and light trucks? The market for diesels in the US is a pretty small percentage. Gasoline SUV's are approaching LEV and ULEV standards. I'm confused...what do you mean?

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

True. Lutz has the auto industry's best interest in mind. The politicians have their own careers in mind.

Umm, Lutz just endorsed a measure that would dramatically hurt sales of SUVs and light trucks, the auto industry's highest profit vehicles (and in many cases, their only profit vehicles).

In order to meet these new CAFE standards, automakers will be forced to A) put a vehicle on market with less power or B) kill the product entirely or C) introduce thousands of dollars worth of equipment to trap particulates/oxides/etc.

All 3 scenarios will hurt the sales of their vehicles, and scenario C will hurt the profit margin of the vehicles they do sell.

Use your brain to analyze the merits or flaws of a position instead of taking 'easy' way out (ad hominem).

Likewise.

 

[tcsenter]

Hmmm, I wonder if that is true. Not exactly an unbiased opinion. Besides, if the Europeans cannot do it, neither can Detroit. I expect that technology will "suddenly" appear to meet the standard, if there is a will.

Well first Europe has always regulated (taxed) automobiles and fuel so they don't have a situation as the US does where it is common for a household to own one vehicle per every licensed driver in the home if not more. That and personal incomes in Europe have only recently, in the last 20 years or so, increased enough to permit popular access to automobile ownership, which was very much a luxury in Europe until quite recently.

Second, the US is about 30 or 40 years behind Europe in public transportation infrastructure. While not perfect, Europe's commuter trains and public transportation is quite viable and adequate for many tens of millions of people. While we were busy building highways, so that we can accomodate (and sell) more cars because there were no viable alternatives, Europe was busy building public commuter systems to ease traffic congestion.

This means Europe is far less dependent upon automobiles than the US is and also means less pollution. Fewer cars combined with lower emissions and better fuel economy results in less pollution and fewer air quality concerns. That is why Europe has, as Lutz put it, has "been very intelligent in setting (emissions) standards at a level where diesels are still feasible." Not to appease auto manufacturers, but because air pollution from automobiles isn't nearly the concern there that it is here.

Because everyone in the US is so dependent upon the automobile, its not as simple as raising gas prices to $4 a gallon. There are many people who cannot afford $4 a gallon to commute back and forth to work, a pressure to which there are few if any viable alternatives.

 

[tcsenter]

How would that "dramatically" hurt sales of SUVs and light trucks? The market for diesels in the US is a pretty small percentage. Gasoline SUV's are approaching LEV and ULEV standards. I'm confused...what do you mean?

Lutz just advocated maintaining current emissions standards as they are because the upcoming emissions standards are far too ambitious (higher than Europe's), and instead raise (tax) the price of gasoline to $4.00 per gallon in order to reduce overall emissions by effectively killing the SUV and light truck market.

The SUV and light truck market is where the Big Three, but especially General Motors, derives the vast majority of its PROFITS.

If you're an 'automobile exec', you typically don't endorse measures that will severely harm your industry's cash cow.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Hmmm, I wonder if that is true. Not exactly an unbiased opinion. Besides, if the Europeans cannot do it, neither can Detroit. I expect that technology will "suddenly" appear to meet the standard, if there is a will.

Well first Europe has always regulated (taxed) automobiles and fuel so they don't have a situation as the US does where it is common for a household to own one vehicle per every licensed driver in the home if not more. That and personal incomes in Europe have only recently, in the last 20 years or so, increased enough to permit popular access to automobile ownership, which was very much a luxury in Europe until quite recently.

Second, the US is about 30 or 40 years behind Europe in public transportation infrastructure. While not perfect, Europe's commuter trains and public transportation is quite viable and adequate for many tens of millions of people. While we were busy building highways, so that we can accomodate (and sell) more cars because there were no viable alternatives, Europe was busy building public commuter systems to ease traffic congestion.

This means Europe is far less dependent upon automobiles than the US is and also means less pollution. Fewer cars combined with lower emissions and better fuel economy results in less pollution and fewer air quality concerns. That is why Europe has, as Lutz put it, has "been very intelligent in setting (emissions) standards at a level where diesels are still feasible." Not to appease auto manufacturers, but because air pollution from automobiles isn't nearly the concern there that it is here.

Because everyone in the US is so dependent upon the automobile, its not as simple as raising gas prices to $4 a gallon. There are many people who cannot afford $4 a gallon to commute back and forth to work, a pressure to which there are few if any viable alternatives.

Also, Europe is far less "spread out" than the United States. While the idea of a better mass-transit system would be a massive benefit in cities, it would do nothing for rural areas, which make up vast portions of America.

ZV

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Evening bump.

 

[NogginBoink]

Gasoline has a surprisingly inelastic demand curve. Prices keep going up, but people don't buy any less of it.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

I think they should bring diesel into the mainstream. Kudos to VW for starting off on their consumer cars.

For a average commuter car, diesel and possible biodiesel (a 20-bio/80-petroluem-based mix)is the best, here's why:

• Much better mileage

• Lots of torque for city driving compared to gasoline engines

• with a 20% of biodiesel in the fuel, you drastically reduce emissions.

• there already is current infrastrture to distribute diesel

• diesel engines usually last longer

and the cold start problems are pretty much non-existant in the new diesel engines. And if NA started getting the high quality fuel (both gasoline & diesel) then Direct Ignition engines would be availabe for us (and they have better mileage/ less pollution/ more performance).

 

[bozack]

I am all for getting rid of SUVs altogether and bringing back the National Lampoons station wagons 🙂...

Seriously though, even though I am an auto enthusiast I see most SUVs and SUV owners as a blight on todays highways, they are gass guzzlers with idiots for owners....

Down with SUVs 🙂

 

[Siddhartha]

If gas cost $4 per gallon, you would not be seeing too many 2.5 ton SUVs use as daily commuters.