Car Makers Expect to Hit Fuel Goals

[techs]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124278337592937493.html

Car Makers Expect to Hit Fuel Goals

More hybrid vehicles and diesel-powered cars. Lighter models made with aluminum parts. Small cars imported from China and Italy. Those are some of the ways auto makers say they will respond to new fuel-economy standards announced Tuesday.

In a significant shift, car makers embraced the tougher rules announced by the Obama administration, expressing confidence they can hit the targets despite the additional costs and technological challenges they will face.

In the past, most car makers, especially Detroit's Big Three, strenuously opposed higher fuel-efficiency rules, saying they would cost them billions of dollars while hurting sales of the trucks and sport-utility vehicles that generate big profits.

But the new policy will give the industry one target to hit by 2016, instead of different requirements for fuel economy and emissions they currently face from at least two federal agencies, as well as stricter standards imposed by California and some other states.

"We were dealing with three different sets of rules," Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Alan Mulally said on the sidelines of the White House announcement by President Barack Obama. "We now have a really clear path."



Interesting. While more cars from China and Italy (Italy?) are bad for the US, I guess the US automakers don't see the crisis the righties predicted.
The real tragedy is that the US automakers severly cut back on spending on fuel efficient car design during the Bush years, due to tax policies.

 

[bobsmith1492]

I'm sure a few thousand-dollar enhancements will be subsidized by the government so as to make the cost increases more palatable. Personally, I'm going to stick to my 20-year-old Bronco II for as long as I can... I don't see why anyone would buy a brand-new car. They're just so expensive it's ridiculous.

 

[smack Down]

What did you think obama motors was going to oppose rules from Obama?

 

[Fear No Evil]

These are the same automakers that thought their business plan was sound as well. But with taxpayers paying the bill, I am sure they can make cars that get 100mpg. Will anyone want to buy them though?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: smack Down
What did you think obama motors was going to oppose rules from Obama?

I have to laugh a little. We are talking about 2 of the big 3 are govt owned now. So of course they are going to say "We can make those numbers and we welcome it". Ford the one on the outside has to go along or they will end up like the other two.

 

[Drakkon]

I'd be really interested to see how in 6 years Ford/GM/Chrysler are going to make trucks with a 30mpg average. Are we going to see more trucks with 4 cylinder engines rolling off the lot? Will the v8 go the way of the dodo? And does that include diesels like the F350 and Ram 3500? I'd hate to think they would sacrifice frame/space to get a truck that still has power, but i don't see how they do it when today's trucks are barely hitting 20mpg.

 

[Atreus21]

In my opinion irrelevant.

Ends don't justify the means. The government has no business dictating a national mpg standard.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
In my opinion irrelevant.

Ends don't justify the means. The government has no business dictating a national mpg standard.

If we want to decrease our dependence on foreign oil which many of the profits from go to enemies of our country we should.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: techs


Interesting. While more cars from China and Italy (Italy?) are bad for the US, I guess the US automakers don't see the crisis the righties predicted.
The real tragedy is that the US automakers severly cut back on spending on fuel efficient car design during the Bush years, due to tax policies.

and that's why they have the technological ability to meet the pushed up deadline just 120 days in!

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
I'd be really interested to see how in 6 years Ford/GM/Chrysler are going to make trucks with a 30mpg average. Are we going to see more trucks with 4 cylinder engines rolling off the lot? Will the v8 go the way of the dodo? And does that include diesels like the F350 and Ram 3500? I'd hate to think they would sacrifice frame/space to get a truck that still has power, but i don't see how they do it when today's trucks are barely hitting 20mpg.

That was the automaker's main problem. They didn't want to think. They were incredibly short-sighted and threw up rehashed body/engine designs for decades, making small incremental improvements in the process to keep their customers buying.

Just because we've grown up used to mediocrity from automakers doesn't mean we have to accept it for the rest of our lives.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Drakkon
I'd be really interested to see how in 6 years Ford/GM/Chrysler are going to make trucks with a 30mpg average. Are we going to see more trucks with 4 cylinder engines rolling off the lot? Will the v8 go the way of the dodo? And does that include diesels like the F350 and Ram 3500? I'd hate to think they would sacrifice frame/space to get a truck that still has power, but i don't see how they do it when today's trucks are barely hitting 20mpg.

That was the automaker's main problem. They didn't want to think. They were incredibly short-sighted and threw up rehashed body/engine designs for decades, making small incremental improvements in the process to keep their customers buying.

Just because we've grown up used to mediocrity from automakers doesn't mean we have to accept it for the rest of our lives.

They built and sold cars Americans wanted and that was a problem? Well give it 6 years and see what Govt Motors spits out before getting on your high horse about GM, Chrysler, and Ford not producing vehicles people wanted in the past.

How have Hybrid sales been since the crash of oil? So great one foreign manufacturing stopped producing them for the market?

kk

 

[1prophet]

They surpassed those fuel goals about 27 years ago.😀

 

[frostedflakes]

There's no way that could meet emission standards today. Modern engines running ultra-low sulfur diesel are quite a bit cleaner, though. We'll probably start to see a lot more diesels in the US over the few years or so.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Genx87
They built and sold cars Americans wanted and that was a problem? Well give it 6 years and see what Govt Motors spits out before getting on your high horse about GM, Chrysler, and Ford not producing vehicles people wanted in the past.

If you started a car company today, would you model it after GM/Chrysler/Ford, or would you want your balance sheets in the black?

They built and sold cars Americans wanted, and look where they ended up.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
I'd be really interested to see how in 6 years Ford/GM/Chrysler are going to make trucks with a 30mpg average. Are we going to see more trucks with 4 cylinder engines rolling off the lot? Will the v8 go the way of the dodo? And does that include diesels like the F350 and Ram 3500? I'd hate to think they would sacrifice frame/space to get a truck that still has power, but i don't see how they do it when today's trucks are barely hitting 20mpg.

Light trucks

The ones you mentioned are anything but light 😉

 

[LTC8K6]

They built and sold cars Americans wanted, and look where they ended up.

How are the two related?

I don't think they are at all.

Where they ended up had little to do with what they made. More like the quality and the business model and the UAW contracts.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genx87
They built and sold cars Americans wanted and that was a problem? Well give it 6 years and see what Govt Motors spits out before getting on your high horse about GM, Chrysler, and Ford not producing vehicles people wanted in the past.

If you started a car company today, would you model it after GM/Chrysler/Ford, or would you want your balance sheets in the black?

They built and sold cars Americans wanted, and look where they ended up.

Their product line wasnt the problem. Their legacy costs were the problem. GM had over 30% of the market until recently no? One manufacturer with that kind of marketshare is selling a product the consumer desires.

 

[LTC8K6]

Besides Carol Browner just said everything will be fine, no dramatic fleet changes are necessary, and we can still have our large cars and SUV's. She apparently knows about some advanced technologies that we don't...
**********
The Obama administration maintains the new fuel standards can be met without forcing more small cars into the market.

"Because every (size) category has to get more efficient, if the soccer mom wants to buy her minivan, it will be a more fuel-efficient minivan. If someone wants to buy a big SUV, it will be a more fuel-efficient SUV," said Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change.

She said companies can use advanced technologies to improve fuel efficiency without dramatically changing their fleets.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Genx87
They built and sold cars Americans wanted and that was a problem? Well give it 6 years and see what Govt Motors spits out before getting on your high horse about GM, Chrysler, and Ford not producing vehicles people wanted in the past.

If you started a car company today, would you model it after GM/Chrysler/Ford, or would you want your balance sheets in the black?

They built and sold cars Americans wanted, and look where they ended up.

Their product line wasnt the problem. Their legacy costs were the problem. GM had over 30% of the market until recently no? One manufacturer with that kind of marketshare is selling a product the consumer desires.

Of course their product line was a problem. Their market share has decreased. They've depended highly on fleet sales and incentives (all three of them). GM and Ford have said they want to decrease their fleet sales. On top of that, GM competed heavily with itself with the amount it rebadged its vehicles.

The legacy costs are an issue, but so does having to sell a $25k for $20k or less, while other companies can actually get what they're asking for, or pretty close to it.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Strk
The legacy costs are an issue, but so does having to sell a $25k for $20k or less, while other companies can actually get what they're asking for, or pretty close to it.

Exactly. Toyota could gut GM's market share if they wanted to by slashing margins and offering wild incentives. But why follow GM's path down a bloated, debt-ridden highway to bankruptcy?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Atreus21
In my opinion irrelevant.

Ends don't justify the means. The government has no business dictating a national mpg standard.

If we want to decrease our dependence on foreign oil which many of the profits from go to enemies of our country we should.

I think a lot of our industries involve buying things from our enemies.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
Interesting. While more cars from China and Italy (Italy?) are bad for the US, I guess the US automakers don't see the crisis the righties predicted.

What "crisis" are you referring to?

What "crisis" have the "righties" predicted?

Originally posted by: techs
The real tragedy is that the US automakers severly cut back on spending on fuel efficient car design during the Bush years, due to tax policies.

What GWB admin "tax policies" encouraged/forced auto companies to cut back on R&D for fuel efficiency?

TIA

Fern

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Strk
The legacy costs are an issue, but so does having to sell a $25k for $20k or less, while other companies can actually get what they're asking for, or pretty close to it.

Exactly. Toyota could gut GM's market share if they wanted to by slashing margins and offering wild incentives. But why follow GM's path down a bloated, debt-ridden highway to bankruptcy?

The Camaro is going for more than MSRP. The Malibu was going for sticker for quite a while, i can see the Cruze getting sticker price as well. The Solstice/Sky was going for more than sticker when they came out. Currently just about EVERYONE is throwing heavy incentives on their cars and trucks including the foreign makers. As far as fleet sales go, guess who's picking up all the fleet sales GM dropped, Hyundai. But of course you guys don't really care about that.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Ktulu
The Camaro is going for more than MSRP. The Malibu was going for sticker for quite a while, i can see the Cruze getting sticker price as well. The Solstice/Sky was going for more than sticker when they came out.

Someone give GM a pat on the back for finally trying to tread water when they hit the ocean floor.

Currently just about EVERYONE is throwing heavy incentives on their cars and trucks including the foreign makers.

Here are GM's current incentives (please let me know which ones Honda/Toyota are copying):

1) 5-year/100,000 mile warranty
2) Trade-in value protection (cash giveaway)
3) Payment protection (another cash giveaway)
4) 0% APR

Out of those, I think I've seen a few (but not all) Toyota/Honda dealers offering 0% APR, but that's it. Every incentive costs money and cuts profit, and all GM can think about is moving enough inventory at any cost to keep afloat.

As far as fleet sales go, guess who's picking up all the fleet sales GM dropped, Hyundai. But of course you guys don't really care about that.

Hyundai is a small fish trying to swim in a big pond, and they're going about it the right way (if the Genesis is any indication). Daewoo tried the same and failed miserably in the US (and surprise, they're a subsidiary of GM).

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Ktulu
The Camaro is going for more than MSRP. The Malibu was going for sticker for quite a while, i can see the Cruze getting sticker price as well. The Solstice/Sky was going for more than sticker when they came out.

Someone give GM a pat on the back for finally trying to tread water when they hit the ocean floor.

Currently just about EVERYONE is throwing heavy incentives on their cars and trucks including the foreign makers.

Here are GM's current incentives (please let me know which ones Honda/Toyota are copying):

1) 5-year/100,000 mile warranty
2) Trade-in value protection (cash giveaway)
3) Payment protection (another cash giveaway)
4) 0% APR

Out of those, I think I've seen a few (but not all) Toyota/Honda dealers offering 0% APR, but that's it. Every incentive costs money and cuts profit, and all GM can think about is moving enough inventory at any cost to keep afloat.

As far as fleet sales go, guess who's picking up all the fleet sales GM dropped, Hyundai. But of course you guys don't really care about that.

Hyundai is a small fish trying to swim in a big pond, and they're going about it the right way (if the Genesis is any indication). Daewoo tried the same and failed miserably in the US (and surprise, they're a subsidiary of GM).

Hyundai is the fifth largest auto company in the world, just above Honda. They're working hard to increase their presence in the US though.