Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Car industry warns that Obamafuel regulations will make cars unaffordable and destroy America. Much in the same way that safety glass, seatbelt, airbag, and crumple zone regulations have done in the past   (foxnews.com) divider line 169
    More: Scary, Obamafuel, obama, fuel economy in automobiles, automakers, seat belts, National Automobile Dealers Association, gas guzzlers, franchise  
•       •       •

2090 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Jul 2012 at 2:19 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-30 12:36:20 PM  
Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us
 
2012-07-30 02:06:51 PM  
If approved, the changes are projected to save average American motorists roughly $8,200 at the pump over the life of their vehicles, but would also cost them as much as $3,000 more for a new vehicle.


Hmmm $8200 in savings Vs $3000 more up front? what to do.. what to do????
 
2012-07-30 02:21:29 PM  
Obamafuel?

Whats this?

A new bill i can be outraged over!? This is going to directly prove the link between gas prices and how much Obama hates America and is a Double Secret Kenyan Socialist Muslim Marxist to the GOP.
 
2012-07-30 02:21:49 PM  

Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...


Most of those cars also won't pass regulations here because they aren't sufficiently armored against the landboats that are popular on our highways.
 
2012-07-30 02:21:55 PM  
This from the people who think there aren't nearly enough cars available in America, and screw those hippies buying used vehicles, consumers are clamoring for a new Kia Sportage now. Seriously, why not make a new model every other year?
 
2012-07-30 02:21:58 PM  
Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

Thanks, Mister Preznit!
 
2012-07-30 02:22:20 PM  

Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us


I wonder how much of that effect has to do with a captive audience. There's millions of Americans who absolutely have to have a car to go about their daily business.
 
2012-07-30 02:22:49 PM  
Research and development never created any new jobs!
 
2012-07-30 02:23:19 PM  

Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us


It really is hard to take them seriously since the bankruptcy, especially since they ought to know they'd get bailed out again in the odd chance they're right. They just don't want to go throught the hassle.
 
2012-07-30 02:23:27 PM  
Shouldnt they have thought of that before selling a pickup truck for $40,000 that gets 8 MPG?
 
2012-07-30 02:24:05 PM  
Obama did destroy the American car industry, but not this way. In conjunction with Bush, he bailed out the UAW.

/funny how GM makes great cars in China and Germany
//guess what those two countries don't have?
///nope, not unions - look at Germany
 
2012-07-30 02:24:13 PM  
Interesting enough my dad bought,as the only new car in his life, the first Ford in which seatbelts were even an option in 1956, IIRC. According to him the car as a model bombed and Ford shortly thereafter discontinued it. A lot of its failure was chalked up to the optional seatbelts, as people figured if such a thing were even offered it must mean the car was a death trap.

That said the aluminim body Ford truck is pure protest statement and not at all meant to taken seriously as an actual vehicle they intended to sell.
 
2012-07-30 02:24:55 PM  
Let me guess, the Classic GoP Response.

Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
 
2012-07-30 02:25:32 PM  

palelizard: Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us

It really is hard to take them seriously since the bankruptcy, especially since they ought to know they'd get bailed out again in the odd chance they're right. They just don't want to go throught the hassle.


I think if they went kaboom at any time other than the middle of the biggest recession since the 1920s, it would be much harder to engineer a government-backed bankruptcy.
 
M-G
2012-07-30 02:25:36 PM  
Considering the automakers are fine with the new regs, the dealers can suck it.
 
2012-07-30 02:26:29 PM  

IrateShadow: Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

Most of those cars also won't pass regulations here because they aren't sufficiently armored against the landboats that are popular on our highways.


I just happen to have a link to a great video: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.
 
2012-07-30 02:27:23 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.


I haven't noticed a lack of options.

Is this really a thing? Or are people just wistfully recalling the halcyon days when used cars were only a nickle? You know, before Brikabrak Hoosegow Oface took over.
 
2012-07-30 02:28:02 PM  

IrateShadow: Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

Most of those cars also won't pass regulations here because they aren't sufficiently armored against the landboats that are popular on our highways.


And if it starts to look like some of them might be able to pass the safety tests, the oil lobby will $convince Congress to make the safety tests just a bit harder for (foreign) cars above a certain level of fuel economy to pass.

And most fuel-efficient turbodiesels are kept out of this side of the Atlantic by ultra-stringent emissions regulations.
 
2012-07-30 02:28:05 PM  
Sooo, saves $5000 in total costs for the consumer and is supported by the auto industry. Someone is REALLY hurting on the spin angle when the best they can come up with is it will make people use less gas which would reduce government income...and that's supposed to be BAD
 
2012-07-30 02:28:27 PM  

beta_plus: Obama did destroy the American car industry, but not this way. In conjunction with Bush, he bailed out the UAW.

/funny how GM makes great cars in China and Germany
//guess what those two countries don't have?
///nope, not unions - look at Germany


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-30 02:29:05 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

Thanks, Mister Preznit!


Total number of Cars turned in under cash for clunkers: 677,081

Total number of registered passenger vehicles in the US currently: 254,400,000

Number of years ago Cash for Clunkers ended: 3

Therefore, doing the math, we come to the conclusion that you're an idiot
 
2012-07-30 02:29:37 PM  

Expolaris: A new bill i can be outraged over!?


Are you sure its new? I seem to remember the autos and the white house coming up with these standards a year and a half ago. I also recall there being a review in 2018 that allows for the standards to be reviewed and revised if they cause the auto industry problems.
 
2012-07-30 02:29:55 PM  
Karac:
By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.

Let's see how well that Malibu does in 2070 or so, after 60+ years of corrosion.
 
2012-07-30 02:31:09 PM  
Obamafuels? My car is old, it won't work with ni-*bong*-fuels.
It's not my fault, It's just what it learned before I bought it.
 
2012-07-30 02:32:17 PM  

Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us


Don't count on getting a high efficiency diesel in the US. Volkswagen can build them in the US, they just can't sell them. Too much lost fuel tax revenue. Link

Also, while I don't have much of an issue with the dilution of gas to reduce reliance on imported oil and improving emissions, I think the use of corn ethanol is ridiculous. Use a non-food crop like hemp or make methanol out of the coal we can no longer burn.
 
2012-07-30 02:32:48 PM  
Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?
 
2012-07-30 02:33:08 PM  
Let me guess, if they don't hit some new efficiency goal, then someone will have to pay a tax. But don't you dare call it a tax increase!
 
2012-07-30 02:36:18 PM  
Personally I'm waiting for Meowbama cat food.
 
2012-07-30 02:37:26 PM  

StrikitRich: Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us

Don't count on getting a high efficiency diesel in the US. Volkswagen can build them in the US, they just can't sell them. Too much lost fuel tax revenue. Link

Also, while I don't have much of an issue with the dilution of gas to reduce reliance on imported oil and improving emissions, I think the use of corn ethanol is ridiculous. Use a non-food crop like hemp or make methanol out of the coal we can no longer burn.


THIS
 
2012-07-30 02:40:16 PM  
Cry Wolf and let slip the tears of war!
 
2012-07-30 02:41:15 PM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


My '89 corolla consistently got 40-45mpg at highway speeds (by which I mean 75-80mph) The Geo prism I was forced to replace it with, despite coming off the same assembly line and supposedly being hte same car with fewer emenities, rarely got over 35, It amuses me to see people trying to brag on 35 mpg now 24 farking years later.
 
2012-07-30 02:42:06 PM  

Magorn: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

Thanks, Mister Preznit!

Total number of Cars turned in under cash for clunkers: 677,081

Total number of registered passenger vehicles in the US currently: 254,400,000

Number of years ago Cash for Clunkers ended: 3

Therefore, doing the math, we come to the conclusion that you're an idiot


This.

I guess the fact that cars now easily last 150,000 miles and the lack of consumer confidence causing people to delay buying new cars are not good reason for a lack of used cars. It has to be that limited program from three years ago.

Also, there are less lease vehicles coming off contract these days. This article has a good summary.
 
2012-07-30 02:43:44 PM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


Geo was a sub-brand of chevy all along, the metro was a fine car but sales tapered off and in a bid to make them better they turned the optional 4 cylinder into the standard powerplant. Also most people didn't want a Tracker that was underpowered and undersized compared to Blazers, Explorers, Pathfinders etc. that's why that failed. The Cavalier was replaced by the similar Cobalt and now Cruze.

Look at how bloated a Civic is compared to the 80's. GM is just doing the same thing that every other maker has done.
 
2012-07-30 02:45:42 PM  
You know what the worst part is? The shameless dishonesty of that statement. Those morons know that if GM made a car that got 200mpg it would be the highest selling car in history, yet they act like it would singlehandedly destroy the company. No mention of purposely designing and building cars that fall apart in three years, nothing about focusing all the advertising on giant gas guzzlers.
 
2012-07-30 02:46:13 PM  

StrikitRich: Also, while I don't have much of an issue with the dilution of gas to reduce reliance on imported oil and improving emissions, I think the use of corn ethanol is ridiculous. Use a non-food crop like hemp or make methanol out of the coal we can no longer burn.


If we did that, we'd have to import the hemp, can't grow it here.
 
2012-07-30 02:46:43 PM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


These are all significantly better than a Cavalier/Cobolt:
Chevrolet Cruze (26 city, 38 hwy, 30 combined)
Chevrolet Malibu (22 city, 33 hwy, 26 combined)
Chevrolet Sonic (29 cith, 40 hwy, 33 combined)

Link
 
2012-07-30 02:47:01 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Look at how bloated a Civic is compared to the 80's.


Had a Civic from 2000 (bought new) until late 2009, when the woman totaled it. She bought a 2010 Civic and it was a dog. Loud on the road, uncomfortable, tiny door locks & handles, etc. Traded it in for a Jeep with smaller payment and cheaper insurance.
 
2012-07-30 02:48:57 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

I haven't noticed a lack of options.

Is this really a thing? Or are people just wistfully recalling the halcyon days when used cars were only a nickle? You know, before Brikabrak Hoosegow Oface took over.


Before KKKash for KKKlunkers, cars where sold in huge Pez dispenser like devices that only cost 25 cents per car! Thanks a lot OBummer!!!!
 
2012-07-30 02:49:31 PM  

LectertheChef: StrikitRich: Also, while I don't have much of an issue with the dilution of gas to reduce reliance on imported oil and improving emissions, I think the use of corn ethanol is ridiculous. Use a non-food crop like hemp or make methanol out of the coal we can no longer burn.

If we did that, we'd have to import the hemp, can't grow it here.


That was an implied part of my point. Legalize it.
 
2012-07-30 02:49:33 PM  

GameSprocket: Also, there are less lease vehicles coming off contract these days. This article has a good summary.


Yes, cash for clunkers reduced the number of used cars on the road, contributing to their current higher prices.

Please post again when you resume living in the real world and not denial island.
 
2012-07-30 02:49:51 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

I haven't noticed a lack of options.

Is this really a thing? Or are people just wistfully recalling the halcyon days when used cars were only a nickle? You know, before Brikabrak Hoosegow Oface took over.


I can only go based on anecdotal evidence, but quality used cars have a price premium these days. Any good values are bought quickly, leaving repaired, overmileage, and overpriced heaps. That said, Cash for Clunkers was a failure due to the industry (read: Republicans) getting heir mitts on it and making the qualifications stupid and laughable.

Idea: Get the people driving huge 70-80s gas guzzlers over "the hump" by incentivizing their purchase of a new car. Winners: Everyone who had to look at their old rust bucket, auto manufacturers, consumers, the enviroment.

Reality: People saw free money and traded in perfectly good looking and working cars that were then, by law, permanently disabled. Winners: Greedy ass consumers that were able to trade up into the latest model of their car for cheap.
 
2012-07-30 02:53:16 PM  

physt: beta_plus: Obama did destroy the American car industry, but not this way. In conjunction with Bush, he bailed out the UAW.

/funny how GM makes great cars in China and Germany
//guess what those two countries don't have?
///nope, not unions - look at Germany

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x220]


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-30 02:53:58 PM  

Karac: IrateShadow: Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

Most of those cars also won't pass regulations here because they aren't sufficiently armored against the landboats that are popular on our highways.

I just happen to have a link to a great video: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.


HA! That video is priceless. Can't wait to pass this around in response to the inevitable "they don't make 'em like they used to!" comments that pop up in almost any auto thread.
 
2012-07-30 02:57:54 PM  

GoodyearPimp: HotWingConspiracy: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

I haven't noticed a lack of options.

Is this really a thing? Or are people just wistfully recalling the halcyon days when used cars were only a nickle? You know, before Brikabrak Hoosegow Oface took over.

I can only go based on anecdotal evidence, but quality used cars have a price premium these days. Any good values are bought quickly, leaving repaired, overmileage, and overpriced heaps. That said, Cash for Clunkers was a failure due to the industry (read: Republicans) getting heir mitts on it and making the qualifications stupid and laughable.

Idea: Get the people driving huge 70-80s gas guzzlers over "the hump" by incentivizing their purchase of a new car. Winners: Everyone who had to look at their old rust bucket, auto manufacturers, consumers, the enviroment.

Reality: People saw free money and traded in perfectly good looking and working cars that were then, by law, permanently disabled. Winners: Greedy ass consumers that were able to trade up into the latest model of their car for cheap.


hat's got a lot less to do with C for C and more two basic economic realities:
1) people got a lot less disposable income so fixing the old car for one more year is the go to option instead of trading it in for a new one

2) like all lending , auto-finance lending is still sluggish to nigh-forzen making auto loans harder to qualify for generally, making cheaper used cars a more attractive option for most consumers
 
2012-07-30 02:59:50 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Reality: People saw free money and traded in perfectly good looking and working cars that were then, by law, permanently disabled. Winners: Greedy ass consumers that were able to trade up into the latest model of their car for cheap.


Count me as one of them.

Traded in a well used '93 V6 Camry (averaged 18 mpg) for a 2010 Prius. The Prius was faster, more comfortable, carried more, a lot safer and always got over 50 mpg a tank. Plus had the added bonus at the time, my State waived the ~9% sales tax for hybrid cars.

-Saved some $200 a month in gas
-Got $4,500 from the Feds for a clunker
-Avoided $2,000 in State taxes

/still miss that Prius
//the exwife put it under a semi last year
 
2012-07-30 03:00:56 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: GameSprocket: Also, there are less lease vehicles coming off contract these days. This article has a good summary.

Yes, cash for clunkers reduced the number of used cars on the road, contributing to their current higher prices.

Please post again when you resume living in the real world and not denial island.


Do you have a link for your ass? That is where you are getting your information, right?

Cash for clunkers gave at most $4,500 for the trade-in. Since dealers could not resell the "clunker", they did not give additional money on top of the credit amount. Therefore, the cars traded in were worth $4,500 or less three years ago.

I posted a source for my information. Where is yours?
 
2012-07-30 03:01:16 PM  
Those old Geo cars didn't weigh much at all. With all of the mandated safety improvements, vehicle weight has gone up significantly. More weight = less mileage. The push for safety and the push for fuel efficiency are at odds with each other.
 
2012-07-30 03:03:27 PM  

Karac: : A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu.


That was a pile of rust with a new paint job vs a new car.

That being said, I'd rather modern cars be safe without fanfare. If people drive like they're wrapped in bubble wrap they drive worse. I'd actually be in favor of replacing air bags with spikes.
 
2012-07-30 03:04:33 PM  

qorkfiend: I think if they went kaboom at any time other than the middle of the biggest recession since the 1920s, it would be much harder to engineer a government-backed bankruptcy.


Possible, but I'm not 100% certain. Look how much Romney's comment about letting Detroit go bankrupt is hurting him. I think since it happened once, it's more likely to happen again--especially since it was overall successful.

Karac: I just happen to have a link to a great video: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.


Wow. That was pretty cool.
 
2012-07-30 03:05:09 PM  

Explodo: Those old Geo cars didn't weigh much at all. With all of the mandated safety improvements, vehicle weight has gone up significantly. More weight = less mileage. The push for safety and the push for fuel efficiency are at odds with each other.


Of course, there haven't been any advances in materials science, giving us lighter materials to offset the tons of weight added by seat belts and airbags.
 
2012-07-30 03:06:45 PM  

wildcardjack: I'd rather modern cars be safe without fanfare.


What does this mean?

palelizard: Possible, but I'm not 100% certain.


I'm not 100% certain, either. But I do think it would be more difficult, especially if it wasn't on the heels of a program like TARP.
 
2012-07-30 03:07:02 PM  
Let's just all work together to pass a bill to force Land Rover to sell the new D90s in the US.

/not sure what this thread is about
 
2012-07-30 03:07:28 PM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


I understand that the plural of anecdote is not data, but here's mine anyway. In 2007, I went into a mechanic for a sales call. I was shooting the breeze with him, and he mentioned he was working on a test car as part of a fuel efficiency study. With off-the-shelf parts, he was trying to get the Chevy Volt to the highest MPG he possibly could. I had heard about the Volt and (unsubstantiated) claims that it could get 100 mpg, so I was expecting a response of around that. He said he could get it over 200 mpg without any modifications beyond swapping out parts. Obviously, he was using the concept car and not the production vehicle, but still, that is a helluva difference. I would love a 100+ mpg car. I would buy it newish, if I knew over its life, I would spend less than a third of what I currently do on gas.

//Does it run on water?
 
2012-07-30 03:09:13 PM  
I've heard tape of Detroit executives warning back in the late 50's that government threats to require seat belts would destroy the American automobile industry. Pretty sure there was also something along the lines of, "You know where else they require seat belts? In the Soviet Union."
 
2012-07-30 03:09:41 PM  

roc6783: brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?

I understand that the plural of anecdote is not data, but here's mine anyway. In 2007, I went into a mechanic for a sales call. I was shooting the breeze with him, and he mentioned he was working on a test car as part of a fuel efficiency study. With off-the-shelf parts, he was trying to get the Chevy Volt to the highest MPG he possibly could. I had heard about the Volt and (unsubstantiated) claims that it could get 100 mpg, so I was expecting a response of around that. He said he could get it over 200 mpg without any modifications beyond swapping out parts. Obviously, he was using the concept car and not the production vehicle, but still, that is a helluva difference. I would love a 100+ mpg car. I would buy it newish, if I knew over its life, I would spend less than a third of what I currently do on gas.

//Does it run on water?


Why isn't he selling conversions for tons of money? A six- or seven-fold increase in fuel efficiency would be worth a lot of money to people, myself included.
 
2012-07-30 03:13:01 PM  

Elzar: When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?


Unfortunately diesel has a bad reputation here for whatever reason. Probably partly because diesel is priced higher in the US in most places. Math is hard so people don't realize they actually pay less when you factor in the mileage.

My Jetta TDI gets about 37 city and 44 highway. Even though diesel is more expensive I actually save $10 per fill-up opposed to my wife's Honda Accord which gets ok mileage.

(The math on that: I go 500 miles plus on the 14 gallon tank where the Accord manages about 25 city / 33 highway, so about 350 miles plus. With the cost difference in gas I average about $7 more for a full tank (between .30 and .50 more per gallon of diesel) but at $3.30 that 150 miles for gas in the Accord would be about $17)
 
2012-07-30 03:14:51 PM  
Don't forget catalytic converters, subby.
 
2012-07-30 03:15:34 PM  

GameSprocket: I posted a source for my information. Where is yours?


You need a citation for "supply and demand?"

/Derp.
 
2012-07-30 03:15:43 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

Thanks, Mister Preznit!


any cash for clunkers car is 3 years old now. I'm not saying that's old, but it's where the 'good' used car market generally begins. If you want, you can buy my car I bought under cash for clunkers. As it is, the resale value is about what I paid for it with all the cash for clunkers incentives. Seemed to work fine to me.
 
2012-07-30 03:16:22 PM  
I dunno. I think I'd rather pay 3.00 a gallon and get 35 mpg than pay 8 dollars a gallon and get 50 mpg.

What? Where do think the gubment is going to get their tax dollars? At 54 mpg, road and gas tax revenues will nose dive.
 
2012-07-30 03:18:14 PM  

Magorn: GoodyearPimp: HotWingConspiracy: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

I haven't noticed a lack of options.

Is this really a thing? Or are people just wistfully recalling the halcyon days when used cars were only a nickle? You know, before Brikabrak Hoosegow Oface took over.

I can only go based on anecdotal evidence, but quality used cars have a price premium these days. Any good values are bought quickly, leaving repaired, overmileage, and overpriced heaps. That said, Cash for Clunkers was a failure due to the industry (read: Republicans) getting heir mitts on it and making the qualifications stupid and laughable.

Idea: Get the people driving huge 70-80s gas guzzlers over "the hump" by incentivizing their purchase of a new car. Winners: Everyone who had to look at their old rust bucket, auto manufacturers, consumers, the enviroment.

Reality: People saw free money and traded in perfectly good looking and working cars that were then, by law, permanently disabled. Winners: Greedy ass consumers that were able to trade up into the latest model of their car for cheap.


I can attest to seeing your reality by a co-worker of mine. He is a Boomer, he traded in his old truck for a new truck that got the same mpg. So, the idea of getting a gas guzzler off the road didn't happen. All that happened was he got to buy a new truck cheaper.
 
2012-07-30 03:19:18 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: GameSprocket: I posted a source for my information. Where is yours?

You need a citation for "supply and demand?"

/Derp.


I need a citation for cash for clunkers causing enough of a drain on supply to make a difference. That was the claim, correct?
 
2012-07-30 03:20:16 PM  

GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: GameSprocket: I posted a source for my information. Where is yours?

You need a citation for "supply and demand?"

/Derp.

I need a citation for cash for clunkers causing enough of a drain on supply to make a difference. That was the claim, correct?


DERPTIY, DERP!
 
2012-07-30 03:23:48 PM  
The article conveniently left out why it would cost more to build or sell a fuel efficient vehicle. There is not one single word as to how designing a vehicle with better fuel economy would also make that vehicle cost more. Also, who said it would cost $3000 more? The EPA? Dealers? Manufacturers? FAIL Faux News. What a poorly written article. As far as I'm concerned the $3000 more per vehicle number is hearsay and conjecture, especially given the source.
 
2012-07-30 03:28:00 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DERPTIY, DERP!


And contained in the first result of that search?

"When the program ran, the volume of vehicles [it took off the road] was large, but in the bigger picture, it wasn't that big," King says. "Yes, it took used vehicles off the market, but we're talking about older, higher mileage vehicles, and a lot of them were near the end of their life anyhow."

Since then, prices have come back down. Today's average wholesale price for a used car is actually $68 less than it was two years ago.

Montgomery Motors' Merriman described inventory shortages as short-lived. "I really haven't felt any of the effect of it," he says. "It slowed down some of our inventory for a month, maybe six weeks."
Link

So go derp yourself, troll.
 
2012-07-30 03:28:26 PM  
Thank FSM that I live in Canukistan. I simply love my TDI Jetta. I regularly get 36-40 mpg city and close to 60 mpg highway. Nothing like driving 1000km on a single tank of diesel. I also love to smugly laugh at American car ads where they tout their cars as being "fuel efficient".
 
2012-07-30 03:28:39 PM  
Modest HP reductions would likely do it. 268hp in a Camry is fairly impressive considering GM was selling 90hp Camaros in 1984.
 
2012-07-30 03:32:52 PM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


1. Higher weight (more safety features, more standard options)
2. Greater standard horsepower.
3. The old EPA MPG numbers were easily manipulated by manufacturers to create unrealistic MPG claims.
 
2012-07-30 03:36:33 PM  
qorkfiend:
Of course, there haven't been any advances in materials science, giving us lighter materials to offset the tons of weight added by seat belts and airbags.

Not that many advances, no.

Sure, you could make a much lighter car to hit the safety and mileage targets - but it would be made of carbon fiber and exotic composites, and would cost three or four times as much. Instead of a $25,000 Honda Civic weighing 2600 pounds, you'd have a $100,000 Honda Civic weighing 1800 pounds - and getting maybe 30% better mileage.

Modern cars are HEAVY. when compared to the old-school cars they replaced. It's not just a matter of materials - they design in crumple zones, make the doors much thicker, add reinforcement to the floors (to keep the seats from shearing loose), et cetera. They use better materials like high-end aluminum, but that can't make up that much difference. You can only add so much "lightness."

The result? Cars in the same size class, with similar capacities, tend to be 400 to 600 pounds heavier than they were just twenty years ago.

If we made cars like they used to (without the safety and emissions bits), but with modern materials (aluminum and electronics), we could put out a sub-1500 pound midsize car getting 70+ MPG - that would fold in half in any serious crash, wouldn't have air conditioning, and would be too loud to talk inside...

The problem is that most of the advances in old-school engine tech have already been made. We've more than doubled fuel efficiency per horsepower while massively improving emissions. That can't happen again without going to a whole new kind of engine tech. Hybrid is one way, but there are others...
 
2012-07-30 03:38:40 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Thank FSM that I live in Canukistan. I simply love my TDI Jetta. I regularly get 36-40 mpg city and close to 60 mpg highway. Nothing like driving 1000km on a single tank of diesel. I also love to smugly laugh at American car ads where they tout their cars as being "fuel efficient".


Hey, it takes more fuel to haul our giant asses brass balls around. Watch out or I'll drive my Hummer up there and run your ass over. Just let me check my bank account and see if I have enough gas money for the trip.
 
2012-07-30 03:38:46 PM  

Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us


I don't mean this as a personal attack against you - but I'm so sick of hearing about 'the rest of the world' having better fuel efficiency. I'm a US citizen, raised and born in the US. I came to Europe expecting to reap the benefits of these ultra efficient cars. They don't exist.

No seriously.

Let me explain....

The 'MPG' rating you see on stuff - that comes from some regulator body. And they are different depending on what region you live in. The EPA in the United States has *ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONDITIONS* for their fuel tests than the EU does. This actually makes sense because driving conditions are quite a bit different too.

In some cases - a car manufacturer will sell the same car in different markets without making many changes. We're talking about THE SAME CAR and the EU will come up with very different fuel efficiency than the EPA. Here - look at this: (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#United_States )

SAME CAR
European Union (L/100 km) - 'combined' 8.9, 'urban' 12.5, 'extra-urban' 6.9[22]
United States (L/100 km) - 'combined' 9.8, 'city' 11.2, 'highway' 8.1[23]

8.9 L/100km verse 9.8 L/100km. This is the same car - only tested under different conditions. The US conditions are less favourable than the EU test. They drive slower during the test. The result is it takes LESS GAS to go 100km in the EU test. BUT IT'S BULLCRAP! It's the same car.

But that's the rare exception. Most cars aren't sold in the US and in Europe. In Europe - you get the tiny version of the same car. Cars here are significantly smaller. As a result, average fuel efficiency goes up. Not because of better technology.....but because smaller vehicles need less gas. This is not complicated. You can buy a clown car in the US too - but Americans don't want to. And, the vast majority of cars here are manuals - which again - helps the fuel numbers but really don't indicate any difference. Americans prefer their automatics.

You'd think that'd be enough - right? But no - there is more.

When people talk about MPG - miles per gallon - guess what? GALLON is not the same in the UK and the US. No seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon

The 'imperial gallon' is used in the UK - (≈ 4.546 L)
The 'US gallon' is used in the US - (≈ 3.79 L)

To summarize....

EVEN WITH IDENTICAL CARS
The MPG will be higher in 'the rest of the world' because they use different standards in their fuel testing and because their measure of 'gallon' actually includes more gas than the American car.

When Comparing Average Cars
Both of the above are still true *AND* the average American car is significantly larger, heavier, more likely to be an automatic, and more likely to include energy wasting features like power windows.
 
2012-07-30 03:42:42 PM  

Leopold Stotch: These are all significantly better than a Cavalier/Cobolt:
Chevrolet Cruze (26 city, 38 hwy, 30 combined)
Chevrolet Malibu (22 city, 33 hwy, 26 combined)
Chevrolet Sonic (29 cith, 40 hwy, 33 combined)


Sad, I have a 2-ton van (that's 3850 lbs payload) that gets 27 mpg. Yes, it is a diesel and yes, I purchased it in the USA.
 
2012-07-30 03:46:14 PM  

natazha: 27 mpg. Yes, it is a diesel and yes, I purchased it in the USA.


And thus why newer diesels are EPA required to use DEF. We can't have lots of regular folks driving up diesel prices on businesses and military.
 
2012-07-30 03:48:05 PM  

StrikitRich: Don't count on getting a high efficiency diesel in the US. Volkswagen can build them in the US, they just can't sell them. Too much lost fuel tax revenue. Link


Oi, how many times must we go over this?

I'm all about fuel efficiency (I drive a Fiat) and using less oil, but the author -- like most authors of green sites run by people who don't know shiat about cars -- is an idiot. The VW gets 68 mpg on the European cycle. The EPA cycle adjusts the figures downward to take account of real world driving. The European cycle is a fairy tale. In the American cycle, that 68 mpg is less than 50 mpg.

You can get that in a farking Prius now, and it'll probably cost you a hell of a lot less.

Or you could buy a Yaris, Sonic, 500, Fit, or any number of other cars that'll get good enough mileage that you won't be able to justify paying $10k for a moderately more efficient VW fire hazard.
 
2012-07-30 03:58:46 PM  

beta_plus: Obama did destroy the American car industry, but not this way. In conjunction with Bush, he bailed out the UAW.

/funny how GM makes great cars in China and Germany
//guess what those two countries don't have?
///nope, not unions - look at Germany


50 years worth of mathematically faulty Gage R&R studies?

A mindset that they "meet requirements" in lieu of "delivering a desirable product to market"?

A completely unworkable method of statistical process control?

Cause those issues are plaguing US Manufacturing in general, and most of those paradigms originated at GM during world war two, while this guy was overseas being worshiped as a living god and bringing Japan into its own as a manufacturing powerhouse.

We still use Gage R&R studies here in the US that calmly ignore things like the Pythagorean farking Theorem by making statements like "Percentage Contributions to Error will not add up to 100%."
 
2012-07-30 03:59:00 PM  
Never mind the fact that the standards have been raised since Carter was in the White House & we had the 70s gas shortage.

Faux News is Faux.
 
2012-07-30 04:04:16 PM  

M-G: Considering the automakers are fine with the new regs, the dealers can suck it.


Nah, car dealers will adapt. They'll inflate the price, pointing to the long-term gas savings.
 
2012-07-30 04:06:58 PM  
But my motorcycles will still be okay, right?
 
2012-07-30 04:18:49 PM  

qorkfiend: In 2007, I went into a mechanic for a sales call. I was shooting the breeze with him, and he mentioned he was working on a test car as part of a fuel efficiency study. With off-the-shelf parts, he was trying to get the Chevy Volt to the highest MPG he possibly could. I had heard about the Volt and (unsubstantiated) claims that it could get 100 mpg, so I was expecting a response of around that. He said he could get it over 200 mpg without any modifications beyond swapping out parts. Obviously, he was using the concept car and not the production vehicle, but still, that is a helluva difference. I would love a 100+ mpg car. I would buy it newish, if I knew over its life, I would spend less than a third of what I currently do on gas.

//Does it run on water?

Why isn't he selling conversions for tons of money? A six- or seven-fold increase in fuel efficiency would be worth a lot of money to people, myself included.


The "100" isn't "mpg" it's mpge, the "e" stands for equivalent, because the car can get energy either from the gasoline or from being plugged in in your garage. The "100 mpge" (actually somewhere lower, if I remember correctly, but not really important to this point) is using sorta-familiar but imprecise energy terminology, but it means a combination of both electrical and gasoline consumption. So they use "mpge". And the Volt *is* very efficient. How much energy you use depends on how far or often you drive. If you drive less than 40 miles at a time, you might hardly ever need gasoline at all. (infinite miles per gallon of gas! ...ha, not really)

Also: doubling the 'mpge' from 100 to 200 isn't a very big increase, actually. If you're getting 100 mpge, you might spend $10 a month on gas. At 200 mpge, $5 a month. So how much is saving $5 a month worth? ...It should be worth $5 or less. So unless the mechanic is just having a fun experiment for his own purposes, there's little economic gain.

You want to have some really easy fuel economy gains? Improve the fuel economy of a large SUV. A gain from 8 mpg to 10 mpg is huge.
 
2012-07-30 04:24:40 PM  

StopLurkListen: qorkfiend: In 2007, I went into a mechanic for a sales call. I was shooting the breeze with him, and he mentioned he was working on a test car as part of a fuel efficiency study. With off-the-shelf parts, he was trying to get the Chevy Volt to the highest MPG he possibly could. I had heard about the Volt and (unsubstantiated) claims that it could get 100 mpg, so I was expecting a response of around that. He said he could get it over 200 mpg without any modifications beyond swapping out parts. Obviously, he was using the concept car and not the production vehicle, but still, that is a helluva difference. I would love a 100+ mpg car. I would buy it newish, if I knew over its life, I would spend less than a third of what I currently do on gas.

//Does it run on water?

Why isn't he selling conversions for tons of money? A six- or seven-fold increase in fuel efficiency would be worth a lot of money to people, myself included.

The "100" isn't "mpg" it's mpge, the "e" stands for equivalent, because the car can get energy either from the gasoline or from being plugged in in your garage. The "100 mpge" (actually somewhere lower, if I remember correctly, but not really important to this point) is using sorta-familiar but imprecise energy terminology, but it means a combination of both electrical and gasoline consumption. So they use "mpge". And the Volt *is* very efficient. How much energy you use depends on how far or often you drive. If you drive less than 40 miles at a time, you might hardly ever need gasoline at all. (infinite miles per gallon of gas! ...ha, not really)

Also: doubling the 'mpge' from 100 to 200 isn't a very big increase, actually. If you're getting 100 mpge, you might spend $10 a month on gas. At 200 mpge, $5 a month. So how much is saving $5 a month worth? ...It should be worth $5 or less. So unless the mechanic is just having a fun experiment for his own purposes, there's little economic gain.

You want to have some really easy fuel economy g ...


Well, that would explain it. Makes sense.
 
2012-07-30 04:45:49 PM  
I'm waiting on tire tech personally. It hasn't changed much in the last 10+ years, yet prices are ridiculous! We have fancy new materials and equipment, why isn't there a tough LT rated tire that doesn't weight gobs more than the P rated counterpart?
 
2012-07-30 04:47:27 PM  

Leopold Stotch: Chevrolet Malibu (22 city, 33 hwy, 26 combined)


I will say though that the Malibu that both my mother and brother drive (mom got one, he loved it, he bought one) are rather large, roomy cars. Being a bigger guy I fit into it beautifully. It rides nicely and is very comfortable. It's not a pain on long rides, which we do frequently.
 
2012-07-30 05:06:34 PM  

Karac: I just happen to have a link to a great video: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.


That video is seriously misleading. The bel-air has no engine in it.
 
2012-07-30 05:16:49 PM  

IrateShadow: Karac: I just happen to have a link to a great video: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.

That video is seriously misleading. The bel-air has no engine in it.


That's a conspiracy theory. Link

Of course, the NYT may be in on it too. Wheels within wheels, man. Don't look behind the curtain. The man in the black pajamas.
 
2012-07-30 05:21:49 PM  
Cars should be unaffordable.

All the money we waste on that sh*t could go into a world class transportation system.
 
2012-07-30 05:22:25 PM  
When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.
 
2012-07-30 05:24:23 PM  

Dinki: If approved, the changes are projected to save average American motorists roughly $8,200 at the pump over the life of their vehicles, but would also cost them as much as $3,000 more for a new vehicle.


Hmmm $8200 in savings Vs $3000 more up front? what to do.. what to do????


You're arguing with people who think CFL bulbs are a waste of money.
 
2012-07-30 05:26:23 PM  

IrateShadow: Most of those cars also won't pass regulations here because they aren't sufficiently armored against the landboats that are popular on our highways.


Ahem, it is no longer 1975.
 
2012-07-30 05:26:26 PM  

NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.


That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.
 
2012-07-30 05:32:49 PM  

Karac: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.


Hmm, I wonder how it would have went if the 1959 Bel Air hadn't had 50 years of rust and corrosion?
I saw the same clip and the rust flew out from the car in large clouds. I expect the 09 would still win, but
the comparison was flawed.
Still a cool clip though. I'd like to see 1975 Ford LTD vs 2012 Ford Taurus,1968 Chysler Imperial vs 2012 Chrysler Town and Country minivan and 1962 Chevy Nova vs 2012 Cavalier and any Toyota older than 20 years, if you can find one, versus current Camry.
 
2012-07-30 05:33:38 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Ahem, it is no longer 1975.


It used to be sedans, now it's SUVs. Americans love big cars.
 
2012-07-30 05:34:41 PM  

IrateShadow: Kurmudgeon: Ahem, it is no longer 1975.

It used to be sedans, now it's SUVs. Americans love big cars.


Hey, we live in luxury, why not run it into the ground?
 
2012-07-30 05:40:16 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.


Glad we agree; profit margins drove the decision to kill it.

We'll never know for sure, but I'd bet that if the EV1 had been under continuous production and refinement since 96 until now, it'd be a great car *and* a lot more palatable to GM's balance sheet. People *wanted* those cars. They were permanently wait-listed. Lessees sent GM checks with letters begging to keep their cars and promising to be responsible for the maintenance themselves. GM declined and sent the checks back.

The only data that indicated it wouldn't be popular enough to be profitable was a study GM paid for. This isn't tinfoil hattery, it's a matter of public record.
 
2012-07-30 05:41:09 PM  

Hyjamon: Magorn: GoodyearPimp: HotWingConspiracy: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

I haven't noticed a lack of options.

Is this really a thing? Or are people just wistfully recalling the halcyon days when used cars were only a nickle? You know, before Brikabrak Hoosegow Oface took over.

I can only go based on anecdotal evidence, but quality used cars have a price premium these days. Any good values are bought quickly, leaving repaired, overmileage, and overpriced heaps. That said, Cash for Clunkers was a failure due to the industry (read: Republicans) getting heir mitts on it and making the qualifications stupid and laughable.

Idea: Get the people driving huge 70-80s gas guzzlers over "the hump" by incentivizing their purchase of a new car. Winners: Everyone who had to look at their old rust bucket, auto manufacturers, consumers, the enviroment.

Reality: People saw free money and traded in perfectly good looking and working cars that were then, by law, permanently disabled. Winners: Greedy ass consumers that were able to trade up into the latest model of their car for cheap.


I can attest to seeing your reality by a co-worker of mine. He is a Boomer, he traded in his old truck for a new truck that got the same mpg. So, the idea of getting a gas guzzler off the road didn't happen. All that happened was he got to buy a new truck cheaper.


I thought one of the requirements was that your old car had to get 18mpg or less, and the new car had to get at least 10mpg better?
 
2012-07-30 05:46:07 PM  

NightSteel: Representative of the unwashed masses: That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

Glad we agree; profit margins drove the decision to kill it.

We'll never know for sure, but I'd bet that if the EV1 had been under continuous production and refinement since 96 until now, it'd be a great car *and* a lot more palatable to GM's balance sheet. People *wanted* those cars. They were permanently wait-listed. Lessees sent GM checks with letters begging to keep their cars and promising to be responsible for the maintenance themselves. GM declined and sent the checks back.

The only data that indicated it wouldn't be popular enough to be profitable was a study GM paid for. This isn't tinfoil hattery, it's a matter of public record.


The problem with that was that GM was losing a lot of money on every single one of them. Why sell something that you have to support at a loss after taking a loss of the sale? At no point was the EV-1 going to make GM a dime.
 
2012-07-30 05:48:03 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.


How many other car models in history have the manufacturers recalled and destroyed all of so that they would not have to continue making spare parts?
 
2012-07-30 05:50:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.

How many other car models in history have the manufacturers recalled and destroyed all of so that they would not have to continue making spare parts?


None that I can recall which also were, prototype models. Essentially GM outsourced product testing in the case of the EV-1
 
2012-07-30 05:57:15 PM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


Not all of it. Much of the push is from Amurricans themselves. They want to somehow break the laws of physics and get 100 mpg from an 8 cylinder engine dragging 5000 pounds of ass down the road.
They want power, because that's what the commercials and their own stupidity tell them they should have, without realizing (or caring) that everything comes at a price. So Amurricans probably started b*tching about the slow 3 cylinder engines, and chevy tested a 4 in it. Those sold better, so they tried a 6, and those sold better. Boom, no more 3 cylinder engines.

Not to say the oil companies might not have had a hand in all this, just that the real culprit is most likely not in Detroit, but in your own neighborhood.
 
2012-07-30 05:59:32 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.

How many other car models in history have the manufacturers recalled and destroyed all of so that they would not have to continue making spare parts?

None that I can recall which also were, prototype models. Essentially GM outsourced product testing in the case of the EV-1



How many other car models in history have the manufacturers charged private citizens for the right to product test?
 
2012-07-30 06:04:28 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.

How many other car models in history have the manufacturers recalled and destroyed all of so that they would not have to continue making spare parts?

None that I can recall which also were, prototype models. Essentially GM outsourced product testing in the case of the EV-1


How many other car models in history have the manufacturers charged private citizens for the right to product test?


In this way basically none. The EV-1 was to collect data and test the economics. Vehicles like say a Prius were intended to make money from the start.

Do you think it's more likely that the management of GM, decided that they would rather not be the car company that got people off gas, forgoing massive profits if they had the market cornered, to grab back the electric car and smash it trying to bury it?

That makes no sense at all. If there was an economic case at the time to keep them on the road supporting them then they would have.

Durr big oil killed the electric car is ridiculous.
 
2012-07-30 06:12:18 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.

How many other car models in history have the manufacturers recalled and destroyed all of so that they would not have to continue making spare parts?

None that I can recall which also were, prototype models. Essentially GM outsourced product testing in the case of the EV-1


How many other car models in history have the manufacturers charged private citizens for the right to product test?

In this way basically none. The EV-1 was to collect data and test the economics. Vehicles like say a Prius were intended to make money from the start.

Do you think it's more likely that the management of GM, decided that they would rather not be ...


I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.
 
2012-07-30 06:12:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: How many other car models in history have the manufacturers charged private citizens for the right to product test?


Every commercial product, ever, is 'tested' in the consumer market, at all times. Things fail, things are improved on. Tastes change.

Unless you take a time machine and visit the Soviet Bloc or something, where for 50 years things came off the assembly line in more or less the exact way it was pencilled up by an engineer and then incompetently manufactured and assembled by drunks.
 
2012-07-30 06:12:58 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

Thanks, Mister Preznit!


But but but...Cash for clunkers was a bust!
 
2012-07-30 06:15:45 PM  

whidbey: Cars should be unaffordable.

All the money we waste on that sh*t could go into a world class transportation system.


Wake Up! You're daydreaming.
 
2012-07-30 06:19:44 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.


NASA can test something and not expect to make a profit. A car company can't. The fact that they leased all these cars, without ever selling one means that at the end of the product lifespan GM wanted them all back.

Imagine the lawsuits if one of those batteries caught fire killing a passenger after GM sold it to a customer at the end of the program, not offering recall repairs, or because a spare part wasn't available.

If there was a VIABLE business in the EV-1 they would have had them in every showroom in North America. There wasn't and that's what led to the chain of events resulting in scrapping of the cars themselves.

/What possible reason could there be otherwise that GM would wipe all traces off the face of the earth?
 
2012-07-30 06:21:55 PM  

StrikitRich: whidbey: Cars should be unaffordable.

All the money we waste on that sh*t could go into a world class transportation system.

Wake Up! You're daydreaming.


Actually, it's more likely to become a reality if we stop electing Republicans to office. And the Obama administration already has light rail and bullet train plans in the works.
 
2012-07-30 06:25:39 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.

NASA can test something and not expect to make a profit. A car company can't. The fact that they leased all these cars, without ever selling one means that at the end of the product lifespan GM wanted them all back.

Imagine the lawsuits if one of those batteries caught fire killing a passenger after GM sold it to a customer at the end of the program, not offering recall repairs, or because a spare part wasn't available.

If there was a VIABLE business in the EV-1 they would have had them in every showroom in North America. There wasn't and that's what led to the chain of events resulting in scrapping of the cars themselves.

/What possible reason could there be otherwise that GM would wipe all traces off the face of the earth?


GM makes a profit on all the cars they test? How do they make a profit on the cars they test that they don't lease to the general public?

Does GM have massive liability if a 1962 Chevy bursts into flame?
 
2012-07-30 06:26:02 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.

NASA can test something and not expect to make a profit. A car company can't. The fact that they leased all these cars, without ever selling one means that at the end of the product lifespan GM wanted them all back.

Imagine the lawsuits if one of those batteries caught fire killing a passenger after GM sold it to a customer at the end of the program, not offering recall repairs, or because a spare part wasn't available.

If there was a VIABLE business in the EV-1 they would have had them in every showroom in North America. There wasn't and that's what led to the chain of events resulting in scrapping of the cars themselves.

/What possible reason could there be otherwise that GM would wipe all traces off the face of the earth?


trcs.wikispaces.com

Because you can't run them battery cars on erl...
 
2012-07-30 06:26:56 PM  

roc6783: Obviously, he was using the concept car and not the production vehicle, but still, that is a helluva difference. I would love a 100+ mpg car. I would buy it newish, if I knew over its life, I would spend less than a third of what I currently do on gas.

//Does it run on water?


I'm sure that this mechanic could do this, and so could the engineering departments at many universities and even the auto shops at some high schools.
There's one problem with all this. The moron public.
See, under ideal conditions in a lab or on the track with a half dozen people monitoring everything on the car that type of mileage is attainable. But out here in the real world people are stupid, and they do stupid things to cars.

The car still has to work every time, regardless of what brand of fuel is in it, whether it's driven in 6 inches of snow or 110 degree heat, with properly filled tires or tires that haven't seen an air pump since they were put on the car, or if it sees an oil/filter change only once every three years. It's like the difference between the scales used to measure gold at Fort Knox compared to the basket scale at your local supermarket in the produce section. Also, the car must be engineered to be easily assembled in less than a couple of hours on a moving factory line. Can't make them one at a time like a Rolls or a fine watch.

Then there's the possible lawsuits from people poking around without knowledge of what's really under the hood. Systems must be made as idiot-proof as possible, and this sometimes means sacrifices must be made.
 
2012-07-30 06:29:13 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Durr big oil killed the electric car is ridiculous.


Distilling the indisputable facts about the EV1 down to 'durr big oil killed the electric car' and instead relying on 'facts' with no source other than GM is disingenuous.

Representative of the unwashed masses: The problem with that was that GM was losing a lot of money on every single one of them. Why sell something that you have to support at a loss after taking a loss of the sale? At no point was the EV-1 going to make GM a dime.


We have only GM's word and a study they paid for to back that up. They never revealed how many people put themselves on the waiting list for the EV1. They refused all requests and offers to try to keep the EV1 on the road. Then they forbade anyone from using the donated EV1s. A few universities rebuilt them anyway, and GM went after them, saying that they were 'marring GM's image' by doing so. I'm pretty sure Government Motors' image didn't need anyone's help to be marred.

It's impossible to say GM couldn't have turned a profit off the EV1 without the benefit of knowing what continued development and the economy of scale would have done for it.
 
2012-07-30 06:31:27 PM  

Karac: IrateShadow: Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

Most of those cars also won't pass regulations here because they aren't sufficiently armored against the landboats that are popular on our highways.

I just happen to have a link to a great video: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.


I disagree, that driver of the Bel Air would be DEAD~!
 
2012-07-30 06:42:32 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.

NASA can test something and not expect to make a profit. A car company can't. The fact that they leased all these cars, without ever selling one means that at the end of the product lifespan GM wanted them all back.

Imagine the lawsuits if one of those batteries caught fire killing a passenger after GM sold it to a customer at the end of the program, not offering recall repairs, or because a spare part wasn't available.

If there was a VIABLE business in the EV-1 they would have had them in every showroom in North America. There wasn't and that's what led to the chain of events resulting in scrapping of the cars themselves.

/What possible reason could there be otherwise that GM would wipe all traces off the face of the earth?

GM makes a profit on all the cars they test? How do they make a profit on the cars they test that they don't lease to the general public?

Does GM have massive liability if a 1962 Chevy bursts into flame?


If I remember correctly they do for a period of 10 years, that's a long time to keep a specialty line up and running for a car that needs specialty parts, these aren't water pumps and spark plugs here.

Most cars are sold with the intent of making money, the EV-1 was marketed to test consumer acceptance and evaluate technology, big difference between that and an Avalanche. The aim of the vehicle was completely different.

NightSteel: Representative of the unwashed masses: Durr big oil killed the electric car is ridiculous.

Distilling the indisputable facts about the EV1 down to 'durr big oil killed the electric car' and instead relying on 'facts' with no source other than GM is disingenuous.

Representative of the unwashed masses: The problem with that was that GM was losing a lot of money on every single one of them. Why sell something that you have to support at a loss after taking a loss of the sale? At no point was the EV-1 going to make GM a dime.

We have only GM's word and a study they paid for to back that up. They never revealed how many people put themselves on the waiting list for the EV1. They refused all requests and offers to try to keep the EV1 on the road. Then they forbade anyone from using the donated EV1s. A few universities rebuilt them anyway, and GM went after them, saying that they were 'marring GM's image' by doing so. I'm pretty sure Government Motors' image didn't need anyone's help to be marred.

It's impossible to say GM couldn't have turned a profit off the EV1 without the benefit of knowing what continued development and the economy of scale would have done for it.


Since they had the results of the testing and whatever pieces they wanted for their records allowing other cars to be available to the competition to reverse engineer their ideas would seem to be stupid from a business point of view would it not? Hell in that case let's send the plans for the F-18 to Iran, After all it's an old airframe, there are newer ones around surely they could have no use for it!

Also this was decades before "Government Motors". That monicker makes your argument look all the less inteligent.
 
2012-07-30 06:57:28 PM  
Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG
 
2012-07-30 07:14:59 PM  
the car industry has been watching too much Faux News.
 
2012-07-30 07:19:27 PM  
Every regulation imposed by the Government upon industry drives up production costs. Since business is a for profit entity they will pass the additional costs to the consumer.
 
2012-07-30 07:19:41 PM  

o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG


You're welcome.

/Stay in Florida, please.
 
2012-07-30 07:19:53 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Since they had the results of the testing and whatever pieces they wanted for their records allowing other cars to be available to the competition to reverse engineer their ideas would seem to be stupid from a business point of view would it not? Hell in that case let's send the plans for the F-18 to Iran, After all it's an old airframe, there are newer ones around surely they could have no use for it!


I said nothing about reverse engineering. By destroying the donated cars' drivetrains, they pretty much made that impossible, anyway. But if GM was so convinced that they couldn't make the electric car work, what was the point in sitting on the technology? Why not allow it to live on? They could even have spun off the EV1 brand with all of its liabilities.

Besides, by now there may well no longer be anything in the EV1's original technology *worth* reverse engineering. Development of technology useful in electric cars has continued, of course. But not with the resources and manufacturing capacity that could have been brought to bear by GM, nor with the design expertise that produced such a well-regarded vehicle. EVs were set back by years with the death of the EV1.

Your analogy re: the F-18 is spectacularly bad, in that an F-18's primary purpose is to kill people and break things. Only an idiot would advocate giving the tools to do these things to a rogue state. However, I will note that the US does in fact sell airframes to some other countries, and allow those other countries to develop their own internal systems for those airframes. GM could well have done something similar; the EV1's ridiculously low drag coefficient was a factor in its success.

Also this was decades before "Government Motors". That monicker makes your argument look all the less inteligent.

I'll give you this one. My wording there was pretty bad. I should've said "Now that we have Government Motors, it's easy to see that GM's image didn't need anybody's help to be marred."

One last thing. If you don't want people to think you're trolling, you should really make sure you spell at least the word 'intelligent' correctly when you're trying to call someone else out for a supposed lack of it.

/some punctuation couldn't hurt, either
 
2012-07-30 07:22:25 PM  
...HTML fail! Perfect timing, too. Please italicize the relevant two sentences in your head.
 
2012-07-30 07:24:49 PM  

o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG


You scrolled by Fark_Guy_Rob's post too quickly. Not to worry, I'll repost the summary for you:


When people talk about MPG - miles per gallon - guess what? GALLON is not the same in the UK and the US. No seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon

The 'imperial gallon' is used in the UK - (≈ 4.546 L)
The 'US gallon' is used in the US - (≈ 3.79 L)

To summarize....

EVEN WITH IDENTICAL CARS
The MPG will be higher in 'the rest of the world' because they use different standards in their fuel testing and because their measure of 'gallon' actually includes more gas than the American car.

When Comparing Average Cars
Both of the above are still true *AND* the average American car is significantly larger, heavier, more likely to be an automatic, and more likely to include energy wasting features like power windows.
 
2012-07-30 07:57:19 PM  
Fuel economy is not a safety feature and the private market had far more to do with those things becoming standard than the government, which is not to say that government didn't play a role.

The Volt is an 15,000 dollar car with 25,000 dollars of technology in it.

You can get a BMW 3 series for less than a Volt.

Or a Lexus. A variety of sports cars from your choice of car maker.
 
2012-07-30 07:59:43 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: GameSprocket: I posted a source for my information. Where is yours?

You need a citation for "supply and demand?"

/Derp.

I need a citation for cash for clunkers causing enough of a drain on supply to make a difference. That was the claim, correct?

DERPTIY, DERP!


Good comeback.
 
2012-07-30 08:39:49 PM  

Eshman: o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG

You're welcome.

/Stay in Florida, please.


LOL
 
2012-07-30 08:43:28 PM  

cirby: Not that many advances, no.


Actually yes. You're right about the added weights taking away some of the engine efficiency advances, but the cars today are still quicker. I would guess you could save a good bit of fuel by reducing the horsepower to 1980's speed times.

1983 Camry 0-60 12.4 Quarter Mile 18.6
2012 Camry 2.5 L 0-60 8.7 Quarter Mile 16.0 (other versions including hybrid and V6 are even faster)

1984 Corolla 0-60 13.0 Quarter Mile 18.9
2009 Corolla 1.8L 0-60 8.4 Quarter Mile 16.8

1996 RAV 4 0-60 10.4 Quarter Mile 17.3
2008 RAV 4 0-60 8.7 Quarter MIle 16.7

More here http://www.zeroto60times.com/Toyota-0-60-mph-Times.html
 
2012-07-30 08:45:37 PM  
We're liking our new airbag equipped, low emission, built-in-the-USA Toyota Hybrid.

Beats this result :

Clicky please

cache.jalopnik.com
 
2012-07-30 08:47:54 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.


yes, GM hated the EV1 so much that it bought Super Bowl ads for it.

GM gets crapped on an awful lot for bringing a car to market that the greenies wanted. Toyota had wait lists for the RAV4 EV, but didn't bother bringing the car to market at all. Yet the killing of the EV was all GM's doing.

the initial watering down of the ZEV law opened the door to hybirds, which the greenies prompty embraced with open arms instead of demanding pure electrics.

its always good to reward industry for bad behavior.
 
2012-07-30 08:49:46 PM  

qorkfiend: Explodo: Those old Geo cars didn't weigh much at all. With all of the mandated safety improvements, vehicle weight has gone up significantly. More weight = less mileage. The push for safety and the push for fuel efficiency are at odds with each other.

Of course, there haven't been any advances in materials science, giving us lighter materials to offset the tons of weight added by seat belts and airbags.


More exotic, lightweight materials cost money. You buy a Geo Metro because it's cheap. It's not unreasonable to say safety regulations would increase the car's weight when a driving design factor is keeping costs down.

Of course, another cause of weight increases have been due to changes in consumer demand. When the first Geo's came out, automatic transmission, automatic locks, automatic windows, cruise control, air conditioning and anything above an AM/FM stereo would be an option. You would have to special order a car from the dealership these days to get a car without any of these. Sure none of the items I mentioned are singularly large in weight, but together there is an impact.

Additionally, changes in the clean air requirements for exhaust have correspondingly lowered fuel efficiency, although anyone who is against these either hasn't traveled to a country without strict air quality controls or doesn't remember a few decades ago when smog/acid rain was a much larger concern in the States. Still, it should be acknowledged...
 
2012-07-30 08:56:42 PM  

whidbey: Eshman: o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG

You're welcome.

/Stay in Florida, please.

LOL


I live in PA but thanks. Dont you have a neighborhood out there called cancer alley? I drive 40,000 miles per year for work and have to carry a crap ton of tools. I'd prefer to do it in a clean diesel but meh.
 
2012-07-30 08:58:03 PM  

Magorn: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

Thanks, Mister Preznit!

Total number of Cars turned in under cash for clunkers: 677,081

Total number of registered passenger vehicles in the US currently: 254,400,000

Number of years ago Cash for Clunkers ended: 3

Therefore, doing the math, we come to the conclusion that you're an idiot


Working in the car biz, I can tell you that the whole cash for clunkers thing is still causing problems. Most of the cars turned in were actually in really good shape. As a car guy and a mechanic, i felt really bad when it came time to kill some of them. The only thing really wrong with them was the trade in value was lower than $4500. These folks may not have traded right then, but they would have soon. So a good budget vehicle was pulled from service and ruined. The thing with cash for clunkers was you still had to be able to finance a new car. so the real turds remained on the road, and then we went and pulled the next generation of turds from service early.

The 4.0L jeeps were the hardest motors to kill. very sad. used car prices are just plain silly still. they have gotten better. Probably another year, maybe two. A 100k mile 02 Dodge stratus shouldnt go for $5k. Hell, a 100k mile anything shouldnt go for 5 grand. But they do today.

As far as the matter at hand, I laughed at the headline. That is a lot of weight weve added to cars, and we'd be miles ahead in MPG with out it. All the safety shiat in the world wont really help a crappy distracted driver. Compared to most of the rest of the world, its easy to get a license in the US. They also pay more for gas in Europe, which forces the consumer to take that into account. Working in a dealership, its super funny to watch people trade off a big gas guzzler when the price goes up, then when the price is down 3 months later, they trade the sipper in on another guzzler.

Anyway. Please keep insisting on all the high tech goodies and toys. Its job security. The simpler your car is, the less I work on it.
 
2012-07-30 08:58:06 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Hmm, I wonder how it would have went if the 1959 Bel Air hadn't had 50 years of rust and corrosion?
I saw the same clip and the rust flew out from the car in large clouds. I expect the 09 would still win, but
the comparison was flawed.


"Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn't rust. "Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can't get it," he said."
 
2012-07-30 09:00:10 PM  

NightSteel: Representative of the unwashed masses: Durr big oil killed the electric car is ridiculous.

Distilling the indisputable facts about the EV1 down to 'durr big oil killed the electric car' and instead relying on 'facts' with no source other than GM is disingenuous.

Representative of the unwashed masses: The problem with that was that GM was losing a lot of money on every single one of them. Why sell something that you have to support at a loss after taking a loss of the sale? At no point was the EV-1 going to make GM a dime.

We have only GM's word and a study they GM & Toyota paid for to back that up. They never revealed how many people put themselves on the waiting list for the EV1. They refused all requests and offers to try to keep the EV1 on the road. Then they forbade anyone from using the donated EV1s. A few universities rebuilt them anyway, and GM went after them, saying that they were 'marring GM's image' by doing so. I'm pretty sure Government Motors' image didn't need anyone's help to be marred.

It's impossible to say GM couldn't have turned a profit off the EV1 without the benefit of knowing what continued development and the economy of scale would have done for it.


FTFY

as for product liability concerns, they are very geniune. The ending of the EV1 program happened around the time of the Ford-Firestone mess, where Ford was held liable for cars it sold over 10 years before.
 
2012-07-30 09:00:38 PM  

edmo: We're liking our new airbag equipped, low emission, built-in-the-USA Toyota Hybrid.

Beats this result :

Clicky please

[cache.jalopnik.com image 480x360]


Yeah, the driver of the newer car really isn't helping dispel any stereotypes:

cache.jalopnik.com
 
2012-07-30 09:04:21 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Eshman: o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG

You're welcome.

/Stay in Florida, please.

LOL

I live in PA but thanks. Dont you have a neighborhood out there called cancer alley? I drive 40,000 miles per year for work and have to carry a crap ton of tools. I'd prefer to do it in a clean diesel but meh.


Your profile says Floriduh.
And no, I live where it's still OK to pollute everything. The locals get mad at "Seattle Environmentalists" when they harsh our halcyon bucolic lifestyles. :)
 
2012-07-30 09:09:23 PM  
and another one for the Greenies:

the automotive industry WANTS gasoline taxes to go up. Bill Ford, Alan Mullaly, Bob Lutz, Sergio Marchionne, Charles Ghosn have all called for gas tax increases in the US in order to get consumers into high MPG vehicles.

as long as cheap gas exists, consumers will buy guzzlers.
 
2012-07-30 09:37:58 PM  

dumbobruni: and another one for the Greenies:

the automotive industry WANTS gasoline taxes to go up. Bill Ford, Alan Mullaly, Bob Lutz, Sergio Marchionne, Charles [Carlos. close though] Ghosn have all called for gas tax increases in the US in order to get consumers into high MPG vehicles.

as long as cheap gas exists, consumers will buy guzzlers.


Yeah, the CAFE standards are just a way for Washington to reduce fuel consumption without the political risk of voting for raising gas taxes. It's not as "efficient" a motivator as increasing gas taxes, it distorts other things (increase price & complexity), and puts the onus on manufacturers instead of the consumer.

Plus, there's the efficiency paradox -- as a thing becomes more efficient (cheaper), consumers often respond by using more of the thing. With cars, a decrease in the price of gas often is accompanied by an increase of vehicle-miles-travelled.
 
2012-07-30 09:39:24 PM  
Concerning the 1959/2009 Chevrolet Crash Test:

The New York Times chases down inaccurate rumors about "no engine," "rusty car," and so on:

Link
 
2012-07-30 09:40:13 PM  

Mechanic81: The thing with cash for clunkers was you still had to be able to finance a new car.


And that's it in a nutshell.
Cash for Clunkers was a giveaway to the money lenders.
 
2012-07-30 09:49:49 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Hell in that case let's send the plans for the F-18 to Iran, After all it's an old airframe, there are newer ones around surely they could have no use for it!


The Iranians have no capacity to manufacture the F-18, as its main bulkhead is formed out of forged titanium. They don't have a forge that can drop that job.
 
2012-07-30 09:53:09 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Representative of the unwashed masses: Hell in that case let's send the plans for the F-18 to Iran, After all it's an old airframe, there are newer ones around surely they could have no use for it!

The Iranians have no capacity to manufacture the F-18, as its main bulkhead is formed out of forged titanium. They don't have a forge that can drop that job.


Ha, funny fact: Iran has the only F-14s left in the world. Probably all unflyable, we destroyed all of ours to prevent spare parts from finding their way to Iran...
 
2012-07-30 10:11:55 PM  
12349876:
Actually yes. You're right about the added weights taking away some of the engine efficiency advances, but the cars today are still quicker. I would guess you could save a good bit of fuel by reducing the horsepower to 1980's speed times.

1983 Camry 0-60 12.4 Quarter Mile 18.6
2012 Camry 2.5 L 0-60 8.7 Quarter Mile 16.0 (other versions including hybrid and V6 are even faster)


...and their engines are much larger, and get MUCH lower gas mileage. Those two, for example. The slower 1983 Camry with the less powerful engine (a 1.8 liter versus a 2.5 liter)? It got 32 city, 43 highway. The new one? 22/33.

Yeah, you could save a bit of fuel. Probably 10 MPG or so... which means that, with those wonderful engine advances, they pretty much just managed to break even on a power/weight/MPG basis. Which is what I was saying...
 
2012-07-30 10:13:49 PM  
Cars ARE unaffordable. Seriously $50,000???

I'd love a Tesla S but I can not afford it. As it is I ONLY buy used.
 
2012-07-30 10:14:56 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

I haven't noticed a lack of options.

Is this really a thing? Or are people just wistfully recalling the halcyon days when used cars were only a nickle? You know, before Brikabrak Hoosegow Oface took over.


CSB warning.

My mother's last ex-husband wanted a motorcycle.

He didn't give a damn about things like fuel efficiency, since every vehicle he ever owned was some gargantuan land-yacht (no, he wouldn't pay for the fuel if he could possibly avoid it--he'd still borrow my mother's Ford Escort every time he wanted to go somewhere because "he was short and didn't have the money for a fillup"). He tried to justify the cost of the motorcycle after he trashed mom's car by claiming that the motorcycle was far, far safer than a car, since it would fling the driver safely away from the crash site, whereas a person in a crash was likely to be trapped in a prison of crushed metal and incinerated when the car inevitably exploded. He maintained that you were actually safer being thrown into a bridge abutment headfirst than you were in the car.

He also cut the seat belts out of every vehicle he owned, since he was convinced he was at far greater risk from the belt breaking his neck than he was from being slammed through the windshield at 70 miles an hour.

There are people who refuse to live in the same reality the rest of us live in, no matter how much you try to prod them out. Why yes, he *was* an Alex Jones/Glenn Beck fan, why do you ask?

/Also claimed he was taken prisoner in Grenada during the US invasion
 
2012-07-30 10:31:48 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Mechanic81: The thing with cash for clunkers was you still had to be able to finance a new car.

And that's it in a nutshell.
Cash for Clunkers was a giveaway to the money lenders.


yeah, that too. Oh, and the lender is probably the company that made the car. We barely have car companies anymore. We have banks who happen to make cars on the side.

Also, Im in favor of higher fuel prices. CAFE is pretty much a failed program. It doesnt get refreshed often enough (something like 15 years between the last 2 changes), and the fines are so weak that some companies just pay them. Like Benz and BMW. not to mention the 'classify a car as a light truck' dodge. HHR, PT cruiser, cube, and all of the car based SUVs. You want to do this right, base it on something better. i have ideas (actual passenger average use vs capacity, engine size like Japan, doors vs seats) but I dont feel like going into detail. Point is, we could do better, but putting fuel costs back where they belong is just so much simpler.
 
2012-07-30 10:58:42 PM  
"Dealers support fuel economy increases," Bailey Wood, a National Automobile Dealers Association spokesman told FoxNews.com Saturday. "But if dealers cannot put vehicles on the road, we cannot reduce greenhouse gases or our dependence of foreign oil."

I would say that if vehicles aren't on the road in general, then they are definitely reducing greenhouse gasses and dependence on foreign oil.
 
2012-07-30 11:07:29 PM  

IrateShadow: Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

Most of those cars also won't pass regulations here because they aren't sufficiently armored against the landboats that are popular on our highways.


It's more about the frequency of high-speed use than about relative mass. Commuting in the US almost always involves some highway travel, commuting in most of Europe usually doesn't exceed 50 km/h (about 30 mph) for the entire length of the route. Hitting 70 miles an hour once a year when you're taking the kids to see grandma across the country and hitting 70 miles an hour twice a day for the entire time you own the vehicle is a different degree of danger entirely, and it's an infrastructure issue rather than a vehicle design issue, really.

You can ask Isaac Newton what the difference is if you're unsure, heh.
 
2012-07-30 11:34:48 PM  

Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...


I dont know of may cars that get 55MPG unless they are tiny little shiats that cant carry anything except people, making this fleetwide is stupid since that includes even work related vehicles some of which carry a lot of cargo.

People laugh but the US has the highest emissions controls for cars, its why they wont allow high efficiency diesel in the states because its deemed a dirty burning fuel, even though thats been proven wrong.

Americans used to lead the world, now we mainly just close the barn doors once all the cows are out.

Jim_Callahan: It's more about the frequency of high-speed use than about relative mass. Commuting in the US almost always involves some highway travel, commuting in most of Europe usually doesn't exceed 50 km/h (about 30 mph) for the entire length of the route. Hitting 70 miles an hour once a year when you're taking the kids to see grandma across the country and hitting 70 miles an hour twice a day for the entire time you own the vehicle is a different degree of danger entirely, and it's an infrastructure issue rather than a vehicle design issue, really.


I cant figure out what you are arguing, but you do realize that even at higher speeds you get better MPG if you maintain your speeds, right? Cars burn the most fuel/energy at standing starts, which is why a lot of electric cars utilize small gas engines to help push them away and vice-versa.

Just rip up the highways and install cog railways for cars, traffic would flow smoother for sure stress levels would fall if we could guarantee a commute time instead of cussing at the douchbag in front of you who slowed down 15MPH because his phone rang or he wants to read an email while driving.
 
2012-07-30 11:44:15 PM  
Their argument is stupid though, if you can get a loan for $25K then you can afford a loan for $28K, I think dealers are pissed they wont be able to steal as much money from consumers any longer........

CSB time,

I had a buddy who had to buy a new car, I told him not to buy one the same day he walked into the dealer but he got suckered in and bought a farking toyota tercel the same day and paid almost $14K for it(this was in 98-99) thinking he got a good deal, he got pissed at me when I ended up with my 35th anniversary mustang gt for less than he paid.

Dealers are the scum of the earth and the salesmen are lower than scum....

/you need this truecoat
 
x23
2012-07-30 11:54:01 PM  
rewind2846:So Amurricans probably started b*tching about the slow 3 cylinder engines, and chevy tested a 4 in it. Those sold better, so they tried a 6, and those sold better. Boom, no more 3 cylinder engines.

huh? which specific Geo model was sold with an I3 / I4 / V6?

of the 5 Geo models sold only the Tracker ever was available with a V6. and it was never sold with an I3.
 
2012-07-30 11:58:19 PM  
Republicans' Strategy
-----
1. Let Democrats come up with a bill about Xyz that will benefit a lot of people.
2. Call the bill ObamaXyz and mock it.
3. Watch it pass, and deliver the benefits.
4. ???
5. Win elections?
 
2012-07-31 12:02:33 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: 1. Let Democrats come up with a bill about Xyz that will benefit a lot of people.


What have they passed that has benefited a lot of people? My job, which I never worried about since I had numerous other companies who would hire me is now scaring me since half the companies that would hire me are now shadows of their former selves or gone, it seems we are rats scrounging for crumbs and they are happy with that while letting the people complain about one side is bad and the other is worser for the people.

The sooner you realize both sides are farking us over the better off you will be.
 
2012-07-31 12:13:01 AM  

Jim_Callahan: IrateShadow: Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

Most of those cars also won't pass regulations here because they aren't sufficiently armored against the landboats that are popular on our highways.

It's more about the frequency of high-speed use than about relative mass. Commuting in the US almost always involves some highway travel, commuting in most of Europe usually doesn't exceed 50 km/h (about 30 mph) for the entire length of the route. Hitting 70 miles an hour once a year when you're taking the kids to see grandma across the country and hitting 70 miles an hour twice a day for the entire time you own the vehicle is a different degree of danger entirely, and it's an infrastructure issue rather than a vehicle design issue, really.

You can ask Isaac Newton what the difference is if you're unsure, heh.


Germany says hi.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-31 12:30:13 AM  

steamingpile: What have they passed that has benefited a lot of people?


All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
 
2012-07-31 01:04:50 AM  

Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us


I'm probably late on my comments here (as usual!) so don't know who will see this...BUT..

You are SO right!! N. America seems to have this phobia about diesel!

The engine design/fuel use is inherently around 30% more efficient that gas engines.

The idea of the 'dirty' smoke belching diesel is gone - The common rail multi injection got rid of most of that - AND upped efficiency at the same time - Basically if I understand the tech right, at speed there are THREE fuel injection events on every ignition stroke - the main one, a secondary one to part way through the down stroke to improve burn, and a small third one just before the end of the ignition stroke to help burn unused hydrocarbons. Now you dont want to screw with the fuel system in these newer designs, my repair manual says fuel rail pressure runs from 20,000psi at idle, up to 35,000 psi at full throttle! Don't lossen a fuel line or you may find yourself dieing from high pressure diesel injected directly into your bloodstream!

Diesel's produce low RPM torque, and a more consistent torque curve through the operating RPM range, so you don't need to rev the hell out of it to get power off the line. This often results in engines like my 2003 Dodge Ram 2500 has - Inline 6 rather than a V8 - MUCH less moving parts which reduces friction and heat loss, and improves longevity. Max torque starts at like 850 RPM and stays almost straight until redline at 3200 RPM.

I have a power box on my 2003... Factory it was 305hp, 555 ftlb torque...I run the box on 'extreme' - which gives something like 450 hp, 700 Ftlb torque - And since I drive a LOT every day, I drive it like a 'little old lady'...slow acceleration, coast to stops, just under the speed limit on cruise control... And my nearly 8000 lb truck gets 32 MPG highway. The 'performance' box messes with fuel injection and timing - basically optimizing it...there's a HELL of a lot of power if you want it, but if you drive it nice and easy the milage is amazing (OH - 0-60mph on my best test was 7.1 seconds - 8000 lb vehicle - that's timed by the box not by my watch... I don't do that anymore - too tough on the factory transmission!)

Its a disgrace that diesel options (or standards) are not available in EVERY class of car and truck in the US and Canada.. Hell in 2003 I had to pay $9000 MORE to get the diesel option in my truck - AND you can only get the diesel option if you go to heavy duty trucks for Ford, Chev or Dodge....

Who else has diesel in N. America? Off hand, Volkswagen is the only one that comes to mind...
 
2012-07-31 01:20:02 AM  

cirby: ...and their engines are much larger, and get MUCH lower gas mileage. Those two, for example. The slower 1983 Camry with the less powerful engine (a 1.8 liter versus a 2.5 liter)? It got 32 city, 43 highway. The new one? 22/33.


There's what you say, and then there are facts:
- '84 Camry 2.0L (the earliest year fueleconomy.gov goes): 23 city, 29 highway = 26 mpg combined
- '12 Camry 2.5L: 25 city, 35 highway = 28 mpg combined
Link
 
2012-07-31 01:31:43 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: steamingpile: What have they passed that has benefited a lot of people?

All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?


I think I am missing something, is obma roman in this world of yours?
 
2012-07-31 01:33:41 AM  

MrSteve007: cirby: ...and their engines are much larger, and get MUCH lower gas mileage. Those two, for example. The slower 1983 Camry with the less powerful engine (a 1.8 liter versus a 2.5 liter)? It got 32 city, 43 highway. The new one? 22/33.

There's what you say, and then there are facts:
- '84 Camry 2.0L (the earliest year fueleconomy.gov goes): 23 city, 29 highway = 26 mpg combined
- '12 Camry 2.5L: 25 city, 35 highway = 28 mpg combined
Link


A lot of people remember the old sticker MPG and don't realize the EPA made their numbers more realistic since then. The fuel economy.gov site you mentioned 'pessimizes' the older numbers to make comparisons more apples-to-apples, so that the "but my 1990s econobox got 50mpg" shows it really would get something like 29mpg if it underwent the current testing practice.
 
2012-07-31 01:48:48 AM  

GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: GameSprocket: I posted a source for my information. Where is yours?

You need a citation for "supply and demand?"

/Derp.

I need a citation for cash for clunkers causing enough of a drain on supply to make a difference. That was the claim, correct?



HotIgneous Intruder (ignored: ignorant, dishonest, bigot, projection 7229807)

Take it as a grain of salt but you've been warned. They are, according to me, all of those traits. I say we watch and see what happens...
 
2012-07-31 02:05:39 AM  

steamingpile: I think I am missing something, is obma roman in this world of yours?


Indeed.
 
2012-07-31 08:34:08 AM  

Mechanic81: Working in the car biz, I can tell you that the whole cash for clunkers thing is still causing problems. Most of the cars turned in were actually in really good shape. As a car guy and a mechanic, i felt really bad when it came time to kill some of them. The only thing really wrong with them was the trade in value was lower than $4500.


Crazy talk. I suggested the same above and was told I was wrong. The Internet has determined you are wrong.
 
2012-07-31 08:45:29 AM  

The Life Of Brian: Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us

I'm probably late on my comments here (as usual!) so don't know who will see this...BUT..

You are SO right!! N. America seems to have this phobia about diesel!

The engine design/fuel use is inherently around 30% more efficient that gas engines.

The idea of the 'dirty' smoke belching diesel is gone - The common rail multi injection got rid of most of that - AND upped efficiency at the same time - Basically if I understand the tech right, at speed there are THREE fuel injection events on every ignition stroke - the main one, a secondary one to part way through the down stroke to improve burn, and a small third one just before the end of the ignition stroke to help burn unused hydrocarbons. Now you dont want to screw with the fuel system in these newer designs, my repair manual says fuel rail pressure runs from 20,000psi at idle, up to 35,000 psi at full throttle! Don't lossen a fuel line or you may find yourself dieing from high pressure diesel injected directly into your bloodstream!
...


diesel engines offer lower CO2 emissions, correct. But emissions regulations also include nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide, for which diesels are much worse. for many particulates outside of CO2, the EU regulations were much more lax than the US requirements for years. that all changes with EU-2015 regs. as companies beef themselves up to match those standards, you can expect more engines in Europe to show up in the US.

as for auto brands with diesels currently: BMW, Mercedes, Audi, VW, Porsche (Cayenne - with a VW engine), Ford (super-duty pickups)

next year: Chevrolet (Cruze) and Jeep (Grand Cherokee), and the Ford Transit.
 
2012-07-31 08:48:58 AM  

dumbobruni: NightSteel: Representative of the unwashed masses: Durr big oil killed the electric car is ridiculous.

Distilling the indisputable facts about the EV1 down to 'durr big oil killed the electric car' and instead relying on 'facts' with no source other than GM is disingenuous.

Representative of the unwashed masses: The problem with that was that GM was losing a lot of money on every single one of them. Why sell something that you have to support at a loss after taking a loss of the sale? At no point was the EV-1 going to make GM a dime.

We have only GM's word and a study they GM & Toyota paid for to back that up. They never revealed how many people put themselves on the waiting list for the EV1. They refused all requests and offers to try to keep the EV1 on the road. Then they forbade anyone from using the donated EV1s. A few universities rebuilt them anyway, and GM went after them, saying that they were 'marring GM's image' by doing so. I'm pretty sure Government Motors' image didn't need anyone's help to be marred.

It's impossible to say GM couldn't have turned a profit off the EV1 without the benefit of knowing what continued development and the economy of scale would have done for it.

FTFY

as for product liability concerns, they are very geniune. The ending of the EV1 program happened around the time of the Ford-Firestone mess, where Ford was held liable for cars it sold over 10 years before.


FWIW GM does really bad math. Like. Terrible. I've mentioned it before.

I know nothing about the history of EV1 that hasn't been said already, but if the study that killed was performed internally, I think it's more likely that they were making money hand over fist than losing it... simply because they are THAT BAD at math.
 
2012-07-31 09:57:20 AM  
I was on vacation in Bermuda and was talking to a local who owns a diesel powered VW Polo. Gas there is 9.50 a gallon and his car gets +/- 65mpg. He paid around 18 grand for it new in Bermuda money which is almost dead even with US dollars. Not a hybrid, mind you. A straight up Diesel engine.

But we can't buy them in the States.

What is the US Auto industry biatching about again?
 
2012-07-31 11:17:07 AM  

Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us


1. Diesel automobiles pollute more than gasoline vehicles and a lot more than hybrid vehicles.
2. The US government's MPG tests are tougher than Europe's or Japan's (meaning vehicles tested under the foreign tests get better mileage than if an identical vehicle was tested under the American tests).
3. UK MPG figures use Imperial Gallons, which are 20% larger than American gallons, meaning a UK MPG figure is artifically 20% better than a US MPG figure, even before you factor in the differences in #2.
4. Diesels still get a bad rap in the US from the shiat diesels GM made in the 1980's, limiting sales here.
5. German automakers do sell diesel versions of their vehicles in the US, although they frequently sell poorly here.
6. The highest mileage diesel vehicles sold in Europe are expensive but very small vehicles, which have a market where gas is eight bucks a gallon but not as much in a market where gas is half that or less.
 
2012-07-31 11:27:14 AM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


Geo was always a GM brand. Chevy never "bought" them; GM phased out the nameplate and transfered the models to Chevy. The 3 cylinder engine in the Geo Metro was sold both before and after the Geo nameplate was phased out; there were also 4 cylinder engines available both before and after the Geo nameplate was phased out. (The vehicle was based on a Sukuzi model and initially imported from Japan; GM owned a large stake in Suzuki at the time).
 
2012-07-31 11:47:11 AM  

NightSteel: Representative of the unwashed masses: That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

Glad we agree; profit margins drove the decision to kill it.

We'll never know for sure, but I'd bet that if the EV1 had been under continuous production and refinement since 96 until now, it'd be a great car *and* a lot more palatable to GM's balance sheet. People *wanted* those cars. They were permanently wait-listed. Lessees sent GM checks with letters begging to keep their cars and promising to be responsible for the maintenance themselves. GM declined and sent the checks back.

The only data that indicated it wouldn't be popular enough to be profitable was a study GM paid for. This isn't tinfoil hattery, it's a matter of public record.


GM sold them for less than their costs to build them. Actual costs (including a pro-rated portion of the R&D behind them) were something like $100k per car.

Demand at prices that would have made a profit for GM would have been zero (that is, there was no price point where GM would have made money by selling them, as higher prices would have required to spread the R&D over fewer vehicles, increasing the break even price even more). The car only existed because the state of California once threatened to ban automakers from selling cars in the state if they didn't also make a few electric cars. So, all the automakers decided to build enough electric cars (and lose tens of thousands of dollars per car). Only GM planned on an entirely new model; the other automakers just jammed electric engines inside existing cars. The law was overturned (after political pressure from the automakers), making the project no longer needed.

Now, 15 year later, technology has improved to the point where it's almost profitable to sell electric cars.
 
2012-07-31 01:21:15 PM  

Bobo_Spiewack: I was on vacation in Bermuda and was talking to a local who owns a diesel powered VW Polo. Gas there is 9.50 a gallon and his car gets +/- 65mpg.


Bermuda uses "Imperial" gallons, which are larger than US gallons. Diesel has roughly 20% more energy per gallon than gasoline, so you should have an equivalent gain in distance per gallon compared to a gallon of gasoline.

65 mpg in Imperial gallons of diesel is approximately 42 mpg in US gallons of gasoline. No criticism of your point, just an FYI.

42 mpg is still good and I agree we should have the option of higher fuel economy. That Polo sounds nice. I'd buy one.
 
2012-07-31 04:19:29 PM  
Why don't we just finance and use a few of these?

Disc Wave Generator (youtube)

/The basically 3x-5x improvement on fuel effeciency would be a good thing.
 
2012-07-31 05:43:43 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Eshman: o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG

You're welcome.

/Stay in Florida, please.

LOL

I live in PA but thanks. Dont you have a neighborhood out there called cancer alley? I drive 40,000 miles per year for work and have to carry a crap ton of tools. I'd prefer to do it in a clean diesel but meh.


Might wanna change your bio then.
 
2012-07-31 11:44:45 PM  

beta_plus: Obama did destroy the American car industry, but not this way. In conjunction with Bush, he bailed out the UAW.

/funny how GM makes great cars in China and Germany
//guess what those two countries don't have?
///nope, not unions - look at Germany


Overly elaborate porn?
 
2012-08-01 01:41:36 AM  

beta_plus: Obama did destroy the American car industry, but not this way. In conjunction with Bush, he bailed out the UAW.

/funny how GM makes great cars in China and Germany
//guess what those two countries don't have?
///nope, not unions - look at Germany


So, then, we should be like China, where workers slave 60 hours per week and get paid peanuts. We'll build great cars. And nobody will be able to pay for them.

OK, so let's be like Germany...oh wait. Instead of unions they have that Old Europe zOMG SOOOOOOOOCIALISM!

/Meaning social democracy, not a company town writ large like mainland China.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report