NEW FUEL EFFICENCY RULES

[gt67]

 

Administration Releases New Fuel Efficiency Rules

 

New Rules Designed To Spur Hybrids, Electric Cars

KEN THOMAS, Associated Press WriterUPDATED: 12:10 pm EDT April 1, 2010WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration set tougher gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks Thursday, spurring the next generation of fuel-sipping gas-electric hybrids, efficient engines and electric cars. The heads of the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency signed final rules setting fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012-2016, with a goal of achieving by 2016 the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon combined for cars and trucks, an increase of nearly 10 mpg over current standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The EPA set a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams (8.75 ounces) of carbon dioxide per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, equal to what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. The EPA issued its first rules ever on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions following a 2007 Supreme Court decision. "These historic new standards set ambitious, but achievable, fuel economy requirements for the automotive industry that will also encourage new and emerging technologies," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air." Each auto company will have a different fuel-efficiency target, based on its mix of vehicles. Automakers that build more small cars will have a higher target than car companies that manufacture a broad range of cars and trucks. The standard could be as low as 34.1 mpg by 2016 because automakers are expected to receive credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in other ways, including preventing the leaking of coolant from air conditioners. "This is a significant step towards cleaner air and energy efficiency, and an important example of how our economic and environmental priorities go hand-in-hand," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a statement. Dave McCurdy, a former congressman from Oklahoma who leads the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing 11 automakers, said the industry supports a single national standard for future vehicles, saying the program "makes sense for consumers, for government policymakers and for automakers." LaHood and Jackson said the new requirements will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. The new standards move up goals set in a 2007 energy law, which required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average by 2020. The rules should add costs to new cars and trucks. The government said the requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016 but would save more than $3,000 over the life of the vehicle through better gas mileage. EPA and the Transportation Department said the requirements would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 960 million metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles regulated, or the equivalent of taking 50 million cars and light trucks off the road in 2030. Environmental groups have sought curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for global warming, and challenged the Bush administration for blocking a waiver request from California to pursue more stringent air pollution rules than required by the federal government. The request was granted by the Obama administration last year. "The standards forthcoming under the 'clean car peace treaty' are a good deal for consumers, for companies, for the country and for the planet," said David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Automakers have been working on an assortment of fuel-efficient technologies, including hybrids, electric cars and technologies that shut off an engine's cylinders when full power isn't needed. Nissan is releasing its electric car, the Leaf, later this year, while General Motors is introducing the Chevrolet Volt, which can go 40 miles on battery power before an engine kicks in to generate power. Ford is bringing its "EcoBoost" line of direct-injection turbocharged engines, which provide a 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency, to 90 percent of its models by 2013.

 

[ingram4868]

Is this the beginning to the end of the second Muscle Car era?

[imprtklr]

More control over your liberty and personal choice and ability to move around the country at will, the left wants us all on public transportation. All based on junk science thanks Al Gore. Will this apply to the limos and planes that all of these politicians take all over the country? I think not.

 

Hey time to bring back the mustang II ! lol...

[dgstang]

So, better gas mileage = less demand for gas = lower cost of fuel = less money to fill the tank on the Shelby , right...

sounds good to me, in a perfect world

[kahmann]

^OPEC decides how much oil costs. Less demand just means they'll pinch the supply, keeping costs the same or driving them higher.

Either way you slice this, it's bad bad news.

[gt67]

Found this response from a car dealer.

 

" Ed Tonkin, a Portland, Ore., car dealer who chairs the National Automobile Dealers Association, said the rules were the "most expensive fuel economy mandates in history" and would turn many new cars and trucks into luxury items for consumers.

 

"Under these new mandates, the price of new cars and light trucks will rise significantly, meaning fewer Americans will be able to buy the new vehicles of their choice," Tonkin said. "

 

 

And the good news.

 

"On Thursday, the Ford Motor Co (F), said gross sales rose 43% in March. The increase -- which mirrored (yet surpassed) a similar gain in February -- had Ford registering the highest monthly sales increase since February 1984.

Other auto business is also up. GM reported a 43% increase. Toyota (TM) said unit sales are up 41%. And Honda (HMC) reported a 22% increase.

"We saw incentives rise and prices fall at some of our competitors," said Ken Czubay, vice president of U.S. marketing for Ford.

 

Ford wants to limit its incentives to models that directly compete with Toyota, such as its Fusion mid-sized car, which competes with Toyota's Camry, and the Ford Focus, which is a rival to the Toyota Corolla."

 

 

 

[JeffIsHereToo]

Found this response from a car dealer.

 

" Ed Tonkin, a Portland, Ore., car dealer who chairs the National Automobile Dealers Association, said the rules were the "most expensive fuel economy mandates in history" and would turn many new cars and trucks into luxury items for consumers. "

 

 

Didn't the base price of the Mustang just shoot up for no reason other than Ford wanted a greater margin on it's best selling pony car?

 

Anyway..meanwhile GM has found a way to shave off between $1000-$5000 off the price of a car by eliminating the old catalytic converters. So let's hope net-net we have cleaner burning, more fuel efficient cars, that cost less! More of those will give the fleet average needed to keep the muscle car in production for MANY years to come. This is the work that US Auto makers are capable of doing and should be doing.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/03/new-catalytic-converter-material-could-make-for-cleaner-cheaper-cars/

 

BTW: If anyone is interested in the REAL research (PDF) and not just what Ed thinks, here is the link to the RAND research on this change and it's effect on buying, selling, new and used, driving habit, gas consumption etc. Maybe Ed should read it?

 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/2009/N1005.pdf

[JeffIsHereToo]

^OPEC decides how much oil costs. Less demand just means they'll pinch the supply, keeping costs the same or driving them higher.

Either way you slice this, it's bad bad news.

 

 

 

OPEC doesn't really set prices. OPEC only regulates production which does have some effect on prices but isn't a high as you might think. Prices are set by market conditions and increasingly in the case of oil by investors driving prices irrespective of things things like supply and demand. Oil is one of the few commodities today that have seen a decreasing relationship to typical fundamentals. Gas prices are less often changed up or down in response to actual demand or any government action, or in-action but rather by investors coming into or out of the market.

 

There was a landmark study just completed at Oxford on this very topic.

 

http://commodities-now.com/news/general/2166-report-could-transform-debate-about-oil-prices.html

[JeffIsHereToo]

More control over your liberty and personal choice and ability to move around the country at will...

 

 

Let's think about that, so if I wanted to restrict your ability to "move around the country at will" my best option would be pushing to give you a car that was more fuel efficient? Isn't that an oxymoron?

[David Hawkins]

Is this the beginning to the end of the second Muscle Car era?

 

 

Why would you think that? This statement...

"The new standards move up goals set in a 2007 energy law, which required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average by 2020"

 

...... I read it to say if you add up the MPG of all the Vehicle Models produced by Ford and divide it by the number of Models produced by Ford, the Average should be 35 MPG or better not every Vehicle produced by Ford must get 35 MPG or better.

(I used Ford for the example)

[imprtklr]

Let's think about that, so if I wanted to restrict your ability to "move around the country at will" my best option would be pushing to give you a car that was more fuel efficient? Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

 

 

IMHO more and more regulation by the government, higher and higher gas prices to eventually its just to expensive for the average person to afford.

Therefore less and less people drive slowing killing yet another great american industry. It has nothing to due with fuel efficiency its about control.

[JeffIsHereToo]

IMHO more and more regulation by the government, higher and higher gas prices to eventually its just to expensive for the average person to afford.

Therefore less and less people drive slowing killing yet another great american industry. It has nothing to due with fuel efficiency its about control.

 

 

I'm really interested in why you think the American government wants to destroy the American automobile industry, the industry they just rescued and could have just let die (or at least get a lot smaller) at lot sooner than this regulation. I've already pointed out that Ford alone raised the price of the Mustang more than this regulation will, and in the meantime GM has developed one way reduce the cost of an existing car perhaps 4x what this regulation would raise. So exactly how is this going to kill anything and again why would the government invest billions to save an industry it wants to kill?

[imprtklr]

I'm really interested in why you think the American government wants to destroy the American automobile industry, the industry they just rescued and could have just let die (or at least get a lot smaller) at lot sooner than this regulation. I've already pointed out that Ford alone raised the price of the Mustang more than this regulation will, and in the meantime GM has developed one way reduce the cost of an existing car perhaps 4x what this regulation would raise. So exactly how is this going to kill anything and again why would the government invest billions to save an industry it wants to kill?

 

 

 

The government has been slowly destroying the auto industry for the past 30 years. Have you been to Detroit lately?

They Rescued the industry? No, they paid back the union for getting BHO elected.

 

GM will give customers a tax credit for buying a Volt therefore reducing the cost. If left to free market forces I do

not think the Volt would sell for 32-37k. Must be incentivized by the government.

 

This government wants to dictate what we can buy, how we buy , control our choices and drive

market conditions instead of the individual and free market forces.

 

 

The government didn't invest in the industry they took over control of GM.

 

 

I believe performance cars will be the next target. Pretty soon you wont be able to work on you car in your own garage because it will be considered bad for the environment. Just my prediction and opinion.

[JeffIsHereToo]

The government has been slowly destroying the auto industry for the past 30 years. Have you been to Detroit lately?

They Rescued the industry? No, they paid back the union for getting BHO elected.

 

GM will give customers a tax credit for buying a Volt therefore reducing the cost. If left to free market forces I do

not think the Volt would sell for 32-37k. Must be incentivized by the government.

 

This government wants to dictate what we can buy, how we buy , control our choices and drive

market conditions instead of the individual and free market forces.

 

 

The government didn't invest in the industry they took over control of GM.

 

 

I believe performance cars will be the next target. Pretty soon you wont be able to work on you car in your own garage because it will be considered bad for the environment. Just my prediction and opinion.

 

 

Keeping the politics out of it...well we simply disagree! I think "free market" forces have been what has impacted the US Auto industry!

 

Your assumptions and conclusions completely ignore the fact that foreign auto makers operate under the same rules yet they've grown in overall share. Why? Because they were faster to respond to US consumer needs while the likes of GM and Ford took years to move their product line ups. Hence Ford's "Go Fast" internal strategy. Add to that the quality gap, real or imagined, and that is the source of the problem.

 

Ford, recognized that, and thankfully made positive moves early but still does silly things like have some truly world-class cars in the UK that need to come here. The Fiesta is a good first start but it should have been in the US years ago! Kids today drive Subaru, Honda, Nissan, etc., when they should be driving Ford. Why? Because Ford, and all the rest, where slow to bring a small fast little pocket rocket here even though they made them but only sold them overseas.

 

Giving people a "tax credit" is hardly "dictate what we can buy, how we buy , control our choices" it's simply a way for the government to help new businesses develop. They did the same with the internet for example when sales taxes where not collected, to years ago helping people buy homes by making the interest and property taxes deductible.

 

Lastly the government DID NOT take over GM. GM came looking for help and like any investor, an investor of OUR money, they wanted to see a plan that detailed how GM was going to fix and right itself. It's called "due diligence" especially when it concerns our tax dollars! At the current repayment plan GM will have paid back the bailout money by June of this year though they are still on the hook for other assistance, its a good start!

 

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/BreakingNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1259683%20&Category=Breaking%20News

[speedyburd33]

Aside from free market and what the government did with GM...

 

I'm all for helping our environment and finding new ways to decrease pollution and making out planet more "green." Although I think that setting goals like all cars having 35 mpg is something to strive for, I think the EPA and Obama should figure out a way to do that without cutting into the segment that we all here belong to...the high peformance/muscle cars. I saw in the interview with Carroll Shelby for the GT350, he said that he's going to keep building high performance Mustangs and he'll leave the high gas mileage and green cars to the people that want to do that.

Every vehicle manufacturer should be thinking about how to make their cars more efficient and get great mileage, and they all are. (Volt, Leaf, EcoBoost, etc...) I hope these regulations can find a way to leave us alone and allow the cars built for efficiency balance us out without us sacrificing performance.

In the last couple years we have seen a rebirth of a muscle car era. If all these regulations hold up, it will take millions and millions of dollars to develop a 500+HP Mustang that will get that kind of mileage. More cost to manufacture means more cost to buy. I understand that certain costs are inherent or unavoidable and that is to be expected. But, I feel like if we are subject to these regulations in the muscle car segment it will put a huge damper on a good thing.

[imprtklr]

Keeping the politics out of it...well we simply disagree! I think "free market" forces have been what has impacted the US Auto industry!

 

Your assumptions and conclusions completely ignore the fact that foreign auto makers operate under the same rules yet they've grown in overall share. Why? Because they were faster to respond to US consumer needs while the likes of GM and Ford took years to move their product line ups. Hence Ford's "Go Fast" internal strategy. Add to that the quality gap, real or imagined, and that is the source of the problem.

 

Ford, recognized that, and thankfully made positive moves early but still does silly things like have some truly world-class cars in the UK that need to come here. The Fiesta is a good first start but it should have been in the US years ago! Kids today drive Subaru, Honda, Nissan, etc., when they should be driving Ford. Why? Because Ford, and all the rest, where slow to bring a small fast little pocket rocket here even though they made them but only sold them overseas.

 

Giving people a "tax credit" is hardly "dictate what we can buy, how we buy , control our choices" it's simply a way for the government to help new businesses develop. They did the same with the internet for example when sales taxes where not collected, to years ago helping people buy homes by making the interest and property taxes deductible.

 

Lastly the government DID NOT take over GM. GM came looking for help and like any investor, an investor of OUR money, they wanted to see a plan that detailed how GM was going to fix and right itself. It's called "due diligence" especially when it concerns our tax dollars! At the current repayment plan GM will have paid back the bailout money by June of this year though they are still on the hook for other assistance, its a good start!

 

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/BreakingNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1259683%20&Category=Breaking%20News

 

Your right we agree to disagree.

 

"foreign auto makers operate under the same rules yet they've grown in overall share" Simply not true. Foreign auto makers have far better profit margins, which means more marketing, R&D and lower price points.

 

GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69 including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers.

 

In some cases, Their job: to do nothing.

 

The Jobs Bank, a two-decade-old program in which nearly 15,000 auto workers continue to get paid after their companies stop needing them. To earn wages and benefits that often top $100,000 a year, the workers must perform some company-approved activity.

 

The Jobs Bank at GM and other U.S. auto companies including Ford Motor is likely to cost around $1.4 billion to $2 billion this year. The programs, which are up for renewal next year when union contracts expire, have become a symbol of why Detroit struggles even as Japanese auto makers with big U.S. operations prosper.

 

GM was saved by the government because no other investors wanted it, investment companies did "due diligence" and found that it was a disaster. The only reason the government was able to pay back tarp is because it ripped of the bond holding creditors and gave them back cents on the dollar. Also gave 17% control of the company to the union.

 

Tax credit? How about not taking my hard earned money in the first place. I could go into the pitfalls of government involement in the free market but I have a feeling I would be wasting my time.

[Dubstang]

Keeping the politics out of it...well we simply disagree! I think "free market" forces have been what has impacted the US Auto industry!

 

Your assumptions and conclusions completely ignore the fact that foreign auto makers operate under the same rules yet they've grown in overall share. Why? Because they were faster to respond to US consumer needs while the likes of GM and Ford took years to move their product line ups. Hence Ford's "Go Fast" internal strategy. Add to that the quality gap, real or imagined, and that is the source of the problem.

 

Ford, recognized that, and thankfully made positive moves early but still does silly things like have some truly world-class cars in the UK that need to come here. The Fiesta is a good first start but it should have been in the US years ago! Kids today drive Subaru, Honda, Nissan, etc., when they should be driving Ford. Why? Because Ford, and all the rest, where slow to bring a small fast little pocket rocket here even though they made them but only sold them overseas.

 

Giving people a "tax credit" is hardly "dictate what we can buy, how we buy , control our choices" it's simply a way for the government to help new businesses develop. They did the same with the internet for example when sales taxes where not collected, to years ago helping people buy homes by making the interest and property taxes deductible.

 

Lastly the government DID NOT take over GM. GM came looking for help and like any investor, an investor of OUR money, they wanted to see a plan that detailed how GM was going to fix and right itself. It's called "due diligence" especially when it concerns our tax dollars! At the current repayment plan GM will have paid back the bailout money by June of this year though they are still on the hook for other assistance, its a good start!

 

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/BreakingNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1259683%20&Category=Breaking%20News

 

Your right we agree to disagree.

 

"foreign auto makers operate under the same rules yet they've grown in overall share" Simply not true. Foreign auto makers have far better profit margins, which means more marketing, R&D and lower price points.

 

GM says its total hourly labor costs are now $69 including wages, pensions and health care for active workers, plus the pension and health care costs of more than 432,000 retirees and spouses. Toyota says its total costs are around $48. The Japanese automaker has far fewer retirees and its pension and health care benefits are not as rich as those paid to UAW workers.

 

In some cases, Their job: to do nothing.

 

The Jobs Bank, a two-decade-old program in which nearly 15,000 auto workers continue to get paid after their companies stop needing them. To earn wages and benefits that often top $100,000 a year, the workers must perform some company-approved activity.

 

The Jobs Bank at GM and other U.S. auto companies including Ford Motor is likely to cost around $1.4 billion to $2 billion this year. The programs, which are up for renewal next year when union contracts expire, have become a symbol of why Detroit struggles even as Japanese auto makers with big U.S. operations prosper.

 

GM was saved by the government because no other investors wanted it, investment companies did "due diligence" and found that it was a disaster. The only reason the government was able to pay back tarp is because it ripped of the bond holding creditors and gave them back cents on the dollar. Also gave 17% control of the company to the union.

 

Tax credit? How about not taking my hard earned money in the first place. I could go into the pitfalls of government involement in the free market but I have a feeling I would be wasting my time.

 

 

+ 1,000,000! Big Government, big taxes. They want to control everything, force it down our throats and then make us pay for it through taxes. So sick of people buying into the Media hype of Obama who along with Pelosi are driving our once great nation towards bankruptcy. Whatever happened to being rewarded for hard work?? Go back to the basics and educate yourself on the basic fundamentals of why our overgrown government was implemented in the first place. I can assure it was NOT so that they could own car companies!

[gt67]

News Breaks 09:11 EDTAN, PAG, GM, FIATY, Ftheflyonthewall.com: Senator Brownback looking to protect auto dealers from new agency, The Hill saysSenator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, plans to introduce legislation in the Senate that would prevent auto dealers from being regulated by a new consumer protection agency, according to the Hill. The Obama administration does not want auto dealers to be shielded from the new agency, which is likely to be created by financial regulatory reform legislation. Reference Link :theflyont

[DubbsFaris]

blah blah blah...fear mongering, blah blah, democ.......blah blah blah

 

Who cares what the fed says or does anymore...Ive lost all respect for the whole lot...they just better stay out of my way having fun and a good life!

[woodworking65]

ame='imprtklr' date='06 April 2010 - 01:30 PM' timestamp='1270585804' post='941783']

 

 

+ 1,000,000! Big Government, big taxes. They want to control everything, force it down our throats and then make us pay for it through taxes. So sick of people buying into the Media hype of Obama who along with Pelosi are driving our once great nation towards bankruptcy. Whatever happened to being rewarded for hard work?? Go back to the basics and educate yourself on the basic fundamentals of why our overgrown government was implemented in the first place. I can assure it was NOT so that they could own car companies!

 

Right On

[gt67]

 

General Motors Loses Even More Money

By John Rosevear

April 7, 2010 | Comments (0)

 

Recs

 

 

1

 

• Email
• Share
• Print

ShareThis //Create your sharelet with desired properties and set button element to false var object = SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "General Motors Loses Even More Money" ,summary: "Even post-restructuring, GM is still posting losses." }, { button: false }); //Tie customized button to ShareThis button functionality. var element = document.getElementById("shareThisWrapper"); object.attachButton(element);

Disney Buys Marvel!

David Gardner called it. He’s up 1,334%! See what David’s recommending that you buy NEXT.

 

 

• Click Here Now

I thought this whole fast-track bankruptcy thing was supposed to have fixed General Motors once and for all.

 

I mean, isn't that what we were told? That with the changes foisted upon the company by the Obama administration -- which included, let us remember, the complete destruction of shareholder value and a rather non-standard interpretation of bondholders' rights -- the New Improved GM would be able to compete on a fair footing with the other big automakers of the world?

 

Remember all that?

 

Well, guess what, fellow taxpayers: GM -- our GM -- is still a loser.

 

Yep, still torching money

On Wednesday morning, General Motors finally released its much-delayed fourth-quarter and 2009 year-end numbers. For the year -- which started on July 10, the date of "New GM"'s emergence from bankruptcy -- the much-vaunted New GM posted a net loss of $4.3 billion, with $3.4 billion lost in the fourth quarter.

 

Now, to be fair, there are some asterisks and special cases that might make that number look worse than it really is -- to quote GM's press release, that loss "includes the pre-tax impact of a $2.6 billion settlement loss related to the UAW retiree medical plan and a $1.3 billion foreign currency remeasurement loss."

 

That "foreign currency remeasurement loss" appears to be accounting-speak for "our currency hedging failed to cover us when the dollar strengthened versus the Euro." They also took a $300 million hit for costs related to winding down the Saturn brand, and a few other things here and there ... the upshot is that excluding all the special items, they still lost several hundred million dollars on operations.

 

That's not a very big loss for a company of GM's size, even the leaner-meaner New GM. But it's still a loss, one that comes after the President of the United States himself arm-twisted who-knows-how-many different parties into giving GM every possible advantage.

 

And you know I've got to say this: Ford (NYSE: F) -- y'know, the guys who didn't have the POTUS doing all that arm-twisting and bondholder-blitzing on their behalf -- managed to make money in 2009.

 

Honda (NYSE: HMC) and Toyota (NYSE: TM) made money during the two quarters of New GM's existence, too.

 

Apparently GM's new-and-improved still -- still! -- has a ways to go.

 

But there are signs of hope -- I think

To be fair, it's not like New GM emerged into the world on July 10 as a completely finished product. There were divisions to sell, bungling CEOs to dismiss (and then rehire), and a whole lot of new accounting to figure out and reconcile -- the new company is a completely new entity, accounting-wise, which means that a direct comparison of its assets and liabilities to Old GM's isn't really possible.

 

Not to mention the ordinary boring challenges of running a far-flung global industrial giant in a hypercompetitive industry during an epic economic downturn.

 

I did, though, expect GM to eke out some sort of token profit for 2009, or at least for the fourth quarter. But they didn't really try to spin the loss, and that's a good sign, in a way. During a conference call that GM held for media and analysts this morning, new CFO Chris Liddell was at pains to downplay GM's successes, saying that he wanted to reverse the practice of "overpromising and underdelivering" going forward.

 

As Liddell noted, that has not always been GM's approach in the past. Liddell said some other things that made me think that the long-hoped-for cultural shift at GM might finally be taking hold:

 

 

• Market share is now "an output, not an input" -- in other words, GM's historical obsession with winning points of market share at whatever cost is now, well, history.
• That the company's goal is to return to an investment-grade credit rating, with a frank acknowledgement that that is likely to take several years.
• That the much-anticipated GM IPO would happen when GM, the equity markets, and the state of the global automotive business were ready for it to happen, and GM wasn't interested in setting any sort of deadline.