Auto Industry Gets New Fuel Economy Rules (21.6 MPG for light trucks)

[underpants]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1780322

WASHINGTON Mar 29, 2006 (AP)— The government is telling automakers to start churning out pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans that go farther on a gallon of gas than today's models.

New fuel economy rules, covering 2008 through 2011, are being issued to the auto industry amid growing public concern about U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil and rising pump prices.

The new rules represent the most significant changes to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy system in three decades and will affect automakers' product lineup. They follow President Bush's declaration that the U.S. is "addicted to oil." Bush has called for a 75 percent reduction in Mideast oil imports by 2025.

The new rules do not apply to passenger cars, which must meet a 27.5 mile per gallon average.


Under the CAFE system, automakers now must meet an average of 21.6 mpg for their 2006 model year light trucks. That average will rise to 22.2 mpg for 2007 vehicles.

[BR_Parkway]

1. Psst, GM & Ford - the reason your sales suck is because you view

these rules as the maximum, while in reality it's the minimum. And guess what the buying public keeps asking for?

The ones with the highest mileage. So don't just meet the standard this time - exceed it and the free market will reward you. Ignore it and you simply bring about your own obsoletism even sooner...

[dweller]

2. 21.6 mpg? screw that.

set it at 48.4 mpg. Make them achieve that.

what ever happened to good old american ingenuity??
we can put a man on the moon, send a rover to mars, yet can't whip up the mileage standards?

pitiful.
dp

[alfredo]

3. They have given up on America. They find that looting pensions

golden parachutes, and moving money around is more profitable than making a long term effort at building good products. If they can make 25-30 million in a year or so, why worry about the company you are supposed to be running.

If your US sales fall, there is always Asia and Europe. They will buy your high milage models, you know, the ones you don't sell in the US.

[cmutt]

4. GM isnt the problem

They are only producing what they can sell to people. We need to do something to curb people's appetite for vehicles that are too large for their everyday use (i.e. buying a 5500lb SUV because it's the "in-thing".

Anyways, here's some 2006 fuel-economy numbers to chew on: (all figures from www.fueleconomy.gov):

Chevrolet Tahoe (V8): 16/21 (2007's are rated at 16/22)
Toyota Sequioa: (V8): 15/18

Chevrolet Silverado (V6, 2WD, MAN): 16/22
Chevrolet Silverado (V8, 2WD, MAN): 16/21
Toyota Tundra (V6, 2WD, MAN): 18/22
Toyota Tundra (V8, 2WD, MAN): 16/19

Chevrolet Colorado (I4, 2WD, MAN): 20/27
Chevrolet Colorado (I5, 2WD, MAN): 19/25
Toyota Tacoma (I4, 2WD, MAN): 21/26
Toyota Tacoma (V6, 2WD, MAN): 16/21

Chevrolet Malibu (I4,AUTO): 24/34
Chevrolet Malibu (V6,AUTO): 22/32
Toyota Camry (I4,AUTO): 24/34
Toyota Camry (V6,AUTO): 20/28

Kinda wrecks that old-school thought of GM=gas guzzlers, doesn't it? Actually, the best buy here may just be the Malibu. It's been #1 on jd powers initial quality and long-term durability studies for 3 out of the last 5 years. It looks to me like Toyota is resting on their laurels when it comes to mainstream vehicles. Matter of fact, several GM brands rank ahead of the Toyota brand (overall) on recent quality studies. GM deserves another look (IMO) -- especially when you factor in how much American/union labor they employ in this country.

[trogdor]

6. Shenenigans!

1. The Malibu is shit. Comparing it to a Toyota Camry is like comparing the Toledo Mud Hens to the New York Yankees - they're not even in the same league OR weight class. Initial quality my ass.

2. Yes, Toyota makes pickups and SUVs in every weight class, just like GM. Who sells more of them? Let's fact it; you buy an SUV or a pickup, you take a hit in MPG no matter who makes it. That's not news.

3. GM has spend the better part of a decade convincing people that "it's not more than you need, just more than you're used to." Does Toyota run ads like this, or do they sell vehicles that are demonstrably better than those made by GM, and let them sell themselves?

4. Does GM make anything in the same class as the Echo or the Scion xA, or do they farm that work out to Suzuki and Daewoo because they don't want to be bothered with making their own small cars?

5. Does GM sell hybrid vehicles smaller than 6000 pounds?

6. How does the Chevy Cobalt (GM's most economical US-made vehicle) compare with, say, a Honda Civic? Keep in mind that any schmuck with $16K can drive a new Civic off the lot in less than an hour that gets 40 MPG with no hybrid nothing on it. Same goes for the Toyota Corolla.

7. Why is the Dodge Magnum classified as a truck? How about the Chevy HHT? What happened to the compact station wagon? Even Saturn quit making 'em.

You got some 'splainin to do, friend.

[Psephos]

12. "The Malibu is shit"

How would you know? It's not like you're driving one, or for that matter, would even be caught dead in one.

Meanwhile, instead of offering huffy opinions, cmutt cited the J.D. Powers survey of initial quality that has showed Malibu as a top performer. In other words, actual evidence.

I think it's *you* who "has some 'splainin to do, friend."

There are a lot of progressives on this board who don't see the connection between support for America's working men and women, and at least considering GM or other domestic make as a purchase option.

I'm a car nut, and I've had grease under my fingernails since I was a teenager. The quality and mechanical design in American cars is ahead of that of the new-tier Asians, at least on par with that of the Europeans, and only marginally behind that of the Japanese. Everyone has an anecdote to prove differently, but the aggregate statistics support what I just said.

You do no service to hundreds of thousands of UAW workers with your substitution of Truthiness for Truth. By all means, buy an imported car if it suits you best, but don't poison the well for others. Working people's jobs are at stake.

Peace.

[cmutt]

14. Hate to argue, but..

I've got to politely disagree with you on a majority of your points:
1. jdpa is an independent statistics gathering firm. They don't use a ridiculously small and biased readership upon which to base their results (ahem, Consumer Reports). They are arguably the industry leader for benchmark information in a number of areas; including the automotive sector. Here's some info for you (links are provided at end of this post).
Vehicle Dependability Study; "Entry Mid-size" category: 2005: 1st place, 2004: 2004: 1st place, 2003: 2003: 1ST place
Initial Quality Study: 2005, 1st place, 2004: 3rd place (behind Hyundai Sonata & Oldsmobile Alero), 2003: 1st place

As for them not being comparable vehicles, I again disagree:
Malibu: Length: 188.30, Width: 69.90, Height: 57.50, Weight: 3174 lbs
Camry: Length: 189.2, Width: 71.7, Height: 57.5, Weight: 3285 lbs
(again, links provided at end of this post)

2. Yes, GM makes and sells more trucks and SUV's than Toyota. But how can you hold that against GM? They've been in the industry longer and have a reputation for making hard-working, reliable light-duty based vehicles. Toyota simply doesn't have that. SUV's became today's station wagon and GM/Ford were better-positioned to reap the sales. GM can't sell them unless the public wants them. Toyota isn't doing anybody a favor here either: look at their small-SUV; the RAV4. It's now got a 268hp engine. Isn't that a bit ridiculous for a SMALL-SUV? Face it: all manufacturers push horsepower and size. Because people buy into the horsepower=fun and size=comfort mentality.

3. The "it's not more than you need, just more than you're used to." slogan you are referring to is GM's tag line for it's GMC brand. It's pushing "Professional-Grade" trucks. The supposed intent is to push how rugged their trucks are. While Toyota's advertisement isn't quite so verbal with it's message, it isn't exactly dissimilar when you see a Tundra commercial with a Tundra driving away after being struck by a meteor.

4. Yes, GM/Chevrolet has the Aveo. The entire reason for GM's acquisition of Daewoo was to gain access to the cheap labor market of Korea. It was a bonus gaining the manufacturing plants as well. Let's face it: American companies can't compete using American labor. NAFTA has bent us all over. For GM to make a $16k car in America and make money on it? While providing health care benefits? And pension plans? Not a chance. But with Korean labor? Yes-- they can. The Aveo still doesn't get good enough gas mileage for me. It's still strapped to it's original Daewoo engine -- which isn't bad, but it isn't exactly a fuel-economy leader. I'd much prefer that GM swapped it with their award-winning Ecotec line from their Opel subsidiary.

5. Not yet - but if you wait half-a-year, this answer will change. This is a very interesting point -- and I'm glad you brought it up. GM's stated stance on this is to put hybrids into vehicles that will make the most difference first. Which is why they've pushed hybrids into their commercial busses and their full-size trucks/suv's. The Saturn Vue has a hybrid offering right now, and the Chev Malibu and the new Saturn Aura (this fall) will be hybrid as well. So I guess you'll just hafta find fault for a company that targets the benefits towards their "worst offenders" first.

6. I agree with you completely on this point. GM's got a whole line of 4cyl's and diesels in use in Europe that should've been ported to the US. I know that GM's got plans for a 4cyl and 6cyl diesel in the US in the near-future.. so I'm hoping that we get some of those 4cyl's as well. One thing to note: GM's 4cyl, named "EcoTec" comes in many different variants. The US only has the 2.0 (supercharged), the 2.2l, and the 2.4l varaints. Europe has waaay more.. scaling all the way down to a 1.4l. They are outrageously durable motors. As it is, the 2.2l in the Cobalt/Malibu is rated too conservatively. While it's rated at 34mpg in the Malibu, I've got a co-worker that routinely gets 36mpg with hers. If you browse the edmunds townhall forums, on the Malibu, you'll find many claims like this.

7. The Magnum is classified as a truck because the platform it's built upon is the one used for their mid-sized Dakota pickup. The "HHT" is actually called "HHR" (high-heritage-roof; an design term that ended up sticking around enough to actually make it as the final vehicle name) is built upon GM's Delta-platform; the same platform as the Cobalt and the Saturn ION. I'm sure the station wagons went away with consumers moving into SUV's. If the sales aren't there to allow for a profit, the manufacturer doesn't have much choice but to adapt/move to something else.

*** LINKS ***
Vehicle Dependability Study; "Entry Midsize" cateogry
2005: http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005089
2004: http://www.jdpa.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2004055
2003: http://www.jdpa.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2003050

Initial Quality Study
2005: http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005069
2004: http://www.jdpa.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2004037
2003: http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2003028

Malibu Stats:
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?year=2006&make=Chevrolet&model=Malibu&trimid=-1

Camry Stats:
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Camry&trimid=-1

[Psephos]

18. This is a model post

Untainted by ego, well-argued, informative, and amply supported with useful, unbiased links.

cmutt, we need more - LOTS more - of your kind around here.

Peace.

[LeftyMom]

19. The Malibu's a pretty nice car

A good friend has one. She's had no trouble with it, it's comfortable to ride in, it's got nifty features. It's a dream to install carseats in and the backseat is comfortable for adults.

I'd compare it favorably to the Carolla. The Impalla is a better match for the Camry, but I haven't rode in one enough to tell you what I think of it.

[doc03]

10. I question at least one of your figures, it looks like you cherry

picked to give GM the edge. I was in the market for a mid-size pickup and tried the Colorado and the Tacoma (which I bought). The Tacoma (v-6 Auto 4wd)that I bought was rated at 17/21 mpg. The Colorado (I-5 Auto 4wd) was rated at 18/22 mpg I believe. The difference in the two vehicles were like night and day, the Colorado's I-5 is a crude engine (engine noise and vibration). I needed a mid-size because a full size was too wide for my garage and I needed enough power to tow my boat in the eastern Ohio hills and the Colorado just didn't fit the bill. In addition to that the Colorado I test drove had a bolt, beer can or something rattling around in the PS door. I work a Union job in a steel mill and really wanted to buy an American name truck but I just couldn't bring myself to it after trying the Tacoma. I also tried out a Nissan Frontier which was very nice too. If you read either Consumer Reports or Consumer Digest they both rate the Tacoma as the a Best Buy. Both magazines also rate the Colorado at the bottom. Consumer Reports said the Colorado's crude engine makes the slight 1 mpg advantage irrelevant.

[cmutt]

15. Didn't cherry pick

I didn't try and cherry pick.. I tried to match up vehicles as best as I could. It's difficult because every manufacturer has a slightly different approach towards the market. GM's Colorado is more of a small-midsize while the Tacoma and the Dakota a large mid-sizers. For a mid-size truck, the Toyota might have the best entrant in this market. Matter of fact, if you sat in a Tundra and a Tacoma back-to-back (like I did at this year's auto show), I think most people would prefer the Tacoma over the Tundra. I'd consider the 4cyl Colorado if I didn't need power/towing capability. As an extremely auto-enthusiast-type person, I read auto reviews on virtually every make than any other. You aren't the first to comment that the Colorado's I5 is a course engine. I've been meaning to take one for a spin (especially since a friend from way back in high school works at a dealership), but I haven't gotten around to it. As it is, it pushes 220hp and gets fairly-decent gas mileage. I think it's really hindered by the inherent nature of balancing 5 cyl's out. You can only do so much wiht balance shafts, etc. I'd like to see them fit something else under the hood of this truck.

[doc03]

17. Why in the hell didn't they use the 4.3L V-6

Actually the Tacoma Access Cab is only 1" longer than the Colorado Extended Cab. The Tacoma has 236 HP and 266 lb. ft. torque compared to the Colorado at 220 HP and 225 lb. ft. torque. My brother has a S-10 with the 4.3 L and it had slightly better power and fuel mileage than my old Ranger 4.0 L. I don't know why they went with the 5 cyl. I saw the Colorado at the Pittsburgh Auto Show the spring before it went on the market and loved it, that was what I looked at first and was very disappointed after I drove it. I had a 1996 Ford Ranger and loved it never had a problem, matter of fact I have owned Rangers since 1983. Ford has just seemed to write it off, they haven't changed it for years and the 4.0 L which got 17/21 in 1996 now only gets 16/18 if Ford would have updated the Ranger That's what I would have bought. I think the American manufactures purposely cheapen up their small trucks to try and push you in to a more profitable full size. They don't care that there are some people that would rather drive a more economical and easier to handle vehicle of quality. That's why GM and Ford are in trouble, instead of making the vehicles people want they make the vehicles that make the most profit and try to make a market for them.

[doc03]

11. I would like to note that the big SUV's and Pickups

get very good mileage compared with what they did 20-25 years ago, at that time a Chevy pickup or a Blazer for instance got around 8-10 mpg highway. Today they all at least double that. Another thing all vehicles are of much better quality now. I had a 1977 Blazer that rusted through in 18 months and if you got 100000 miles out of an vehicle without a major rebuild you were doing something. I think the competition from the Japanese made the US car makers make a much better car.

[alfredo]

13. Good reviews and good stats may not be enough. Perception

is everything. Would you buy a car from a company that might go under?

I don't want them to go down because a lot of good people will lose their livelyhood, and also we need to hold onto our manufacturing jobs. We need to get back to innovating and building for the new realities.

You got to read "American Theocracy." by Kevin Phillips. It goes into depth about our auto industry and how a whole host of troubles is taking them down.

[Blue_Tires]

5. about a decade too late

but at least it is a step in the proper direction

[Ian David]

7. If Reagan hadn't rolled-back Carter's CAFE standards...

we would have been free of Persian Gulf oil by 1984.

[One_Life_To_Give]

8. Sample specifics

For those that are wondering what the numbers turn out to.

Table 12: Representative vehicles and their applicable fuel economy targets for MY 2011
Representative
vehicle(s) Footprint (square feet) Target (MPG)
Ford F-150 Super Cab 75.8 21.81
GM Silverado Extended Cab 65.3 21.93
Lincoln Navigator 55.4 22.84
Honda Odyssey 54.7 22.98
Hummer H3 50.7 24.16
GM Equinox 48.2 25.19
Saturn Vue 45.2 26.56
Ford Escape 43.5 27.32
(Table 12 from page 178 of final rule)

Note: An F-350 Super Duty would be exempt from any requirement along with any other vehical with a GVWR over 10,000lbs.

[dusmcj]

9. support the Rockefeller petroleum economy, else dominos will fall

Look, don't you people understand that our economy is currently based on massive consumer (over)spending ? Since we ceded manufacturing capability overseas when we couldn't charge huge margins on mediocre quality anymore, we decided to replace the old industrial manufacturing economy, which produced goods with high utility (persistent value) with an economy based on stimulating consumers to spend as much of their wage as possible, or ideally more, since the banking industry needed a cut too. Of course all of this is based on massive consumption of petroleum products, to generate the electricity to keep all those 24/7 services running, to transport the goods from just-in-time manufacturers On Demand to consumers, to let consumers drive to the stores to spend their money, and to heat overstuffed houses in which our overindebted, overstuffed population wheezes its way to obesity, foreclosure and death.

Are YOU willing to be the one to pull out the card that makes that house fall down ????

Are YOU willing to be the one to say that the oil industry established by those patriots, the Rockefellers and their fellows should falter because we want a future ? That the economy based on it should be restructured on lines prioritizing conservation and frugal resource use ? To create supply which serves the interests and needs of the people, rather than demanding that the people serve the interests of economic activity, and those who benefit most from it ?

Where will all the massive cash flows come from to fuel our supply-side economy where YOUR spending generates the upwards flows of wealth to the holders of capital, who then benificently let some of it trickle back down to us in the form of reinvestment (after they've looted to their hearts' content) ?

This is the same situation as 40 years ago in South East Asia: our economic system is like a line of dominos, topple one and the rest run dire risk of falling as well. You wouldn't want that to happen, would you ? Affect one profiteer's revenue, and you affect everyone else's as well, that's why we're all supposed to be Connected (and Under Control), so we remember that and don't rock the boat that way.

There is an urban legend about a 200-mpg gasoline engine being developed some decades ago and being presented to the automakers. Who proceeded to acquire all rights to it, and then destroyed it.

Doesn't seem particularly far-fetched.

[DUHandle]

16. BFD

A change to five speed automatic transmissions will get them most of the way there.