GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend quoted me:
> > > That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General
> > > Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few
> > > wanted them to keep doing it.
>
> and replied:
> > Are electic cars really the answer?. As many have pointed out, the nrg
> > to run them has to come from somewhere.
>
> The energy can come from much-more-available fuels, not from oil
> from politically-unstable enemies of us - like instead from coal or
> uranium. Yes, it would be impractical for any substantial share of all
> vehicles in America to be electric now - as the added generating
> capacity that would be needed would take a while to build.
>
> > The answer is smaller vehicles
> > and lower speeds.
>
> Bull****. Ever try loading a Boy Scout patrol's worth of camping
> gear in a Prius? Ever try loading a hunting trip's worth of gear in a
> subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons - and
> people now buy SUVs.
>
>
I wonder if they ever try loading up six kids in a Prius? Can't be done.
Can't be done in a subcompact either - so you need to use two or more
vehicles to get one vehicle's job done. By the time you do that you're not
saving any gas.

"John" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
>
> On Dec 26, 9:20 pm, "Ed White" > wrote:
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>
>> > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only
>> > get our troops killed.
>>
>> >http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...-12-26-gmfuele
>> >...
>>
>> > GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>
>>So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people
>> want to buy?
>
> The problem is that GM is NOT building the cars that people want to
> buy.

Just products for the diehard "buy 'American'" buyers,who will not buy any
"foreign" autos,or those stuck in the "bigger/higher is safer" paradigm.

> If they were (along with Ford and Chrysler) they wouldn't be in
> such financial trouble. Look at Toyota and Honda. They are building
> the cars that people want to buy and most of their cars get better
> mileage than the comparable GM/Ford/Chrysler offering.
>
> JohnED.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On 27 Dec 2006 11:17:02 -0800, "
> > wrote:
>
>>> The answer is smaller vehicles
>>> and lower speeds.
>>
>> Bull****. Ever try loading a Boy Scout patrol's worth of camping
>>gear in a Prius? Ever try loading a hunting trip's worth of gear in a
>>subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons - and
>>people now buy SUVs.

Not usually. Most buy big trucks/SUVs because they want to drive something
BIG. Lots of old folks,for instance.They grew up driving big "Detroit"
cars/trucks,and that's all they will drive,even at greater expense and
difficulty of driving.

>
> But "the Greens" don't want you to do those things. You're just
> supposed to go to work for the common good, and when you're done, go
> home and stay there until its time to go to work again. Recreation is
> a waste - you waste precious resources on unnecessary things. Just
> stay home.
>
> Dave Head
>
>>
>>No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
>

Except that *most* SUV/PUtruck buyers (excluding commercial use) are not
using those vehicles for camping/hauling except on a very occasional basis.
They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something big.
It's not much different than buying a motor home for a daily driver because
you camp a couple of times a year.

Maybe there should be mileage limits on non-commercial vehicles in excess
of certain weight levels,with much steeper yearly registration fees if
exceeded. That would remove much of them from the "daily driver" category.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 27 Dec 2006 23:08:09 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2006 11:17:02 -0800, "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> The answer is smaller vehicles
>>>> and lower speeds.
>>>
>>> Bull****. Ever try loading a Boy Scout patrol's worth of camping
>>>gear in a Prius? Ever try loading a hunting trip's worth of gear in a
>>>subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons - and
>>>people now buy SUVs.
>
>Not usually. Most buy big trucks/SUVs because they want to drive something
>BIG. Lots of old folks,for instance.They grew up driving big "Detroit"
>cars/trucks,and that's all they will drive,even at greater expense and
>difficulty of driving.
>
>>
>> But "the Greens" don't want you to do those things. You're just
>> supposed to go to work for the common good, and when you're done, go
>> home and stay there until its time to go to work again. Recreation is
>> a waste - you waste precious resources on unnecessary things. Just
>> stay home.
>>
>> Dave Head
>>
>>>
>>>No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
>>
>
>Except that *most* SUV/PUtruck buyers (excluding commercial use) are not
>using those vehicles for camping/hauling except on a very occasional basis.

Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since you've
got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it... on the 3rd
Friday of the month, every other month.

>They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something big.

No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have _smooth_
tires - "all season" crap that will get your SUV stuck out on some unmaintained
road where you went to chase Bambi, where it (and maybe you) will be found in
the spring thaw. And, if somebody _does_ rent suitable SUVs for the purpose,
they'll be the only ones and will thus be sold out of them when you want to do
what everyone else is doing - going fishing in July, or something.

And... sometimes you can't even rent anything to drive it as far as you want
to. Lots of rentals have restrictions for keeping the vehicle in nearby
states. So, when I drive my Jeep up to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, from
Virginia, its 1400 miles each way. My buddy drives his SUV from Albuquerque,
which is even farther. Rental companies don't want to hear about such
goings-on. But we need 'em to haul all that "stuff".

>It's not much different than buying a motor home for a daily driver because
>you camp a couple of times a year.

Yeah, it is. Motor homes are ridiculously expensive - if you can afford one,
you're rich enough to afford a matching car.

>Maybe there should be mileage limits on non-commercial vehicles in excess
>of certain weight levels,with much steeper yearly registration fees if
>exceeded. That would remove much of them from the "daily driver" category.

Yep. Sounds real "green" to me. Go to work. Come back home. Stay there 'til
its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_. You don't _need_ to
be doing that. Just watch the tube and be happy that you are allowed to serve
the state. Comrade.

Dave Head

On 26 Dec 2006 17:45:03 -0800, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS" > wrote:

>
>Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>our troops killed.
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>
>GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

It can't be GM that's really the source of the bitching. The
thing is, if it was oil company spokespeople, everyone would laugh and
tell them to shut up, except Dubya.
The automakers in the US have treated fuel efficient designs
as jokes for a long time, and there is some basis for them doing so,
since the American public doesn't like buying small cars.
That would change though if the auto companies followed some
voluntary kind of rule. The thing is, they have, I'm sure, an
unwritten contract with the oil giants to NOT do so.
It's not all bad for them either. They've been selling bigger
vehicles at bigger prices to a public that generally is willing to buy
them.
GM is doing the bitching, but they aren't an oil company, so
it's not hard to see on whose behalf it's being done.

>
>Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
>
>DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
>would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
>trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
>General Motors (GM) executive said.
>
>Bob Lutz, GM's vice chairman and the head of global product
>development, said the proposed changes to the government's Corporate
>Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards would represent an unfair
>burden on the traditional Big Three automakers.
>
>"For one thing, it puts us, the domestic manufacturers, at odds with
>the desires of most of our customers, namely larger vehicles," Lutz
>said in a year-end posting on a website maintained by GM. "That
>effectively hands the truck and SUV market over to the imports,
>particularly the Japanese, who have earned years of accumulated credits
>from their fleets of formerly very small cars."
>
>Lutz, a longtime critic of government fuel economy regulations,
>compared the attempt to force carmakers to sell smaller vehicles to
>"fighting the nation's obesity problem by forcing clothing
>manufacturers to sell garments only in small sizes."
>
>A group called the Energy Security Leadership Council, which includes
>more than a dozen prominent U.S. executives and retired military
>officers, issued a report earlier this month calling on Congress to
>take steps to reduce the reliance on imported oil. The group called for
>tougher fuel economy regulation, including a 4% annual increase in CAFE
>standards, which have been held essentially flat for the past decade.
>
>In a related move, the Consumer Federation of America released a study
>last month showing that nine of 13 major automakers had a fleetwide
>average fuel economy performance that was lower in 2005 than it had
>been a decade ago.
>
>(snip)

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since you've
> got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it... on the 3rd
> Friday of the month, every other month.

I dunno... given how cheap used vehicles are, I can't see why a person
couldn't have two vehicles except for the insane licensing and insurance
regulations... oh but that's the government at play again.

> Yep. Sounds real "green" to me. Go to work. Come back home. Stay there 'til
> its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_. You don't _need_ to
> be doing that. Just watch the tube and be happy that you are allowed to serve
> the state. Comrade.

Don't forget to take your soma.

But that is where our lives are heading given the control of the
effective single party. Both parties apparently want the population as a
managed workforce given their _actions_.

In article >, Scotius wrote:
> That would change though if the auto companies followed some
> voluntary kind of rule. The thing is, they have, I'm sure, an
> unwritten contract with the oil giants to NOT do so.

The automakers and the oil companies have never gotten along with each
other. Oil companies generally refusing to make better grades of fuel
that the automakers wanted so they could sell better cars. The government
forcing formulations is what it took for the automakers to implement what
they needed much of the time.

If the automakers could build a car people would buy that ran on water or
anything that the oil companies didn't control they would do it if it was
profitable. That I have no doubt. The government might be hiding
anti-matter reactors reverse engineered from alien spacecraft, but the
automakers aren't.

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On 27 Dec 2006 23:08:09 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On 27 Dec 2006 11:17:02 -0800, "
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The answer is smaller vehicles
>>>>> and lower speeds.
>>>>
>>>> Bull****. Ever try loading a Boy Scout patrol's worth of camping
>>>>gear in a Prius? Ever try loading a hunting trip's worth of gear in
>>>>a subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons -
>>>>and people now buy SUVs.
>>
>>Not usually. Most buy big trucks/SUVs because they want to drive
>>something BIG. Lots of old folks,for instance.They grew up driving big
>>"Detroit" cars/trucks,and that's all they will drive,even at greater
>>expense and difficulty of driving.
>>
>>>
>>> But "the Greens" don't want you to do those things. You're just
>>> supposed to go to work for the common good, and when you're done, go
>>> home and stay there until its time to go to work again. Recreation
>>> is a waste - you waste precious resources on unnecessary things.
>>> Just stay home.
>>>
>>> Dave Head
>>>
>>>>
>>>>No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
>>>
>>
>>Except that *most* SUV/PUtruck buyers (excluding commercial use) are
>>not using those vehicles for camping/hauling except on a very
>>occasional basis.
>
> Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since
> you've got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it...
> on the 3rd Friday of the month, every other month.


Only SIX times a year,they could RENT and save a lot of money in the
process.Instead,they pay a lot more for an oversize vehicle,and then pay
more for gas,and end up with a harder to drive and park vehicle,and waste
gas that is mostly imported.

>
>>They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something
>>big.
>
> No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have
> _smooth_ tires -

Which MOST SUVs generally have,people not wanting to put up with the noise
from knobby tires.And the ones with knobby tires are unsafe on regular
roads;those tires don't have traction like road tires.(same for the
"jacked-up" "need the ground clearance" nonsense;unsuitable for public
roads. Your example of "hunting SUV/truck" is fairly uncommon. There's
where a "limited mileage/use" type of license would be practical.
OR,if there's a market for such rentals,they would be available for rent.

For that matter,you could use a smaller,more efficient Jeep,and have an
attached trailer to haul the 6x per year loads,disconnect it for daily
driving.Heck,these days,they even make tiny camping trailers that can be
towed by small 4cyl.cars.

> "all season" crap that will get your SUV stuck out on
> some unmaintained road where you went to chase Bambi, where it (and
> maybe you) will be found in the spring thaw. And, if somebody _does_
> rent suitable SUVs for the purpose, they'll be the only ones and will
> thus be sold out of them when you want to do what everyone else is
> doing - going fishing in July, or something.
>
> And... sometimes you can't even rent anything to drive it as far as
> you want to. Lots of rentals have restrictions for keeping the
> vehicle in nearby states. So, when I drive my Jeep up to the Boundary
> Waters Canoe Area, from Virginia, its 1400 miles each way. My buddy
> drives his SUV from Albuquerque, which is even farther. Rental
> companies don't want to hear about such goings-on. But we need 'em to
> haul all that "stuff".
>
>>It's not much different than buying a motor home for a daily driver
>>because you camp a couple of times a year.
>
> Yeah, it is. Motor homes are ridiculously expensive - if you can
> afford one, you're rich enough to afford a matching car.
>
>>Maybe there should be mileage limits on non-commercial vehicles in
>>excess of certain weight levels,with much steeper yearly registration
>>fees if exceeded. That would remove much of them from the "daily
>>driver" category.
>
> Yep. Sounds real "green" to me. Go to work. Come back home. Stay
> there 'til its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_.
> You don't _need_ to be doing that.

I *NEVER* said that;that's YOUR interpretation.
Those big monsters SUCK GAS that we have to import,and their wasteful DAILY
use as personal transpo needs to be reduced,OR their efficiency increased
substantially. There would be beneficial side benefits,too. Maybe mandate
E85 for them?

> Just watch the tube and be happy
> that you are allowed to serve the state. Comrade.
>
> Dave Head
>


Face facts;SUVs/PU trucks used as personal transpo are responsible for the
huge increase in US petrol consumption,and that needs to be addressed.

(note that the number of hunters/campers etc. hasn't really changed,it's
the people who used to drive no-longer-available big-barge autos that have
bought all the big SUVs and caused the huge increase in petrol usage;THEY
are the ones spoiling it for you recreational users! And they didn't/don't
use those big-barge autos for recreation.)

Why should we small auto users be affected because of SUV/PU wasteful
practices? Gas is no longer 30c a gal,and US driving practices need to
change to reflect that.They haven't. I remember the 1973 gas
lines,rationing(10 gal limit).And the Middle East would have less
importance and negative political effects on us.

I'm all for nuclear power and other methods of reducing petrol
comsumption,but autos remains a large part of that usage,which DOES need to
be reduced,and the only practical way to do that is to downsize
vehicles,beginning with the most inefficient;large SUV/PUs.

IOW,because of world conditions,things have to change.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Scotius wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2006 17:45:03 -0800, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> MURDERERS" > wrote:
>
>
>>Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>>our troops killed.
>>
>>http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>>
>>GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>
>
> It can't be GM that's really the source of the bitching. The
> thing is, if it was oil company spokespeople, everyone would laugh and
> tell them to shut up, except Dubya.
> The automakers in the US have treated fuel efficient designs
> as jokes for a long time, and there is some basis for them doing so,
> since the American public doesn't like buying small cars.

Exactly. So you can't blame it on the mfgrs.

> That would change though if the auto companies followed some
> voluntary kind of rule. The thing is, they have, I'm sure, an
> unwritten contract with the oil giants to NOT do so.

Bull****. It's really simple and can be explained without resorting to
any comspiracy theories. There is a demand for large vehicles, and that
is where traditionally the American manufacturers have their expertise.
Look at AMC and Studebaker; they tried to sell small cars and failed.

> It's not all bad for them either. They've been selling bigger
> vehicles at bigger prices to a public that generally is willing to buy
> them.

And who can blame them for giving the public what they want? The blame
does not lie with the manufacturers, although I'm not a big fan of
American auto mfgrs. for other reasons (like building ****ty cars, and
abandoning the passenger car market) it lies with the GENERAL PUBLIC.
If we as a society decide that we want to conserve oil, the way to do it
is by making oil less competitive with other forms of energy through
taxes, NOT by decreeing that it is the responsibility of the auto
industry to save us from ourselves.

CAFE has worked out pretty well so far, hasn't it? (snork)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"David Hartung" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Head wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:27:45 GMT, David Hartung >
wrote:
> >
> >> Dave Head wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:10:12 GMT, David Hartung >
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dave Head wrote:
> >>>>> On 27 Dec 2006 02:34:04 -0800, wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only
get
> >>>>>>> our troops killed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...gmfueleconomy_
x.htm
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
> >>>>>>> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
> >>>>>>> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a
senior
> >>>>>>> General Motors (GM) executive said.
> >>>>>> All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
> >>>>>> people could drive as big vehicles as they want.
> >>>>> From all I've read, we don't have enough land to produce enough of
those things
> >>>>> to power our economy. It'd be a small supplement, but not a
replacement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Problem solved
> >>>>> Nope. Guess again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> - and
> >>>>>> US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas
to
> >>>>>> pay for that oil.
> >>>>> That'd sure be nice. We need a solution, tho, that somehow makes
cars
> >>>>> effectively get 100 mpg in such a way that they're not boring and
not too small
> >>>>> and don't involve sharing space with other people or be at the mercy
of someone
> >>>>> else's driving the vehicle you're riding in, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Some US drivers have already switched.
> >>>>> A very tiny percentage. And if everybody did it, there wouldn't be
enough
> >>>>> biodiesel and alcohol to keep everyone moving like they do now.
> >>>> http://www.changingworldtech.com/
> >>> These people seem to have answers for far too many problems to be
believable.
> >>> I'm guessing they're scamming for research $$$. If they knew how to
do all
> >>> that stuff, they would, and probably wind up being richer than Gates.
> >> http://www.res-energy.com/
> >
> > Looks great. Hope they get down to business and produce lotsa
biodiesel. And
> > gasoline. We need gasoline.
> >
> > Hopefully this can be used to empty the landfills and convert their
contents to
> > something useful. Landfills seem to me to be one of the dumbest ideas
of the
> > 20th century.
>
> I agree.

Most of the content of landfills can not be converted to biodiesel.