Here's how the "Big 3" can bail themselves out, help revive the US economy & reduce global warming..

[Turborama]

If you you think this is a good answer to the current situation and know how to get this out into the MSM, please pass it on.


As an introduction...


Obama's May 2007 Address to the Detroit Economic Club

“Whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel efficiency standards the auto companies would lobby against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could have saved their industry. Even as they shed thousands of jobs and billions in profits over the last few years, they’ve continued to reward failure, in some cases with lucrative bonuses for CEOs.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1nno1El3-g


American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot

"Though analysts say automakers who shoveled out highly profitable and highly inefficient road hogs like S.U.V.’s and pickups deserve much of the blame, they also criticize legislators who failed to provide an incentive for consumers to switch to fuel-sipping cars. "

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/business/06oil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Chrysler are in fact already making 35 MPG cars and SUVs in America, but American citizens can't buy them... In addition, Ford are producing cars in Europe that do up to 65 MPG and GM are making some great cars outside of the US too (details below), they have the technology already so why not not shift that to the factories back home?


Chrysler:

One of the keys to restarting the American economy is staring us in the face. While our future hinges on the rapid adoption of fuel-efficient vehicles, our government stands in the way of a rapid free market solution.

35 MPG can be an immediate reality, with one domestic manufacturer, if the United States government would only allow it to happen. Our elected representatives need to be aware of the facts and make the appropriate decisions.

Chrysler is uniquely positioned among the Big Three US automakers. Unlike Ford and General Motors, Chrysler is already building a slew of high-MPG diesel-powered vehicles right here in the United States.

Amazing as it may seem in these difficult times, Chrysler is not allowed to sell those cars domestically, due to recently tightened emissions regulations. With the exception of the domestically-available Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel, all of Chrysler’s North American manufactured high-MPG diesel-equipped vehicles are being shipped abroad.

Each and every one of Chrysler’s European models is available with a diesel engine, with the exception of the Dodge Viper. In fact, a diesel engine can be found under the hood of more than 50% of the vehicles that Chrysler sells in Europe.

All-in-all, a dozen Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep diesel-engined models are currently available outside of the United States, but are not sold domestically.

Here’s the eye-opener … half of those models currently achieve 35 miles per gallon combined.

That’s 35 MPG … right now.

And what’s even more crazy? All of these 35 MPG cars and SUVs are built in North American plants by North American workers … American citizens cannot buy and drive the fuel-efficient cars they build.

The thriftiest of the bunch delivers nearly 50 MPG on the highway … and it’s no dog off the line, turning in 0-62 mile per hour (MPH) times under nine seconds. The fastest in the pack delivers 7.6 second 0-62 times and 35.6 MPG on the highway.

Needless to say, these are wonderful world-class cars, a world apart from your Uncle’s noisy, slow, smelly 80’s-era diesel.

The Mercedes-Benz V6 diesel-equipped Jeep Grand Cherokee is the first US-built passenger vehicle to meet the tougher Federal emissions requirements. With the emissions work done on the Mercedes’ 3.0 liter engine, we expect the Chrysler 300 to be the next diesel-powered domestic, as it shares the same powerplant. (At present, diesel 300s are being built in Graz, Austria.)

Chrysler is using four different diesel engines, in all:

2.0 liter Volkswagen turbo-diesel inline four (Avenger, Caliber, Compass, Journey, Sebring, Patriot)
2.2 liter Mercedes-Benz inline four (PT Cruiser)
2.8 liter VM Motari inline four (Cherokee, Grand Voyager, Nitro, Wrangler)
3.0 liter Mercedes-Benz V6 (300, Commander, Grand Cherokee)
What if the federal government temporarily rolled back the emissions requirements for one or two years, to allow the sale of these fuel-sipping vehicles while Chrysler and its partners complete the engineering necessary to meet the current regulations?

Crazier schemes have been implemented to stimulate the economy, no doubt about that. But this one just might work … by spurring investment and putting people back to work.

As you ponder that thought, take a gander at a group of specifications that compare the European diesels with the most fuel-efficient engines in each of the US domestics here:
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2008/03/15/35-mpg-why-wait-until-2020

Ford:

The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have

Ford's Fiesta ECOnetic gets an astonishing 65 mpg, but the carmaker can't afford to sell it in the U.S.

f ever there was a car made for the times, this would seem to be it: a sporty subcompact that seats five, offers a navigation system, and gets a whopping 65 miles to the gallon. Oh yes, and the car is made by Ford Motor (F), known widely for lumbering gas hogs.

Ford's 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here's the catch: Despite the car's potential to transform Ford's image and help it compete with Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe. "We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields. "But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S." The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm

FRANKFURT — Ford of Europe unveiled three new alt-fuel cars here, the first of which we’ll see is the Focus ECOnetic model in 2007. It combines the latest common-rail diesel powertrain and other engineering features to reduce CO2 emissions to the absolute minimum. Powered by a 109-hp 1.6-liter Duratorq common-rail turbodiesel engine with a diesel particulate filter, the ECOnetic is gunning for around 54 mpg.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4221669.html

GM

CHEVROLET EQUINOX FUEL CELL AND SAAB 9-3 BIOPOWER RECEIVE TOP HONORS AT MICHELIN CHALLENGE BIBENDUM 2007

The zero-gas, zero-emissions Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell electric vehicle is a fully functional crossover car that is powered by GM’s fourth-generation fuel cell propulsion system. It has a U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA)-estimated range of 320 km (200 miles) per fill-up.

The Saab 9-3 BioPower flex-fuel vehicle runs on E85 fuel (85 percent bioethanol/15 percent gasoline). Bioethanol can be produced from a wide range of agricultural crops and biomass, including sugar cane in Brazil and corn in the United States. Unlike gasoline, its consumption does not raise atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.

“These products showcase GM’s leadership position in the development of advanced vehicle technologies to reduce dependency on petroleum and boost vehicle fuel efficiency,” said GM China Group President and Managing Director Kevin Wale. “Their appearance in China demonstrates their potential for helping resolve challenges involving rising emissions and energy security in the world’s second-largest vehicle market.”

This is the fourth year that GM has participated in the Challenge Bibendum, an international forum where automakers, policymakers, media and other stakeholders discuss the future of sustainable transportation and demonstrate current and future vehicle technologies.

In addition to the Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell electric vehicle and Saab 9-3 BioPower flex-fuel vehicle, GM displayed the Opel Corsa 1.3 CDTI ecoFLEX, Opel Zafira 1.6 CNG, Chevrolet Tahoe 2-Mode Hybrid and Saturn Aura Green Line hybrid at this year’s Challenge Bibendum. GM also hosted a ride and drive for attendees and led panel discussions on key transportation and energy issues facing the world today.
http://www.gmeurope.info/social_media_newsroom/archives/283-Chevrolet-Equinox-Fuel-Cell-and-Saab-9-3-BioPower-Receive-Top-Honors-at-Michelin-Challenge-Bibendum-2007.html

It's time for this craziness to stop... If these cars go on sale in the US, surely this would be a really good way of helping themselves out? These vehicles can run on domestically produced 'new generation' biofuels made from algae, thus creating sustainable win win solutions for themselves, the environment and the dependence on foreign oil through creating a new domestic renewable fuel industry...


President (Elect) Obama has stated that part of the $15 Billion a year will be invested in "next generation biofuels". What are these "next generation biofuels"?

"Obama: A new chapter of American leadership on climate change"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk

In search of sustainable fuel.

Threatened by the latest rises in fuel costs - visionary airlines and a leading fuel technology innovator join forces.

Leading global air carriers Air New Zealand, Continental, Virgin Atlantic Airways, and biofuel technology developer UOP LLC, a Honeywell company, today announced they will be the first wave of aviation-related members to join the newly formed Algal Biomass Organization (ABO).

Together with Boeing, which co-chairs the ABO, the airlines are advocating for the identification and acceleration of new generations of fuel sources for the industry that have lower life cycle carbon emissions; in this case sustainable algae-based biofuels.
http://www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_nshw.php?mwi=4650

With such big names already behind this, the automotive industry needs to get involved too...

Some facts and figures:

1 acre of corn = 18 gallons of oil per year

1 acre of palm = 7 to 800 gallons of oil per year

1 acre of open pond algae = 20,000 gallons of oil per year

1 acre of vertically grown algae = 100,000 gallons of oil per year

An area of land equal to 1/10th of the state of New Mexico would produce enough algae to supply the energy demands for the entire United States.

Paraphrased from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MeIgaRfyD4

PetroSun began operation of its commercial algae-to-biofuels facility on April 1st, 2008.

The facility, located in Rio Hondo Texas, will produce an estimated 4.4 million gallons of algal oil and 110 million lbs. of biomass per year off a series of saltwater ponds spanning 1,100 acres. Twenty of those acres will be reserved for the experimental production of a renewable JP8 jet-fuel.

More:
http://gas2.org/2008/03/29/first-algae-biodiesel-plant-goes-online-april-1-2008

I thoroughly recommend watching this presentation, I know it's nearly an hour long, but it's very informative...

The Biology and Business of Biofuels: Algae as Biofuel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FrbMMwDccY

More info to follow...

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Gosh, this would be so much easier to read

If there were not unbroken lines of a hundred tildes (~) and a thousand words overall. Does anyone have a compact synopsis?

[Turborama]

2. Sorry about that, I'll edit out the tildes. Is there any way to wrap the text?

If not, it's worth printing out.

I actually composed all this myself and felt that what's in there needs to be read in its entirety, it was too hard to work out what to leave out as it's all so important. The synopsis goes something like this...

As evidenced by the success of the Prius, consumers want cars that use less fuel NOW. All three of these companies make the type of fuel efficient cars that more and more car buyers are wanting to buy, Chrysler are even making them on American soil. The car industry in America needs to introduce the turbo diesel cars they are making for the European market. Diesel in America has a bad name and is more expensive than gas. However, with the MPG taken into consideration, it actually works out cheaper.


In the future, America will be able to make its own diesel and jet fuel on a big enough scale to be self sufficient. The military - through Boeing - and several major airlines are already looking at this very seriously, this is where the funding for the economic development of algae fuel is and will be coming from. If the big 3 don't catch onto this and start selling their diesel cars in the US, it's their own fault.

The bailout is a 'bridging loan'. Who'd want to loan money to a company that's only going to fail again in the future if they continue using the same business model that got them there in the 1st place?

"There's no indication that the car companies would do anything different than what they've been doing, which has been a big failure, which is why they need a bailout," said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "There's no reason to throw money at a problem that's not going to get solved."

"Even some Democrats appeared wary. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the industry should be forced to meet average fuel economy standards of up to 50 miles per gallon by 2020, and transforming the companies means "new eyes, new ears to steer us out of this mess."

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. I can agree with that entirely

Good points. And when the tildes are gone, the text will wrap OK. :)

[99th_Monkey]

4. It's WELL worth the read. Please help get this to Greatest Page

This info is mind-boggling ... how US Big Three are ALREADY manufacturing 45-65mpg autos ...
BUT ONLY FOR FOREIGN CONSUMERS?????

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. If they simply stopped advertising the gas-hog SUVs and trucks,

and applied the money save to R&D to improve emission standards and mileage on all their product, they could produce the cars that would meet and exceed US emissions standards.

They spend millions on advertising campaigns supporting their worst products - people who NEED trucks will go looking for them anyway, so why advertise? I'd say the same for SUVs but I have a hard time believing that anybody really NEEDS an SUV.

[Turborama]

5. Here's more.Please K & R this post as it really needs to be read by as many people as poss...

Check out this graphic that shows a US Ford vs a UK Ford that runs on gas.

The US one is double the weight of the UK one and has double the horsepower. Yet they are both the same price...


The top ten most fuel efficient cars in the UK do over 60 MPG (the top three over 70 MPG). I know that's Imperial Gallons but the number one most fuel efficient (non-hybrid) car in Britain does 74.2 MP Imperial Gallon (slightly under 62 MP US Gallon). These are diesel cars, but the new generation biofuels would take any worries less informed consumers - who still think diesel is dirty - may have about that.

The most fuel efficient American made car is the Ford Focus, which ties for the No. 1 spot with the Chevrolet Aveo and Pontiac Vibe, which can do 28 miles per US gallon. When you consider the cars mentioned above that can do 74 miles per Imperial gallon, there's a lot of room for improvement.

Most Fuel-Efficient American Cars
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/29/american-fuel-efficient-forbeslife-cx_jm_0829cars.html

Top 10 Most Economical Cars in the UK
http://cars.uk.msn.com/greenmotoring/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1379476

The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can't Have

Ford's Fiesta ECOnetic gets an astonishing 65 mpg, but the carmaker can't afford to sell it in the U.S.

The ECOnetic will go on sale in Europe in November

By David Kiley
September 15, 2008

If ever there was a car made for the times, this would seem to be it: a sporty subcompact that seats five, offers a navigation system, and gets a whopping 65 miles to the gallon. Oh yes, and the car is made by Ford Motor (F), known widely for lumbering gas hogs.

Ford's 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here's the catch: Despite the car's potential to transform Ford's image and help it compete with Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe. "We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields. "But there are business reasons why we can't sell it in the U.S." The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

Automakers such as Volkswagen (VLKAY) and Mercedes-Benz (DAI) have predicted for years that a technology called "clean diesel" would overcome many Americans' antipathy to a fuel still often thought of as the smelly stuff that powers tractor trailers. Diesel vehicles now hitting the market with pollution-fighting technology are as clean or cleaner than gasoline and at least 30% more fuel-efficient.

Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline. Add to this the success of the Toyota Prius, and you can see why only 3% of cars in the U.S. use diesel. "Americans see hybrids as the darling," says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, "and diesel as old-tech."

None of this is stopping European and Japanese automakers, which are betting they can jump-start the U.S. market with new diesel models. Mercedes-Benz by next year will have three cars it markets as "BlueTec." Even Nissan (NSANY) and Honda, which long opposed building diesel cars in Europe, plan to introduce them in the U.S. in 2010. But Ford, whose Fiesta ECOnetic compares favorably with European diesels, can't make a business case for bringing the car to the U.S.

TOO PRICEY TO IMPORT
First of all, the engines are built in Britain, so labor costs are high. Plus the pound remains stronger than the greenback. At prevailing exchange rates, the Fiesta ECOnetic would sell for about $25,700 in the U.S. By contrast, the Prius typically goes for about $24,000. A $1,300 tax deduction available to buyers of new diesel cars could bring the price of the Fiesta to around $24,400. But Ford doesn't believe it could charge enough to make money on an imported ECOnetic.

Ford plans to make a gas-powered version of the Fiesta in Mexico for the U.S. So why not manufacture diesel engines there, too? Building a plant would cost at least $350 million at a time when Ford has been burning through more than $1 billion a month in cash reserves. Besides, the automaker would have to produce at least 350,000 engines a year to make such a venture profitable. "We just don't think North and South America would buy that many diesel cars," says Fields.

The question, of course, is whether the U.S. ever will embrace diesel fuel and allow automakers to achieve sufficient scale to make money on such vehicles. California certified VW and Mercedes diesel cars earlier this year, after a four-year ban. James N. Hall, of auto researcher 293 Analysts, says that bellwether state and the Northeast remain "hostile to diesel." But the risk to Ford is that the fuel takes off, and the carmaker finds itself playing catch-up—despite having a serious diesel contender in its arsenal.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5

As this guy said, "It's as if Ford's corporate strategy is to fail as spectacularly as it can."
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/11/08/ford-on-selling-65mp.html

[Turborama]

6. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: How to Fix a Flat (Another must read)

Last September, I was in a hotel room watching CNBC early one morning. They were interviewing Bob Nardelli, the C.E.O. of Chrysler, and he was explaining why the auto industry, at that time, needed $25 billion in loan guarantees. It wasn’t a bailout, he said. It was a way to enable the car companies to retool for innovation. I could not help but shout back at the TV screen: “We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate? What business were you people in other than innovation?” If we give you another $25 billion, will you also do accounting?

How could these companies be so bad for so long? Clearly the combination of a very un-innovative business culture, visionless management and overly generous labor contracts explains a lot of it. It led to a situation whereby General Motors could make money only by selling big, gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s and trucks. Therefore, instead of focusing on making money by innovating around fuel efficiency, productivity and design, G.M. threw way too much energy into lobbying and maneuvering to protect its gas guzzlers.

This included striking special deals with Congress that allowed the Detroit automakers to count the mileage of gas guzzlers as being more than they really were — provided they made some cars flex-fuel capable for ethanol. It included special offers of $1.99-a-gallon gasoline for a year to any customer who purchased a gas guzzler. And it included endless lobbying to block Congress from raising the miles-per-gallon requirements. The result was an industry that became brain dead.

Nothing typified this more than statements like those of Bob Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman. He has been quoted as saying that hybrids like the Toyota Prius “make no economic sense.” And, in February, D Magazine of Dallas quoted him as saying that global warming “is a total crock of .”

These are the guys taxpayers are being asked to bail out.

And please, spare me the alligator tears about G.M.’s health care costs. Sure, they are outrageous. “But then why did G.M. refuse to lift a finger to support a national health care program when Hillary Clinton was pushing for it?” asks Dan Becker, a top environmental lobbyist.

Not every automaker is at death’s door. Look at this article that ran two weeks ago on autochannel.com: “ALLISTON, Ontario, Canada — Honda of Canada Mfg. officially opened its newest investment in Canada — a state-of-the art $154 million engine plant. The new facility will produce 200,000 fuel-efficient four-cylinder engines annually for Civic production in response to growing North American demand for vehicles that provide excellent fuel economy.”

The blame for this travesty not only belongs to the auto executives, but must be shared equally with the entire Michigan delegation in the House and Senate, virtually all of whom, year after year, voted however the Detroit automakers and unions instructed them to vote. That shielded General Motors, Ford and Chrysler from environmental concerns, mileage concerns and the full impact of global competition that could have forced Detroit to adapt long ago.

Indeed, if and when they do have to bury Detroit, I hope that all the current and past representatives and senators from Michigan have to serve as pallbearers. And no one has earned the “honor” of chief pallbearer more than the Michigan Representative John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who is more responsible for protecting Detroit to death than any single legislator.

O.K., now that I have all that off my chest, what do we do? I am as terrified as anyone of the domino effect on industry and workers if G.M. were to collapse. But if we are going to use taxpayer money to rescue Detroit, then it should be done along the lines proposed in The Wall Street Journal on Monday by Paul Ingrassia, a former Detroit bureau chief for that paper.

“In return for any direct government aid,” he wrote, “the board and the management should go. Shareholders should lose their paltry remaining equity. And a government-appointed receiver — someone hard-nosed and nonpolitical — should have broad power to revamp G.M. with a viable business plan and return it to a private operation as soon as possible. That will mean tearing up existing contracts with unions, dealers and suppliers, closing some operations and selling others and downsizing the company ... Giving G.M. a blank check — which the company and the United Auto Workers union badly want, and which Washington will be tempted to grant — would be an enormous mistake.”

I would add other conditions: Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol.

Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12friedman.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[jakefrep]

7. I'll keep it short: I agree with you

Every automaker (not just the Detroit 3) is withholding its most fuel-efficient vehicles from our market. If the obstacles keeping these vehicles off our market are regulatory, then our government ought to consider removing them.

[Turborama]

8. Absolutely! Looks like Pelosi would be up for it...

Dems delay auto bailout vote, seek plan from Big 3

KEN THOMAS AND JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS | November 20, 2008 03:51 PM

WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders in Congress sidetracked legislation to bail out the auto industry Thursday and demanded the Big Three develop a plan assuring the money would make them economically viable. "Until they show us the plan, we cannot show them the money," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at a hastily called news conference in the Capitol.

She and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Congress would return to work in early December to vote on legislation if General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC produce an acceptable plan.

The decision averted a likely defeat of legislation providing $25 billion loans for the industry. Reid and Pelosi said there was no plan in circulation that could pass both houses of Congress and win President George W. Bush's approval.

While the decision headed off the defeat of one bill, it did not necessarily translate into passage of a different one.

As a result, the fate of hundreds of thousands of auto workers and even of an iconic American industry hang in the balance.

The chief executives of the Big Three automakers appealed personally to lawmakers for the loans this week, and warned that their industry might collapse without them. In testimony, they said their problem was that credit was unavailable, and not that they were manufacturing products that consumers had turned their backs on.

But whatever support they found sagged when it became known that each of them had flown into Washington aboard multimillion dollar corporate jets. Reid observed that was "difficult to explain" to taxpayers in his hometown of Searchlight, Nev.

The automakers are on a tight timeline. Reid and Pelosi said their plan must be turned over to key lawmakers by Dec. 2 They said hearings were possible the first week of December, and Congress may return to session the following week to consider legislation.

Pelosi stressed that whatever the Big Three provided to Congress, it must show they had a plan for "viability and accountability," meaning that the were transforming their industry in a way that it would become competitive, and that they were clear about how the federal loan money was used.

Even if lawmakers return to vote, they are likely to insist on numerous conditions on any loans. One possibility is to seek a partial ownership of the companies. Another is to limit salaries of top executives. A third is to prohibit use of the funds for any lobbying.

Until Democratic leaders reached their agreement, the bailout had appeared headed for defeat in Congress, with the fate of hundreds of thousands of workers and Detroit's once-venerable car companies in the balance.

Reid canceled plans for a vote on a bill to carve $25 billion in new loans out of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund. The Bush administration and congressional Republicans oppose that plan. They prefer tapping a different source of funds that is earmarked to help the industry produce vehicles that burn less gasoline. But using those funds drew opposition from Pelosi, as well as environmentalists.

Efforts on a compromise unfolded earlier in the day, and a small group of legislators circulated a proposal that would divert the fuel-efficiency money to cover the industry's short-term financial needs, while guaranteeing that account would ultimately be replenished.

With all sides sensing doom for a Big Three automaker rescue, the finger-pointing proceeded.

White House press secretary Dana Perino on Thursday blamed Reid for not allowing the Republicans' separate auto-aid plan to come up for a vote.

"Unfortunately it looks like Sen. Reid just wants to pick up his ball and go home for the next two weeks _ two months _ for vacation," she said.

Pressed on what the White House would do if Congress can't agree on a plan to rescue the automakers this week, Perino said she thought lawmakers would return after the Thanksgiving holiday for an emergency legislative session if an auto company was in imminent danger of collapsing.

"I can't imagine a scenario where they wouldn't come back, unless the answer is that they just don't care. And if that's the case, then the American people ought to know that."

Congressional Democrats countered that the Treasury Department already had the power to grant emergency funds to the automakers, but the Bush administration opposed the approach.

The leaders of the Big Three automakers painted a grim picture of their financial position during two days of congressional hearings, warning that the collapse of the auto industry could lead to the loss of 3 million jobs. Detroit's automakers, hurt by a sharp drop in sales and a nearly frozen credit market, burned through nearly $18 billion in cash reserves during the last quarter _ about $7 billion at GM, almost $8 billion at Ford and $3 billion at Chrysler. GM and Chrysler said they could collapse in weeks.

"I don't believe we have the luxury of a lot of time," GM CEO Rick Wagoner told a House hearing.

Alan Mulally, the CEO of Ford Motor Co., said the company had enough cash reserves to make it through 2009. But United Auto Workers union president Ron Gettelfinger said a bankruptcy could spawn others.

"If there's a Chapter 11 (for) one of the companies, it will drag at least one other with them, if not all of them. And I do not believe Chapter 11 is where it will end. It will go to liquidation," Gettelfinger said.

Automakers ran into more resistance from House lawmakers, who chastised the executives for fighting tougher fuel-efficiency standards in the past and questioned their use of private jets while at the same time seeking government handouts.

"My fear is that you're going to take this money and continue the same stupid decisions you've made for 25 years," said Rep. Michael Capuano, D-Mass.

The stakes are high. The Detroit automakers employ nearly a quarter-million workers, and more than 730,000 other workers produce materials and parts that go into cars. About 1 million more people work in dealerships nationwide. If just one of the automakers declared bankruptcy, some estimates put U.S. job losses next year as high as 2.5 million.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo and Sam Hananel in Washington and Tom Krisher in Detroit contributed to this report.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/20/bipartisan-group-works-to_n_145247.html

[Turborama]

10. Shameless kick because it needs to be read. If you view this...

...please recommend so it gets to a wider audience...


Thanks in advance...

[liberalla]

11. Everybody should take a look at this. It's valuable info.

Thanks for your work on this.

Rec #5
:kick:

[Turborama]

12. You're most welcome! I'm glad you find it useful info. Here's some more that adds weight to...

... the argument. Thanks for rec 5, much appreciated.

I really hope someone can get this concept to those that are actively involved in the transition...


More info that should allay the fears that most people have about diesel. In addition to answer 7, hybrids have a very quick depreciation in comparison and their lifespan is a lot shorter... Also (while on the topic of hybrids) - on an environmental note - what's going to happen to all the batteries when these hybrids go the the big car maker in the sky? :shrug:

Just as diesel cars are preparing to enter the U.S. market in a big way, misconceptions may be causing interest to wane.

By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: March 11, 2008: 11:12 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Diesel engines power half the passenger vehicles sold in Europe but almost none here. Stricter U.S. clean air regulations have meant that - until recently - they were simply too dirty to be sold in the most populous U.S. states, including California, New York and New Jersey.

This virtual shut-out means that American drivers have little experience with modern diesel engines. The last time diesel cars were sold here in any significant number was in the 1980s, and the ones we saw then were noisy, belched black smoke and were slow to move.

Recent survey data from Kelley Blue Book indicates that diesel perceptions haven't improved much. In fact, views seem to be getting worse just as car companies are preparing to introduce us to better performing, cleaner diesel engines.

Interest in diesels among new car buyers is trending downward, according to Kelley Blue Book. It now stands at 39% compared to 60% for gas-electric hybrids. It's even lower than consideration for hydrogen fuel cells, which are still decades away from hitting the market.

But a close look at seven common worries about diesel engines reveals that most of them don't reflect today's reality.

1. I just don't get the difference: Like gasoline engines, diesels burn liquid fuel derived from petroleum. But unlike gas engines, diesels don't use a spark to ignite the fuel. Instead, air is squeezed inside a hot cylinder. At just the right time, fuel is squirted into the cylinder where it instantly ignites in the super-heated compressed air. That releases energy that pushes the cylinder down, powering the vehicle.

That might seem like a minor difference - either way, stuff burns and pushes pistons - but it ultimately means that diesel engines behave differently from gas engines in a number of ways. Diesels have mostly been used in trucks and trains which benefit from the engine's low-speed pulling power and greater fuel efficiency.

Gas engines have traditionally been used in cars because they tend to be quieter, offer quicker acceleration and run more easily when cold. But newer diesel engines are closing - and even eliminating - differences in these areas.

2. Diesel engines get worse fuel economy: Surprisingly, fewer than half of respondents in Kelley Blue Book's survey agreed with the statement that diesels engines "are fuel efficient." Actually, that's their main selling point.

Because of how the engine uses fuel - creating lots of power at low engine speeds - and because the fuel contains more energy per gallon, diesels get much better fuel economy than gas-powered cars. In many cases, diesels get mileage similar to gasoline-hybrid cars of the same size and type.

3. Diesels are old technology: It's true that diesel is an old engine technology. Rudolf Diesel patented his engine design in the 1890s. But the spark-ignited gas-powered engine that powers most of our cars is even older.

Like the gas engine, diesel has been undergoing a lot of improvements in the last few decades as fuel economy demands have increased, so a modern diesel engine is no less "modern" than anything else.

4. Diesel engines are noisy: Old diesel engines used to make loud clanking and popping noises caused by the sudden, high-pressure ignition of fuel inside the engine. Gas engines ignite fuel under pressure, too, but the much greater pressures used in diesels resulted in a popping and banging noises.

New diesels create a more gentle increase in pressure by injecting small amounts of fuel into the cylinder even as the piston is rising. Those small ignitions aren't enough to push the piston back down, but they keep things warm and increase pressure slightly.

Then, when the piston reaches the top, a bigger push of fuel creates the big burst of energy that pushes the piston back down. Another series of smaller fuel injections then keep the piston moving down, easing decompression. The result is gentler, quieter combustion cycle that eliminates most of the noise.

5. Diesel engines spew filth into the air: This has been the real culprit keeping diesels out of the U.S. market. America's strict clean air rules simply couldn't be met.

The extremely high temperatures and pressures inside diesel engines create nasty pollutants like nitrous oxides and so-called "diesel particulate matter." In order to get diesels to meet the same requirements as gas engines, car companies are now using a variety of emission cleaning technologies including filters and devices that release cleaning substances into the exhaust stream.

To make all this possible, gas stations that sell diesel fuel are now required to sell "ultra clean diesel" that has much less sulfur. Sulfur used to be included to help lubricate the engine, but its presence would have interfered with these new emissions-cleaning technologies. With that sulfur taken out, diesel exhaust can now be held to the same standards as gasoline exhaust.

6. Diesel-powered cars are slow: While diesel engines have loads of pulling power - called torque - acceleration has been a traditional weak point. All modern diesel engines now have turbochargers that provide additional boost, which has made a big difference in performance.

Diesels have a gentler take-off before the turbochargers start adding boost. Once things get rolling, they can provide a surprising rush of acceleration. Most drivers would never miss the performance of a gasoline-powered car. In fact, diesel engines with less high-end power - or horsepower - can deliver similar, or even better, real-world performance.

7. They cost too much: While diesel offers a less technologically complex way to get hybrid-like fuel economy, it's not without added costs. Diesel engines cost more to make than gas engines because of the need to withstand high internal pressures, and because they require turbocharging to provide adequate performance.

Diesels also require expensive emission-cleaning technology. Like gasoline/electric hybrid cars, diesel cars will cost American buyers thousands more than comparable gas-powered versions.

Diesels could make up much of that added cost in better resale value, though. Diesel cars. They hold their value much better than gas-powered cars or hybrids, according to Kelley Blue Book.

--Bonus question: Due to a strong reader response, we added this worry to the list:

Diesels are hard to start in cold weather: Because they rely on engine heat and because diesel fuel tends to thicken in cold temperatures, diesels have traditionally been hard to start in cold temperatures.

Improvements in diesel engines and diesel fuels have helped eliminate these problems. Like gasoline, diesel fuels are reformulated for cold weather.

Improved fuel injectors help by better "atomizing" the fuel, spraying out a fine mist that ignites more easily. Newer "glow plugs" - internal heating elements that warm diesel engine cylinders - also heat up right away, providing quick starts even on cold days.

First Published: March 10, 2008: 1:12 PM EDT
http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Diesel+misconceptions+-+Mar.+10,+2008&expire=-1&urlID=32606216&fb=Y&url=http://www.mutual-funds.us/2008/02/27/autos/diesel_worries/index.htm%3Fpostversion%3D2008031111&partnerID=2200