Lutz says 35 mpg CAFÉ will scuttle GM product plans
Lutz says 35 mpg CAFÉ will scuttle GM product plans
Automotive News
Rick Kranz
December 7, 2007 - 10:33 am ET
Click Bob's picture for Video
SAN DIEGO — A massive change to General Motors’ future product plans is expected if the 35 mpg (6.7 litres/100km) CAFÉ fleet average favored by Congress is enacted into law.
“The minute we have confirmation of the 35 mpg rule, that is the point where we go through all of our forward product plans and probably introduce, frankly, massive restructuring of the product plan,” said GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz. “A 35 mpg fleet mix means there is a bunch of stuff out there that is going to have to be 40 and 50 mpg.”
The House bill passed last month calls for a 35 mpg nationwide fleet average by 2020, roughly a 40 percent increase from today’s CAFÉ standard. A key provision allows an automaker to trade credits between its car and truck fleets.
“We will have to take a look at everything because we’re going to have to come up with a plan which gets us to 2015, 2017, gets us part of the way there, and with clarity on how we’re going to get the rest,” said Lutz, interviewed Dec. 5 at a Saturn event in San Diego. “Then we will have to start raising prices as we introduce the new technology.”
He estimated a $6,000 to $7,000 increase in the price of vehicles requiring new technology. GM is offering a two-mode hybrid power system in the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon, although it has not said what the price of the option will be.
GM showed 3 sub-compact concepts, the Beat, Groove and I can't remember the 3rd. They need to put those into production, that should help the CAFE numbers, and possibly allow the other higher powered "toys". Just my 2 cents.
I know that they will have to have 35mpg avg but is that off how many are produced or is it just the number of models?
A car gets 34 city and 45 hwy mpg, the Cafe formula is 1 hwy and 2 city numbers divided by 3, so the average is 37.66 mpg. A truck gets 18 city and 24 hwy, it's average is 20 mpg.
The way it works is, if you produce 100,000 trucks that get a combined city hwy average of 20 mpg ( that's about what a Ford Ranger or Chevy Colorado gets) You would need to produce and sell a number of vehicles that would boost the average to 35 mpg.
So if Ford sells 100,000 Rangers at 20 MPG then it needs to sell 575,000 cars, which it currently doesn't make, that gets and average of 37.66 mpg to meet an average of 35.04 mpg.
Right now people won't buy Focus' that are discounted at the 575,000 a year rate. Ford sells close to 100,000 Rangers per year. So Ford would need to lower the price of a car that is more fuel efficient than a Focus to a price that they could sell 575,000. Or they would need to raise the price of the Ranger to lower it's sales .
My guess is that you would see the F-150's price go up by 40-50 percent, so that a work truck would cost 30,000 and a nice 4dr would be 50,000. You would then see the sales of those vehicles tamk. People would look to buy more affordable vehicles and Ford would use the money from the F150's raised price to lower the price of a car that is more efficient than a Focus.
This 35 MPG Cafe would mean that you will see more hybrids. Cars will get much smaller, Power will be down considerably. Lighter materials will be used to make cars weigh less. Aerodynamics will again come into play and cars like the 300 and the Mustang won't be able to be bricks anymore.
Fortunately the government has learned from the 70's. When Cafe first cme into play the government cranked EPA CAFE numbers up faster than manufacturers could use technology to meet them. The only way the manufacturer could comply was to make an underpowered piece of junk. This new mandate is giving the manufacturers some time to develope technology and redesign models to improve efficiency. The cutbacks won't be as drastic as the 70's.
Eventually technology will catch back up and we will start getting corvettes that have 400-500-600 hp again and they will get 35-40 mpg hwy.
Mercedes just showed off an S-Class that has over 200hp, goes 0-60 in 9 seconds and gets 70 mpg hwy. It uses the Dies-Otto cycle engine that runs like a diesel, compression fired at low rpms, and Otto cycle at high rpms. Car manufacturers will focus on aluminum instead of steel. You will see lots of cars use technology to stay decent sized and powered. My guess is these regulations will only force car makers to make better cars.
Where`s our 75mpg they promised us back in `85 when FI first hit the showrooms for good??
I`ve got a ten year old car that gets better millage then about 80% of new vehicles sold now.
Where`s our 75mpg they promised us back in `85 when FI first hit the showrooms for good??
I`ve got a ten year old car that gets better millage then about 80% of new vehicles sold now.
Here's what has happened. We the consumer have demanded more power. We have demanded safer cars. We have demanded a view of the road from a higher seating position. We have demanded more creature comforts. We have demanded stiffer, more solid automobiles. We have demanded quieter vehicles.
There is two ways to achieve that. One is expensive and requires the use of exotic metals and carbon fiber, plus extensive technology. The other is cheap and means adding more steel, more sound insulation, making the car larger, and trucks and SUV's are now in the picture.
A 1986 Pontiac Sunbird weighed 2315 lbs and was considered heavy for it's class. It had a 1.8 liter OHC FI engine that was pretty advanced for it's time and made 85 hp. It would get 34 mpg highway and 24 city. It was good for a 10.8 0-60 time and was about 18.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile. For the time that was good. I owned one and that's how I know that stuff. In 1979 A Ford Granada weighed 2900 lbs and had a 84hp 250Ci. straight 6. It was about 15 seconds 0-60 and got 18 around town and 25 on the highway. Again pretty good for it's time.
Fast forward to today. I have a 2003 Chevy Cavalier. It's 2.2 Ecotech makes 140hp and delivers epa numbers of 24 and 36. The car weighs 2700 lbs even though it's the same platform as the 1986 Sunbird. It runs a 15.8 1/4 mile and is able to do 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds. The weight issue is 2 airbags, a power sunroof, stiffening beams that have been added. Better bumpers, bigger wheels tires and brakes. ABS brakes, more sound deadening, a longer front and rear overhang for an appearance of a larger car and more trunk space. Better quality interiors with nicer seats, finished headliners and soft dashes and headliners. (Anybody remeber vinyl headliners)
Take away 400lbs from my Cavalier by using carbon fiber for body panels, eliminating some sound deadening, making the body fit the platform tighter, lower the roofline, lighter wheels, smaller brakes for a lighter vehicle. Composite doors, lighter thinner seats, a lighter exhaust of aluminum instead of stainless and aluminum in suspension components takes another 200lbs. Change the engine to a 1.0 liter that makes 85 hp and is highly efficient eliminates 100 lbs. You now have a car that gets 40 city and 50 highway. It probably weighs 2000-2100lbs and is faster than the 1986 version by a bit. It also costs 2200 more than the version I'm driving due to the cost of components in it. NO ONE WOULD BUY IT!!!! It would be too slow, too expensive, and feel and look too small and flimsy.
The average car in 1979 weighed 2900lbs. The average car in 1986 weighed 3000 lbs. The average car in 2006 weighed 3800lbs and the average truck/suv weighed 4800lbs.
In 1985 most cars didn't have power windows, locks or seats. A sunroof was a rare option. A/C was an option on most vehicles. Lets face it, America's cars have become fat just like the population. For cars to become more efficient they will lose weight, power and comfort till technology and higher prices move into the market. Our addiction to trucks that 98% of the time haul nothing more than air will have to end also. That is what the government in general and Al Gore in particular are telling us. We must all sacrifice for the good of the world and so China and India can continue to catch us by polluting as much as they want and producing goods as cheaply as possible.
A better way to get manufacturers to produce higher mileage vehicles than CAFE. Raise the price of gas through high taxes. Do this gradually, 50 cents per gallon at a time every 9 months over the next 4 years till you have raised it a total of 2.50 per gallon.
Here's why I think it's better.
If you are poor you will get rid rid of large vehicles and drive smaller more efficient vehicles. You will also drive less and use less fuel. The poor will also move to public transportation which will make that a viable alternative to your car. More need and use will drive there to be busses that get utilized instead of the 5 passengers on a bus right now. This will mean there will be less vehicles on the road and traffic will flow more freely which will make us use less fuel.
If you are middle income, you will respond just like the poor and drive less, buy a smaller more efficient vehicle and plan trips better. The middle class might utilize busses but only for a to work commute type of situation. What the midlle class will do that will be a great thing would be to pressure their employers to set up a work from home station. They would save money and fuel by driving less and also using the computer to shop from home.
The rich would continue as they are with some minor cutbacks in trips probably.
This would help the airline industry, at 5.00 per gallon a drive from Pittsburgh to Chicago now costs $200 in gas alone, roundtrip at 40 mpg, where a flight would cost still cost $149 or might go up to 199. You wouldn't tax jet fuel differently.
You would also raise the price of diesel fuel through taxes, but only by a $1.50. This would do a couple things also.
First, goods would switch to railroads and help them survive. There would be less truck traffic on the road which would make traffic move freer and use less fuel.
Second if gas is 5.00 per gallon and diesel is 4.00 per gallon, people would buy a more efficient diesel vehicle and pollute less. This would reduce pollution and our dependence on imported oil. It's fairly easy to make diesel from coal, plus biodiesel is easy to get. You could also make the extra tax on biodiesel a 1.00 surcharge instead of 1.50.
We would import less oil because of all of this. We would all look for more efficient vehicles to buy instead of having them forced on us by a manufacturer. We would pollute less. The extra funds from the taxes would all, by mandate, be used for new road construction or improvements to current roads. This would alliviate traffic congestion and reduce fuel consumption. A car like the GTO or a Vette would still be a viable toy, and for the middle class if you were working at home 2 or 3 days a week, would still be a viable daily driver.
I think someone could really clean up with a car like that. If it was soooo simple that anyone could work on it, I mean every part of the car, was reliable, got great millage, I think besides the public every fleet would want them just for service costs savings over time alone. Similar to how simple the early beetles were to work on. Sure the dealers would be missing out on the service end, but they`d more then make up for it in total sales.
A better way to get manufacturers to produce higher mileage vehicles than CAFE. Raise the price of gas through high taxes. Do this gradually, 50 cents per gallon at a time every 9 months over the next 4 years till you have raised it a total of 2.50 per gallon.
Here's why I think it's better.
If you are poor you will get rid rid of large vehicles and drive smaller more efficient vehicles. You will also drive less and use less fuel. The poor will also move to public transportation which will make that a viable alternative to your car. More need and use will drive there to be busses that get utilized instead of the 5 passengers on a bus right now. This will mean there will be less vehicles on the road and traffic will flow more freely which will make us use less fuel.
If you are middle income, you will respond just like the poor and drive less, buy a smaller more efficient vehicle and plan trips better. The middle class might utilize busses but only for a to work commute type of situation. What the midlle class will do that will be a great thing would be to pressure their employers to set up a work from home station. They would save money and fuel by driving less and also using the computer to shop from home.
The rich would continue as they are with some minor cutbacks in trips probably.
This would help the airline industry, at 5.00 per gallon a drive from Pittsburgh to Chicago now costs $200 in gas alone, roundtrip at 40 mpg, where a flight would cost still cost $149 or might go up to 199. You wouldn't tax jet fuel differently.
You would also raise the price of diesel fuel through taxes, but only by a $1.50. This would do a couple things also.
First, goods would switch to railroads and help them survive. There would be less truck traffic on the road which would make traffic move freer and use less fuel.
Second if gas is 5.00 per gallon and diesel is 4.00 per gallon, people would buy a more efficient diesel vehicle and pollute less. This would reduce pollution and our dependence on imported oil. It's fairly easy to make diesel from coal, plus biodiesel is easy to get. You could also make the extra tax on biodiesel a 1.00 surcharge instead of 1.50.
We would import less oil because of all of this. We would all look for more efficient vehicles to buy instead of having them forced on us by a manufacturer. We would pollute less. The extra funds from the taxes would all, by mandate, be used for new road construction or improvements to current roads. This would alliviate traffic congestion and reduce fuel consumption. A car like the GTO or a Vette would still be a viable toy, and for the middle class if you were working at home 2 or 3 days a week, would still be a viable daily driver.
There's my suggestion.
Or we could move to a renewable fuel source, like corn based ethanol. That would keep our farmers going too.
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
Lutz says 35 mpg CAFÉ will scuttle GM product plans
Linear Mode
