# Obama Sets New Auto Emissions Standards **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038 "2009-05-20T03:12:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/101 "2009-05-23T05:19:50Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > [Link (youtube video)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I) from the comments of your link. Size isn’t always the best indicator of safety. Obviously, safety features count for quite a lot whether you’re hitting another car or a tree. It’s very true that bigger cars aren’t always safer. However, the claim that we’d all be safer if we all drove small cars doesn’t hold up. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/102 "2009-05-23T09:46:11Z")
Is there data available to factor in the evasive advantages of smaller cars in terms of avoiding, rather than surviving, accidents? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/103 "2009-05-23T14:03:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The SRT-8 was named Best New Modern Muscle Car in the 2006 Canadian Car of the Year contest. It’s a muscle car, but not a sports car. There is a difference. Muscle cars are intermediate to large cars, generally available in a base model with a less powerful engine, generally powered by a large V8, at an affordable price. Technically, some quibble as to if large cars can be muscle cars, but the core of the matter is a normal car with a big-ass engine shoved in, meant for straight-line speed. The Neon SRT-4 is a sports car. (or possibly a pony car, if one wishes to quibble.) The Bugatti Veyron is a supercar. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/104 "2009-05-23T14:14:17Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > It’s very true that bigger cars aren’t always safer. However, the claim that we’d all be safer if we all drove small cars doesn’t hold up. Yeah, but what if they were all Renault Modus…Modusi…Modi? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/105 "2009-05-23T14:30:33Z")
We’d be french! AAAUGH! Seriously? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I) (Renault Modus vs Volvo 940 Estate. Impact at roughly 5:10-5:20. Analysis follows.) Actually, it looks like the Modus uses the other car as a crumple zone. So… Modus versus Modus, while better than a concrete block, might be a very bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/106 "2009-05-23T14:39:52Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > We’d be french! AAAUGH! > Seriously? > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I) > (Renault Modus vs Volvo 940 Estate. Impact at roughly 5:10-5:20. Analysis follows.) > > Actually, it looks like the Modus uses the other car as a crumple zone. So… Modus versus Modus, while better than a concrete block, might be a very bad thing. Psssst…[post #99](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11169878&postcount=99). It’s okay though, I just caught your sig. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/107 "2009-05-23T16:11:12Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > It’s very true that bigger cars aren’t always safer. However, the claim that we’d all be safer if we all drove small cars doesn’t hold up. Don’t forget that cars also hit motorcyclists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. At least in the case of pedestrians, that’s still a single-vehicle accident. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/108 "2009-05-24T04:32:15Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > We’d be french! AAAUGH! > Seriously? > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I) > (Renault Modus vs Volvo 940 Estate. Impact at roughly 5:10-5:20. Analysis follows.) > > Actually, it looks like the Modus uses the other car as a crumple zone. So… Modus versus Modus, while better than a concrete block, might be a very bad thing. these little cars do a great job except there isn’t much crumple zone to work with so all that energy is [transmitted to the passengers](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg64wMtl2gQ). \_\_\_\_\_ [Smart fortwo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8) hitting a cement wall. Impressive, but again, all that energy is transmitted to the passengers. They do well with what little they have to work with. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/109 "2009-05-24T05:05:32Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > This, IMHO, is outdated thinking. The tide is already turning away from the big, gas-guzzling “(ideal) American car” to more fuel-efficient sedans. Further, American auto manufacturers are finally beginning to compete with the Japanese with some success. Granted they still have a long way to go, but Japanese and European CAFE standards indicate much better fuel efficiency is achievable. Since American automakers must meet foreign CAFE standards when selling their vehicles overseas, it’s safe to assume that they can design and manufacture vehicle that meet higher standards in the US, especially when our newly adopted standards continue to lag behind those of the Europe. I don’t think you understand how long it takes to engineer and create an automobile, nor do I think you understand how short a time period seven years is for a drastic change in a manufacturer’s fleet. One of the biggest strengths of Japanese companies is they traditionally plan years and years in advance, whereas the weakness of U.S. automakers is they do not. Also, by and large American automakers aren’t selling magical, more efficient cars in Europe to meet standards there. GM has owned Opel and Vauxhall for decades, and these form the core of GM’s European operations (GM sells some of their more traditional lines in Europe, from Cadillac and such–but those vehicles are much more of a niche market there.) Opel and Vauxhall operate essentially as private subsidiaries, the people running Vauxhall and Opel aren’t the people running General Motors. Totally different management culture, totally different people. You can’t assume the competencies Vauxhall and Opel have will translate to GM’s North American operations. > [@](#): > > I couldn’t disagree with you more. There has already occurred a paradigm shift in American attitude towards fuel efficiency and that is reflected in the list of best- and worst-selling autos year after year. Last year, according to [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/03/2008-car-sales-forbeslife-cx_jm_1203cars.html), seven of the top ten best-selling autos were sedans that averaged 26 MPG; admittedly, the other three, including the top two best-selling autos were trucks averaging 16 MPG and together represented 35% of those sales. Nine of those were also [best-sellers in 2007](http://www.autospies.com/news/Forbes-com-10-Best-Selling-Vehicles-of-2007-23985/) (the new entry being the Ford Focus at #10); nor was it much different in 2006, same three trucks and virtually all of the same sedans. You’re looking at a one year picture, a year in which gasoline topped $4 a gallon. What we have to look at is sales when gasoline isn’t $4 a gallon. I’d already conceded in my original post that $4/gal gasoline lead to different consume behavior. If you had actually been reading the recent news you’d know that hybrid sales plummeted this year due to lower gas prices. In the business world only a fool lives six months in the past, looking at 2008’s figures. The year 2009 is already a very different business climate than 2008. > [@](#): > > Taking a look at 2008’s worst-selling autos, we see nine SUVs and one minivan (including two Hummers, the most pilloried of the lot). It’s clear America’s love affair with the gas-guzzling SUV is over. Now, if the Big 3 can wrap their minds around that, they jettison the SUV fleet in favor of even more efficient models to offset the inefficiency, but true utility, of the pickup truck. Lose the Suburban, GM, and make the upcoming Cruze more fuel efficient than the Cobalt (2006 best-seller). Seriously, America is coming around, it’s the manufacturers that need to get a clue. It’s hard to understand why Detroit hasn’t been able to match the design mindset of the Japanese, considering how long they’ve dominated the market by so many benchmarks (i.e., safety, reliability, fuel efficiency, sales, etc.). IMHO, it’s a big part of why they were failing to begin with: outmoded thinking. Uh-huh, again–what were gas prices like last summer? Also, while I’m always ready to malign the poor management that has characterized General Motors and Chrysler for many years that criticism deserves some tempering. One thing that Toyota had is that the Japanese government in many ways subsidized the development of Japanese industry following World War II (and the United States government was subsidizing the Japanese government.) Toyota probably would not have emerged as such a strong company in a truly free-market situation. Toyota also was allowed to develop without the shackle of unionization. The UAW is one of the greatest crippling effects on a major industry seen in American history. To be honest I’ve always thought the only way Detroit can ever be fixed is for the companies to go completely under. Maybe then we could see the development of new American automakers (probably resurrected from the shell of GM/Chrysler/Ford) that actually focused on creating efficient manufacturing and design processes instead of essentially being welfare for blue collar workers (and pretty damn nice welfare, too.) Economically speaking Detroit has long not been viable and that’s because they are paying drones far more than drones are worth. But that’s not really the worst of it, Toyota actually pays its employees very well also. The crux of it is the American automakers employ a ton of people they really wouldn’t have to employ if not for the UAW. > [@](#): > > The government’s already helping. Admittedly, I’m one of those that think they deserved to fail and should have been left out to dry, because they were not able to innovate with same success that the Japanese did in the late 70s and early 80s. They thought they understood the American car-buying public, but they didn’t. They remained steadfast in their misjudgment year after year while being blown out of the water by the Hondas and Toyotas of the industry. One would hope that this little humility lesson in FAILURE (all caps) makes a lasting impression on them. If the auto industry head honchos weren’t sitting at Obama’s press conference with their tails shamefully tucked between their legs in utter capitulation, they are seriously in for a bumpy ride. You’re exaggerating things a good bit. General Motors and Ford had the largest market share in North America all throughout the 1970s and 1980s; they lost ground to Toyota and have lost much more ground since then, but they were still the dominant force in the American automotive industry in those decades. > [@](#): > > Cite? By the Forbes list, the best selling sedans average 26 combined mpg. If these are their most fuel efficient cars, they really do have a problem. Well, for Toyota and Honda, they most certainly aren’t if you take their hybrids into consideration. Again, you’re in 2008, we’re in 2009. > [@](#): > > 1. I think they are trying to do that already with pickup trucks, which is smart because Americans want pickups as they represent way more utility than SUVs. But they need to learn how to make hybrids that actually have the fuel efficiency hybrids are obviously capable of achieving. And then they need to get ahead of the game and do even better than that. If Ford and GM can meet European CAFE standards, they can find a way to meet the new US CAFE standards. Mm, I don’t really know that you can say for sure a pickup truck represents “way more utility than SUVs.” I think you’re showing some anti-SUV bias here. SUVs can carry four kids home from soccer practice and haul lumber from Home Depot that weekend, a pickup can only really do one of those comfortably. SUVs have the potential to be mix-use in a way that pickups don’t. Obviously not everyone who buys SUVs actually puts them to use that way (and those people might be better of buying minivans.) > [@](#): > > 1. Bullshit. Stop selling fuel inefficient cars that nobody wants. You get those stupid SUVs out of your fleet and reduce the horsepower in your muscle cars and you will most certainly improve your fleet’s mpg. Further, start selling fuel efficient hybrids that can compete with those of Toyota and Honda and a) you’ll start dominating the market and b) your new fleet fuel efficiency will continue to meet CAFE standards. People aren’t really making purchasing decisions based on fuel economy in 2009 to the same degree as they were in 2008. Additionally of course the failing economy has lead to people just not buying new cars at all. And until Detroit can actually turn profit on a unit-by-unit basis on fuel efficient hybrids it doesn’t really matter how much demand there is for them–selling at a loss is still selling at a loss. > [@](#): > > The demand is there. In 2000, Honda sold the first hybrid in the US. The following year, the Prius debuted and subsequently became the best-selling hybrid. As of 2009, there are 27 different hybrid vehicles available to the American public. None are as efficient as they could be and should be, but auto manufacturers realize that demand for hybrids is steadily increasing. What they need to really understand is that a hybrid that gets barely five mpg over the non-hybrid version is not efficient enough to move vehicles. To the average American, the added cost of the hybrid and uncertainty of the relatively new technology is not worth a savings of only five mpg. Step it up, Detroit, and start making hybrids that aren’t a joke. Oh, and when you do figure it out, [don’t list it at $40,000](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Price) if your goal is to actually sell a significant number. Good luck with that, GM. You’re just highlighting my point for me here. I don’t believe American automakers are really competent yet at manufacturing hybrids that will generate a profit. Like you said, they aren’t moving the Chevy Volt but they’ve not really shown they can create a cheap hybrid they can sell at a profit. Sure they can move cars at a _loss_ but that doesn’t exactly strengthen the company, now does it? I agree it’s a big problem, and that was the whole point of my post–American automakers aren’t able to generate a profit with fuel efficient vehicles. > [@](#): > > You got that right, but Detroit was trying to sell hybrids, too. They just couldn’t compete with Toyota because the Prius is actually an efficient hybrid. Just highlighting my point about the incompetence of American automakers and how increased CAFE standards will just lead to more failure and government bail out. > [@](#): > > Did they ever really have an interest or were they just going through the motions? Now that their necks are on the chopping block, they just might be inclined to get with the program, I think. I’m sure if GM and Chrysler could have avoided their fates, they would have. Incompetence and mismanagement don’t disappear just because you really don’t want to fail, otherwise no companies would fail. > [@](#): > > Rising gas prices certainly puts more pressure on Detroit and the government to start making some real headway towards significantly reducing our oil dependence, but it seems pretty obvious that Detroit is going to drag their feet as long as they possibly can without the government’s kick in the backside. It’s truly a shame they weren’t as forward thinking as foreign automakers and governments. We are so behind as a nation, as a result. Why is that? Why does it matter where we buy our cars from? To my mind if automakers in other countries are so much better then we should just see American automakers go out of business and then all of our cars will be European and Japanese in design (and many of those companies would shift significant production resources to the United States–keep in mind many foreign automakers already employ thousands of Americans here in the United States.) I’ve never bought into the idea that Detroit should have some magical immunity from failure, unfortunately the government **has**. > [@](#): > > It seems that GM did a pretty good job on their own of making themselves less profitable. If they can’t rise to the challenge now, they truly didn’t deserve the bailout. Like all businesses in trouble, they need to suck it the hell up. It’s not rocket science, for Pete’s sake. Are they that starved for innovators? They manufacture two of the top-selling vehicles of 2008, what is it about running a business do they not understand? Keep in mind GM is paying huge amounts of money every year to employees that haven’t worked in their factories in decades. I think GM made bad decisions but I also think their reality is markedly different from Toyota’s. GM is essentially being punished to a large degree because they were too good to their employees 20 years ago. You have a lot of vitriol for U.S. automakers and like to use empty and meaningless terms like “suck it up” but I’m more of a realist–I know that the government isn’t going to let GM or Ford fail so all we’re doing by making the economic situation for those companies worse is increasing the amount of tax dollars I’ll be sending Detroit’s way. > [@](#): > > Are you solely referring to their hybrids? If so, they are not that fuel efficient by industry standards, hence the likely reason they are taking a bath on them. Still hoping for a cite on this. Again, if they are relying on poorly selling inefficient hybrids to meet CAFE standards, they need seriously need to reevaluate their SUV sales. This quoted section makes no sense at all. > [@](#): > > We get out of the auto industry because we obviously are too stupid to do it right. Oh I agree, but you’re living in some fantasy world where big companies are allowed to fail. I live in the real world where the government is more than happy to spend billions of our dollars propping up failed companies. I only expect more of the same if we raise CAFE standards and squeeze their profitability. > [@](#): > > 1. It is. If they do that, they absolutely should fail because it makes no sense to simply adjust prices downward without innovating to make a better (read: more efficient) product while simultaneously determining that the market will no longer support your least efficient vehicles. > > 2. If they would run their businesses more like successful companies, they wouldn’t require subsidizing. Yes, innovation is key along with recognizing what they market truly wants. They haven’t been able to do this with a measure of success that would have kept them profitable in addition to poorly anticipating the market trend towards greater fuel efficiency. > > 3. That may certainly help change a few people’s minds, but I do believe that you underestimate the trend already in progress. Again, look at the Forbes lists of [best- and worst-selling vehicles](http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rhe42RjYa2ncHmDGNEAIEHg). Again, real world versus fantasy world, and 2009 versus 2008. > [@](#): > > Neither am I, but only from the standpoint that it pays for the innovation and productivity that allows us to not only match European CAFE standards, but to exceed them. Further, to the extent that it completely eliminates the auto industry’s dependence on oil and creates a vehicle industry that is ecologically sustainable, that would be money very well spent. I didn’t realize higher CAFE standards had some sort of magical powers. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/110 "2009-05-24T05:08:03Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > Everything does have consequences, but it seems to me that your arguments suffer from the fallacy of _ **pre** hoc, ergo procter hoc_. The auto company bailouts were approved in December of 2008. The CAFE standards were raised in May 2009. It appears as if you are claiming that the auto company bailouts occured because of something that happened _almost six months later_ I never claimed nor implied that the _announcement_ of a raise in CAFE standards that happened this month had anything to do with the auto bailouts that happened months before. (Note I said announcement, CAFE standards were not actually raised in May, we just announced they would be going up more than we thought they were in 2015.) I think you’ll need to reread my post before I continue discussing this with you, since I never made the claim this recent announcement had anything to do with the _current_ bailout I can only conclude you became confused somewhere and I’ll get back with you once you have demuddled your mind. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/111 "2009-05-24T13:16:27Z")
Actually, I know the Fourtwo tries really hard to direct the energy downwards, and around the passenger and driver, rather than into them. [![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/LaPucelle/NYIAS%2008/NYIAS2008211.jpg) ](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/LaPucelle/NYIAS%2008/NYIAS2008211.jpg) [![](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/LaPucelle/NYIAS%2008/NYIAS2008212.jpg) ](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/LaPucelle/NYIAS%2008/NYIAS2008212.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/112 "2009-05-24T17:26:07Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t think you understand how long it takes to engineer and create an automobile, nor do I think you understand how short a time period seven years is for a drastic change in a manufacturer’s fleet. One of the biggest strengths of Japanese companies is they traditionally plan years and years in advance, whereas the weakness of U.S. automakers is they do not. It doesn’t matter how long it takes to engineer and create an automobile if they don’t change their mindset. That’s what I’ve been saying. I gave you examples of this: GM: Let’s dump more money into R&D and continue producing Hummers that the public doesn’t seem all that interested in. What’s wrong with that? They’re hybrids! You’re absolutely right that lack of planning of U.S. automakers is a weakness the Japanese don’t suffer from. How can you plan for the future if you refuse to look at the big picture? > [@](#): > > Also, by and large American automakers aren’t selling magical, more efficient cars in Europe to meet standards there. GM has owned Opel and Vauxhall for decades, and these form the core of GM’s European operations (GM sells some of their more traditional lines in Europe, from Cadillac and such–but those vehicles are much more of a niche market there.) Opel and Vauxhall operate essentially as private subsidiaries, the people running Vauxhall and Opel aren’t the people running General Motors. Totally different management culture, totally different people. You can’t assume the competencies Vauxhall and Opel have will translate to GM’s North American operations. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Are you saying that there are no lessons that GM can take from its European subsidiaries that are, in fact, selling cars that meet European CAFE standards? Curious. Shouldn’t we be looking at what’s not working with the management culture in US, if management can’t manage to keep themselves afloat without an influx of taxpayer bailout money? There \*is \*a disconnect between European and Japanese auto manufacturers and American ones. There has long been a disconnect between our governments on fuel efficiency as well. Given the current economic crisis, isn’t this an opportune time to change that? > [@](#): > > You’re looking at a one year picture, a year in which gasoline topped $4 a gallon. What we have to look at is sales when gasoline isn’t $4 a gallon. I’d already conceded in my original post that $4/gal gasoline lead to different consume behavior. See, if you’d actually read my post instead of skimming it, you would have noticed that I also included sales for the two years previous to that which didn’t appear to be much different at all from 2008. It’s not just gasoline prices that are driving this (although, yes that does have an impact), it’s the slow realization by the public that the US cannot continue to maintain its heavy oil dependency indefinitely. It’s also that collectively we are becoming much more cognizant of the tremendous impact we have on the environment, and that we can control that impact. There are so many factors behind this cultural shift, you can’t simply boil it down to just the price at the pump. We’ve been through energy crises before. This one is different in that it’s less political and much more environmental. > [@](#): > > If you had actually been reading the recent news you’d know that hybrid sales plummeted this year due to lower gas prices. In the business world only a fool lives six months in the past, looking at 2008’s figures. The year 2009 is already a very different business climate than 2008. I have been reading, but, again, you haven’t. I noted that sales of the Prius were down in 2008 (no, I didn’t mention the other hybrids), but all car sales have plummeted in 2009 due to the economy. Of course, that’s going to effect hybrid sales. Do you seriously believe that they won’t rebound? The automakers seem to think so if you consider that Honda just released its second generation Insight, Toyota is poised to released its third generation Prius, and Ford is releasing the hybrid Fusion. There are others, too, that’s just the beginning. The business climate is ripe for hybrids, make no mistake. > [@](#): > > [QUOTE=me] > Taking a look at 2008’s worst-selling autos, we see nine SUVs and one minivan (including two Hummers, the most pilloried of the lot). It’s clear America’s love affair with the gas-guzzling SUV is over. Now, if the Big 3 can wrap their minds around that, they jettison the SUV fleet in favor of even more efficient models to offset the inefficiency, but true utility, of the pickup truck. Lose the Suburban, GM, and make the upcoming Cruze more fuel efficient than the Cobalt (2006 best-seller). Seriously, America is coming around, it’s the manufacturers that need to get a clue. It’s hard to understand why Detroit hasn’t been able to match the design mindset of the Japanese, considering how long they’ve dominated the market by so many benchmarks (i.e., safety, reliability, fuel efficiency, sales, etc.). IMHO, it’s a big part of why they were failing to begin with: outmoded thinking. Uh-huh, again–what were gas prices like last summer? [/QUOTE] Uh-huh. You think it was different for the two previous years as well, don’t you? I notice you aren’t coughing up actual numbers that contradict my statements about SUVs. > [@](#): > > Also, while I’m always ready to malign the poor management that has characterized General Motors and Chrysler for many years that criticism deserves some tempering. One thing that Toyota had is that the Japanese government in many ways subsidized the development of Japanese industry following World War II (and the United States government was subsidizing the Japanese government.) Toyota probably would not have emerged as such a strong company in a truly free-market situation. Toyota also was allowed to develop without the shackle of unionization. The UAW is one of the greatest crippling effects on a major industry seen in American history. To be honest I’ve always thought the only way Detroit can ever be fixed is for the companies to go completely under. Maybe then we could see the development of new American automakers (probably resurrected from the shell of GM/Chrysler/Ford) that actually focused on creating efficient manufacturing and design processes instead of essentially being welfare for blue collar workers (and pretty damn nice welfare, too.) Economically speaking Detroit has long not been viable and that’s because they are paying drones far more than drones are worth. But that’s not really the worst of it, Toyota actually pays its employees very well also. The crux of it is the American automakers employ a ton of people they really wouldn’t have to employ if not for the UAW. I’m not going to get into a discussion about the UAW, because I think for the most part, we’ll agree. Yes, I do believe that the UAW has had a negative impact on profitability for the Big 3, but I also believe that particular fiscal weakness is no excuse for [this one](http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/02/22/auto-industry-spent-62-million-on-lobbying-in-2007/). $62 billion in 2007 spent, in large part, lobbying against energy and emissions reforms. It’s no secret that for years the American auto industry has fought tooth and nail to maintain the status quo when they could have spent billions of dollars over the years on innovation that would have better prepared them for today’s climate. The fact of the matter is that short-term profits have historically been a much higher priority to the Big 3 than long-term economic viability and environmental responsibility. > [@](#): > > You’re exaggerating things a good bit. General Motors and Ford had the largest market share in North America all throughout the 1970s and 1980s; they lost ground to Toyota and have lost much more ground since then, but they were still the dominant force in the American automotive industry in those decades. Well, be that as it may, I’m going largely on my perception through those years of auto industry trends. Your statement that about subsidies significantly oversimplifies the impact that the Japanese automakers of the 70s and 80s had on the auto industry. They practically revolutionized auto manufacture by focusing on production innovations that resulted in more efficient and mechanically more reliable cars produced for less money and marketed with precision. This significantly impacted American auto manufacturing in the long term and forced a sea change in competitive practice. The Big 3 has been dragged kicking and screaming through this change by incredibly the more innovative and forward thinking Japanese. The one thing that the American auto industry had going for them is the tradition that Americans liked their cars big and imposing. That attitude is changing, and continuing to rely on that cultural “truth” in the future is folly. > [@](#): > > [QUOTE=Martin Hyde] > Here’s the thing, Detroit sells small fuel efficient cars at a loss right now, to meet CAFE standards. They make money on the less fuel efficient cars and we’re essentially forcing them to sell the highly efficient cars at a loss (because there has not been enough consumer demand to move them otherwise), the current standards are something like 27 mpg. [QUOTE=me] Cite? By the Forbes list, the best selling sedans average 26 combined mpg. If these are their most fuel efficient cars, they really do have a problem. Well, for Toyota and Honda, they most certainly aren’t if you take their hybrids into consideration. [/QUOTE] Again, you’re in 2008, we’re in 2009. [/QUOTE] I see you’re not only going to ignore my request for a cite on your claim that Detroit is selling their fuel efficient cars at a loss right now. You’ve conveniently ignored that they \*can \*manage to make cars that meet CAFE standards and that people are willing to buy as evidenced by their entries on the list of top-selling cars. And since you’ve also ignored that I actually cited three years and are instead demanding I cite sales for a year that hasn’t even completed yet, I’ve come to the conclusion that you want to remain ignorant. Oh well, how about if I do all the work and pull some [2009 numbers through April](http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rBTgrXKf8St9eTKRBPLcpGw&single=true&gid=0&output=html) for those that are paying attention? See anything different? Pretty much the same vehicles as the last three years. There is a compact SUV in there from Honda, though, accounting for 6% of the top selling vehicles. It should be noted, thought that this vehicle gets a combined 23 mpg. However, it has replaced the [2008’s Ford Focus](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car2tablef.jsp?column=2&id=24823) which gets comb. 28 mpg. It should be interesting to see how the SUV fares over the summer as gas prices take their usual seasonal spike. Else it’s the same. Car sales may be down, but they are still selling the same ones. Any guess which cars are selling the least right now? Now, once again, I did my homework, now you do yours. Give me a cite that Ford and GM are selling their more efficient vehicles specifically at a loss. If they’re losing money on cars, I’m wiling to bet their losing the vast majority on SUVs and they’re \*not \*losing money specifically to meet CAFE standards. Got numbers to back up your claim? > [@](#): > > Mm, I don’t really know that you can say for sure a pickup truck represents “way more utility than SUVs.” I think you’re showing some anti-SUV bias here. SUVs can carry four kids home from soccer practice and haul lumber from Home Depot that weekend, a pickup can only really do one of those comfortably. SUVs have the potential to be mix-use in a way that pickups don’t. Obviously not everyone who buys SUVs actually puts them to use that way (and those people might be better of buying minivans.) Then why aren’t we selling more SUVs? The fact is most families have multiple vehicles in their fleet. A sedan will transport soccer kids to and from practice just as easily as an SUV will, for that matter so will a minivan. OTOH, a pickup truck will haul a great deal more than an SUV will, so it makes sense, if you need that functionality, to get one of those. But don’t listen to me. Look at sales. Once again, it’s trucks and sedans. Not too many SUVs or minivans topping the lists. Anecdotally, when I had one vehicle and a family of four my choice was a minivan. We’ve since added a truck as a second vehicle and will be downsizing the minivan to an economical sedan when we purchase new. Further, pickups with extended cabs can haul the kids home from soccer practice with a detour to Home Depot to pick up lumber in the same trip. Not so in an SUV. Do I have a bias against them? Perhaps, although I can totally support the downsizing of them. > [@](#): > > People aren’t really making purchasing decisions based on fuel economy in 2009 to the same degree as they were in 2008. Additionally of course the failing economy has lead to people just not buying new cars at all. And until Detroit can actually turn profit on a unit-by-unit basis on fuel efficient hybrids it doesn’t really matter how much demand there is for them–selling at a loss is still selling at a loss. Cite? Cite? Cite? Please? > [@](#): > > You’re just highlighting my point for me here. I don’t believe American automakers are really competent yet at manufacturing hybrids that will generate a profit. Like you said, they aren’t moving the Chevy Volt but they’ve not really shown they can create a cheap hybrid they can sell at a profit. Sure they can move cars at a _loss_ but that doesn’t exactly strengthen the company, now does it? I agree it’s a big problem, and that was the whole point of my post–American automakers aren’t able to generate a profit with fuel efficient vehicles. Well, there’s a lot of supposition here, some of which I agree with, but only because I’ve done some homework. Still, I think you need to back up your claims with actual data. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/113 "2009-05-24T19:16:48Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] Just highlighting my point about the incompetence of American automakers and how increased CAFE standards will just lead to more failure and government bail out. [/QUOTE] No, you obviously don’t understand. The problem lies not with increasing CAFE standards. We don’t fix the problem by continuing to ignore the impact our inefficient fleet has on the environment and economy. The problem is with the automakers historical refusal, as well as our elected leaders’ arrogance and complacency, to join the rest of the developed world in combating dependency on finite resources that contribute to global ecological disaster. The fact that we now have a government finally willing to take a stand on this matter and a crippled industry now dependent on the government to save its ass, means that real progress in this country is possible. The industry really has no choice but to innovate or die. Yes, we as taxpayers will have to pay for this innovation because we were complacent, too. But be they incompetent or not, the industry is going to have to change its ways; they just have to do it with government hand-holding and a fire under their tookuses to inspire them. > [@](#): > > I’m sure if GM and Chrysler could have avoided their fates, they would have. Incompetence and mismanagement don’t disappear just because you really don’t want to fail, otherwise no companies would fail. This seems to me a very naive view of how they operated. They weren’t planning to fail, they were planning to cash their executive bonuses. They relied on short term gains to carry them and failed to plan for the future. They looked at what people want at this moment and fought to keep those efficiency standards low, so they could keep raking in the dough while exacerbating our oil dependency. The smart guys knew they couldn’t maintain this consumption indefinitely, but it would cost gobs of money to gamble on which alternative energy was going to eventually dominate the market. So they stifled efficiency innovation wherever they could. Private and collegiate innovators have made far more progress in research and development with far less funding than our American automakers. What does that tell you? If GM and Chrysler could have avoided their fates, our auto industry would have been a lot further down the road towards ending oil dependency than we are now. There’s no point blaming their short-term business plan now. The important thing is that they learn from it. > [@](#): > > Why is that? Why does it matter where we buy our cars from? To my mind if automakers in other countries are so much better then we should just see American automakers go out of business and then all of our cars will be European and Japanese in design (and many of those companies would shift significant production resources to the United States–keep in mind many foreign automakers already employ thousands of Americans here in the United States.) Or, we could not only save a lot of manufacturing jobs, we could create a stronger industry that contributes more to the economy rather than draining from it, if we revamp the American way of doing business in the auto industry. I have no problems with regulating our auto industry to meet standards that other foreign industry can already meet and surpass. > [@](#): > > I’ve never bought into the idea that Detroit should have some magical immunity from failure, unfortunately the government **has**. I never did either, but apparently the government has determined that we can’t afford the loss in our current economic reality. I don’t like it given the fact that I’m of the strong opinion, in case you hadn’t noticed, that the Big 3 brought it on themselves. I’ve been contemplating recently what it would be like to just pull a Ma Bell on them and split them up by division, letting the really poorly profiting divisions (like Hummer, for instance) fail, while the good ones with some solid innovation under their belts and/or profitability (like Chevrolet; the alternative fuel divisions) survive. It looks like that’s already naturally occurring though, with the demise of Pontiac and pending sale of Saturn. > [@](#): > > Keep in mind GM is paying huge amounts of money every year to employees that haven’t worked in their factories in decades. I think GM made bad decisions but I also think their reality is markedly different from Toyota’s. GM is essentially being punished to a large degree because they were too good to their employees 20 years ago. You have a lot of vitriol for U.S. automakers and like to use empty and meaningless terms like “suck it up” but I’m more of a realist–I know that the government isn’t going to let GM or Ford fail so all we’re doing by making the economic situation for those companies worse is increasing the amount of tax dollars I’ll be sending Detroit’s way. Again, this is only part of the equation that as set them up poorly for the future and really is irrelevant to the topic at hand. > [@](#): > > [QUOTE=me] > Are you solely referring to their hybrids? If so, they are not that fuel efficient by industry standards, hence the likely reason they are taking a bath on them. Still hoping for a cite on this. Again, if they are relying on poorly selling inefficient hybrids to meet CAFE standards, they need seriously need to reevaluate their SUV sales. This quoted section makes no sense at all. [/QUOTE] You keep saying that the American auto industry loses money on its efficient cars in order to make CAFE standards. You seem to be ignoring the fact that in order to meet sales-weighted CAFE, the automakers have to have an efficient fleet, which means that they must sell plenty of cars that meet or exceed the standard to make up for the ones they sell that don’t meet the standard OR bring every product up to the CAFE standards. In other words, poorly selling vehicles that barely meet the standard do not offset high selling vehicles that fall far below the standard. The manufacturer needs to either improve the efficiency of its best selling vehicles or figure out a way to sell more vehicles that far exceed the standard to bring up the average mpg of its fleet to the meet or exceed the CAFE mpg. To illustrate: if a carmaker sells three vehicles at combined mpgs of 16, 23, 29. Each of those vehicles sell 300,000 units, 100,000 units, and 200,000 units, respectively. Let’s also say that the CAFE standard is 21 mpg. Car A: 16mpg - 300,000 Car B: 23mpg - 100,000 Car C: 29mpg - 200,000 The combined mpg of this fleet (19.42) fails to meet CAFE and the automaker is fined. Let’s say the automaker gets rid of the poorly selling Car B, even though it exceeds the CAFE standard, and replaces it with a hybrid that gets 45 comb. mpg. It’s immediately a hit and sells 50,000 its first year. Another 50,000 buyers who would have bought the Car B decide to go with the Car C. The automaker also aggressively markets fuel efficiency encouraging another 25,000 buyers opt for the Car C instead of Car A. Here’s the breakdown: Car A: 16mpg - 275,000 Car B: discontinued Car C: 29mpg - 275,000 Car D: 45mpg - 50,000 The combined mpg of this fleet (21.65) exceeds CAFE and the automaker receives a credit, which means that if they fail to meet CAFE in the next production cycle they can use the credit to make up the difference. This buys them time to continue their efforts to innovate and cycle consumers to more efficient models. Of course, this is highly simplified explanation, but I hope you better understand what I mean. Oh I agree, but you’re living in some fantasy world where big companies are allowed to fail. I live in the real world where the government is more than happy to spend billions of our dollars propping up failed companies. I only expect more of the same if we raise CAFE standards and squeeze their profitability. > [@](#): > > Again, real world versus fantasy world, and 2009 versus 2008. Sigh. > [@](#): > > [QUOTE=Martin Hyde] > I’m not actually opposed to such a gas tax, to be honest. I’m all for higher taxes when it makes sense. [QUOTE=me] Neither am I, but only from the standpoint that it pays for the innovation and productivity that allows us to not only match European CAFE standards, but to exceed them. Further, to the extent that it completely eliminates the auto industry’s dependence on oil and creates a vehicle industry that is ecologically sustainable, that would be money very well spent. [/QUOTE] I didn’t realize higher CAFE standards had some sort of magical powers. [/QUOTE] I was responding to you. Are you talking about higher gas taxes or CAFE standards? When I say “from the standpoint that ‘it’ pays…” by ‘it’, I mean taxes. If higher taxes pays for innovation and productivity that helps us meet expanded CAFE standards I’m for it. If higher taxes additionally helps us eliminate our auto industry’s dependence on oil, I’m even more for it. If higher taxes helped create an ecologically sustainable auto industry, I’d be on cloud nine. Understand, now? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/114 "2009-05-24T23:20:46Z")
> [@](#): > > But the Volt is expected to sell for $35,000 to $40,000, and buyers may be unwilling to pay that much for a sedan, even if tax credits help ease the burden, unless gas prices soar. Kind of conflates ‘The Volt’ with ‘electric cars’, doesn’t it? The Volt strikes me as purposefully overpriced. Or not a mass-production model. It seems a decent EV could cost a lot less than The Volt. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/115 "2009-05-25T00:04:35Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > This seems to me a very naive view of how they operated. They weren’t planning to fail, they were planning to cash their executive bonuses. They relied on short term gains to carry them and failed to plan for the future. They looked at what people want at this moment and fought to keep those efficiency standards low, so they could keep raking in the dough while exacerbating our oil dependency. The smart guys knew they couldn’t maintain this consumption indefinitely, but it would cost gobs of money to gamble on which alternative energy was going to eventually dominate the market. So they stifled efficiency innovation wherever they could. Private and collegiate innovators have made far more progress in research and development with far less funding than our American automakers. What does that tell you? If GM and Chrysler could have avoided their fates, our auto industry would have been a lot further down the road towards ending oil dependency than we are now. There’s no point blaming their short-term business plan now. The important thing is that they learn from it. > an ecologically sustainable auto industry, I’d be on cloud nine. Understand, now? The auto companies built the cars sold in America that Americans wanted to buy just as they built cars geared for the European market. They are different markets entirely. The US transportation grid is based around a highway system. The car market reflects the nature of this and cars take on a greater role in daily life. Over the years, GM has engaged in poor labor contract management. Retirement benefits are much higher than foreign competitors such as Toyota. This generated a cash flow legacy that affected the bottom line. That bottom line can be directly related to research dollars. There isn’t a market for hybrids in the US and hybrids represent a higher cost of development. It’s a lose/lose situation. The reason there isn’t a market for hybrids is because ot the amount of time it takes to recoup the extra purchase cost involved. If you looked at the chart [I cited earlier](http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/116513/article.html) you’ll understand that cars like the Prius don’t make sense. Beyond being small cars, they are not financially efficient. There is no challenge in the making of smaller cars. US automakers already sell them in Europe. The challenge is to get people to buy them, or to make larger vehicles more fuel-efficient. This is what Ford did with the Escape. They provided a larger vehicle for the American market with a quicker break even point for the money spent then a Prius. This is still a niche market. Hybrids can’t tow and the mileage is greatly affected by driving environment and the use of air conditioning. What makes more sense is the use of diesel technology and we’re already seeing new models introduced to the US market from VW and Honda. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/116 "2009-05-25T00:09:10Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Kind of conflates ‘The Volt’ with ‘electric cars’, doesn’t it? > > The Volt strikes me as purposefully overpriced. Or not a mass-production model. It seems a decent EV could cost a lot less than The Volt. People will look at the break even point and decide of the car is worth the money. If it’s not, then it’s money down a rat hole. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/117 "2009-05-25T00:22:19Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The Volt strikes me as purposefully overpriced. Or not a mass-production model. It seems a decent EV could cost a lot less than The Volt. The volt was priced for yuppies that want a carbon tax. Part of the price is built around the actual cost of building the car, amortized over several hundred thousand units. The other part of the cost is the perceived “cost” of the vehicle. Sort of like a cartier watch should be more expensive than casio, so its priced accordingly. Bottom line is that its priced for the only people who might actually want to buy it. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/118 "2009-05-25T00:30:34Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > The volt was priced for yuppies that want a carbon tax. Part of the price is built around the actual cost of building the car, amortized over several hundred thousand units. The other part of the cost is the perceived “cost” of the vehicle. Sort of like a cartier watch should be more expensive than casio, so its priced accordingly. > > Bottom line is that its priced for the only people who might actually want to buy it. > > Declan You mean like the people already buying Tesla’s? I would hate to be the marketing President of that project. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/119 "2009-05-25T00:45:14Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You mean like the people already buying Tesla’s? I would hate to be the marketing President of that project. Actually I think that the tesla people had a better grasp on reality. Build a tits out sports car but make it battery powered. Its got nice specs for a sunday summer car, but I dont see anyone commuting to work in one. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/120 "2009-05-25T00:53:32Z")
And, making the move from CAFE standards to safety concerns is a non sequitur if ev’s are introduced into the mix. Obviously, ev’s burn no gasoline at all. Or, are backed up with a generator and use gas only part of the time. Obviously the energy has to come from somewhere, but most everything is more efficient than burning gas. CAFE standards become irrelevant. There is no reason why ev’s must be smaller than conventional cars. Sure, more mass=bigger batteries=higher sale price. But an ev of any size is possible- the electric hummer for instance. Or the USS Ronald Reagan. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038.md?page=7)