Green Car Congress: GMs Lutz: 4% per Year Fuel Economy Proposals Could Add $6,000 to Vehicle Cost

« Boral and IVECO Partner on CNG Cement Mixer Trucks | Main | Daihatsu Motor and RITE Developing Non-Thermal Plasma Emissions Control for Diesel Minicars »

GM’s Lutz: 4% per Year Fuel Economy Proposals Could Add $6,000 to Vehicle Cost

5 April 2007

Proposed nominal international fuel economy standards. Due to the different test cycles used in different countries, a normalized plot would likely show a wider gap between the US and others. (An and Sauer, 2004) Click to enlarge.

Speaking to reporters after unveiling the three GM concept minicars at the New York International auto show, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said that meeting a mandated increase in fuel economy of 4% per year could add $5,000 to $6,000 to a vehicle’s cost.

Following President Bush’s State of the Union address in which he proposed such a 4% per year increase in fuel economy through 2017, Congress has introduced a number of bills, with some variations, built around that basic approach.

“You tell me what happens to the market if these cars come out and everybody looks at the one they own and the new one is six or seven thousand dollars more expensive,” Lutz said.“This technology does not come for free.”

US Transportation Secretary Mary Peters countered Lutz’s assessment, saying that the 4% proposals are “realistic.” A Bush Administration analysis of its proposal concluded it would cost the auto industry $114 billion between 2010 and 2017, including $40 billion for GM. The Administration also said that increased savings on fuel would offset the increased cost to the consumer.

Lutz said that wider use of E85 would accomplish a far greater reduction in gasoline consumption and reliance on foreign oil than an increase in fuel economy, and suggested a national push on building out the E85 infrastructure. He did not suggest where the ethanol would come from.

Lutz also said that while GM will build at least one of the minicars, it currently was unlikely that GM will offer them for sale in the US, absent a prolonged increase in fuel prices or an “unforeseen” change in fashion for small cars in the country.

Lutz said that all of the minicars would get in the high 40 or 50 mpg fuel economy range, could be priced starting at $10,000 and could be built in either China or India. The vehicles currently are not being designed to meet US safety requirements.

April 5, 2007 in Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (80) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/17497882

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM’s Lutz: 4% per Year Fuel Economy Proposals Could Add $6,000 to Vehicle Cost:

Comments

Lutz is an over-paid carnival barker!

Posted by: DS | Apr 5, 2007 11:45:07 AM

Between smaller pistons, lighter blocks and components, turbochargers, diesel and electric motors, cats and particle filters, I can see maybe $2K per car. $114B sounds like a helluva full retail "getting dragged down the hall kicking and screaming" fee.

Posted by: fred | Apr 5, 2007 11:49:58 AM

Small cars and hybrids are flying off the lots, a sub-compact could be in the works that gets 40-50mpg for $5000 less than current compact offerings, but somehow we're adding $5-6k to the vehicle's cost? Do taller highway gearing, less weight, and smaller engines cost $5-6k more? Unless he's referring to a plug-in hybridization of every model, wth is he going on about?

Posted by: yesplease | Apr 5, 2007 11:50:50 AM

One of the news stories on the minicars quoted someone from GM as saying that their internal projections say that US gasoline will be in the $2.50 range "for some time."

If that's an accurate depiction of their assessment of the oil market, then heaven help them, their employees, and their suppliers.

Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Apr 5, 2007 11:55:13 AM

NONSENSE, Toyota and Honda are already doing it. GM is bent on holding on to their failing business model. Fight innovation, sue CARB/CAFE, sell large vehicles with large profit margins. Once gas hits $4-$5 people will start buying more practical cars. We are one crisis away from this happening. Then GM will be caught with their pants down...again. Although I would love to see an American company make it big again, with attitudes like this they and Ford will go down with the ship. Already the gains from Hybrids are being put into increasing performance NOT mileage, an oxymoron if eve I heard one.

Posted by: aal | Apr 5, 2007 11:56:38 AM

“You tell me what happens to the market..." If you can't compete in the market then you go under. If Lutz and everyone else at GM believes his obvious lie then they should just pull the plug now and fold. GM is heading that way without new regulations, so why should we (Car buyers)suffer with lousy cars while the government props up their incompetence? GM's business model seems to be based on Iraq strategies, or is it the other way around? How pathetic and embarrassing, does anyone believe his rhetoric? (other than Bush that is) Ethanol and Chinese minicars will not save GM, just go away GM and stop bothering us with the constant lies and excuses.

Posted by: ed | Apr 5, 2007 11:57:46 AM

"GM’s Lutz: Proposed 4% per Year Fuel Economy Proposals Could Add $6,000 to Vehicle Cost"

Or you downsize, slightly, from whatever level you're at, and get 10%+ fuel economy improvement, while saving money on the vehicle was well.

Shorter: "could" is a wonderful word.

Posted by: odograph | Apr 5, 2007 12:00:15 PM

Hmmm, 4% improvement compounded yearly on a current 4 cylinder camry turns out to be the same combined gas mileage on a camry hybrid...except that is 9 years of improvements taken care of today.

They sure have no problem increasing horsepower & torque 5-10% every year.

Posted by: Patrick | Apr 5, 2007 12:03:31 PM

Lutz's comments are telling of why the domestics are in the predicament they're in. Instead of lobbying against progress- GM, Ford, and DCX should embrace the efficiency challenge that the market demands.

A regime change is being played out before our eyes, folks. Look at March's automobile sales results: domestics continue to bleed money while Toyota & Honda (the alleged "green" car manufacturers) posted 7-8% gains. Consumers are voting with their pocket books and the domestics are clearly "ot of touch" with the demands of the market.

GM goes on a public relations push to trump calls for efficiency while releasing more powerful versions of their Hummer H2, H3, Buicks, etc at the New York auto show. Then they peddle 3 "concept" micro cars (that the US market desperately needs) and ask us to vote for them (never telling the public they have no intentions of building them for US consumption.) What kind of insane marketing scheme is that? Ask the US consumer to vote for a vehicle destined for the Chinese and Indian markets? Or were these 3 concepts displayed in NY to give GM the appearance of being "green." You decide.

Now over-hyped Lutz and their media monkeys go on the O'Reilly Factor and spout nonsense about how GM US models have the same fuel economy standards as European models. Gibberish; it's all smoke and mirrors.

How is Ford's turn around plan doing? In the news today Ford awarded CEO Mulally an exorbitant pay package while they fired thousands of salaried workers. Yes, they need to thin out the unions- but has Mulally earned his compensation. Not yet, in my eyes.

Chrysler is in such bad shape it can only muster a $4.5 billion offer from Kerkorian.

Such is the sad state of the US automobile industry sector.

Posted by: DieselHybrid | Apr 5, 2007 12:13:41 PM

Well, just get rid of your bigger engine offerings V8s etc. and also the big, heavy vehicles and you could save many percentages instantly. People are getting smarter. Apparently, GM is not. They expect people to buy their heavy and inefficient cars for ever.

Posted by: Eko | Apr 5, 2007 12:25:25 PM

Jeeze, what a jerk. Pissing into the wind.

Posted by: Nick | Apr 5, 2007 12:30:53 PM

Solution is easy. Buy a prius. They start at 22k.

Posted by: Burritos | Apr 5, 2007 12:41:39 PM

this guy gets a bonus ? what sort of sick world do these people live in !

Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 5, 2007 12:43:29 PM

Dear GM,

Will you please just take a gun and blow out your brains already? Let the true innovators innovate.

Posted by: burritos | Apr 5, 2007 12:44:37 PM

It is time to give Lutz the Roger Smith treatment -- double his retirement package to reward him for such fine leadership -- and lay off all the workers.

Posted by: JMartin | Apr 5, 2007 1:07:54 PM

We, the buyers, are sending a hard message to GM-Ford-Chrysler by not buying their gas guzzlers.

If Big-3 sales go down another 5% to 10% a month and the Small-3 (Toyota & Honda & Nissan) go up at the same scale, it won't be long before the stock holders react and high paid managers are thrown out.

Otherwise, the Small-3 may become the Big-3 sooner than we think.

Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 5, 2007 1:10:13 PM

It seems to me that the big issues relative to the cost of compliance is whether new technology like "the camless engine" and the "homogeneous charge compression ignition engine" are satisfactorily developed within the time constraints of the law.
In the case of the battery for a plug in hybrid, the issue is whether a battery of sufficient capacity for 20 to 40 mile battery only range and 150,000 mile durability can be developed and sold at a low enough price to allow payback in terms of energy costs saved within that same 150,000 miles.

Posted by: RCA | Apr 5, 2007 1:11:46 PM

I sort of find this post hard to believe , I have read it time and time again
can this man really be this stupid ! or is just some clever confidence trick
Here in europe we can buy buckets full of sub compacts each retailing
at around 12 to 13000 dollars and all capable of returning 45mpg most
are well made, safe and comfortable , why is it all so different in GM land !

Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 5, 2007 1:19:34 PM

andri:

How many of those 45mpg cars are diesels that would not meet California and EPA NOx and particular emissions regulations?

We have traded efficiency for cleaner air, at the cost of more CO2 emissions. If CA and the EPA would relax the NOx regs a little bit, we'd have a flood of much more efficient cars and SUVs on the road.

Posted by: Cervus | Apr 5, 2007 1:40:46 PM

The answers are out there!

People do want more efficient cars (see the Volt vote)

The technology is already here and being used by GM in other parts of the world (see http://www.p4tp.org/transportationpolicy5-1.html and http://www.suvsolutions.org/blueprint.html)

The market is already moving in this direction (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070403/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales)

Oil is not coming down in price (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/4tab.html for the next 2 years and http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appb.pdf)

What the hell is GM waiting for, I desperately want the US to have a viable and vibrant auto industry, but please, what has to happen for GM to take notice?

Posted by: Kevin | Apr 5, 2007 2:00:16 PM

KLutz,

Always the doomsday scenario, so that when things actually do pan out (ie Volt), he'll look like a hero. On the other hand, if he actually believes increasing fuel economy will increase cost $5-6 grand, GM will be insolvent by 2008. Idiotic statement.

Posted by: dave | Apr 5, 2007 2:02:23 PM

Cervus
Fiat panda petrol , fiat punto petrol , polo petrol , skoda fabia petrol , Yaris,
honda jazz , even Gm make one in europe the opel corsa , Seat make the arosa ,
smart 4 two and 4 four , the list is endless , even the new golf 1.4 petrol returns
more than 40mpg .
The problem is that in America your manufacturers have got you all over
a barrel , thats an oil barrel of course !

Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 5, 2007 2:14:13 PM

"fuel economy of 4% per year could add $5,000 to $6,000 to a vehicle’s cost." That's one way of looking at it. Another view is that a $10,000 minicar costs 20% the price of a $50K suburban, while returning a fuel usage approximately inversely proportional to the price of the respective vehicles. Of course the profit margin is not going to be nearly as fat on a minicar as it is for putting navigation, a leather interior, and air ride suspension on a truck and calling it a "Luxury SUV." This whining might be a little easier to stomach if it were not for the fact that their cash cows are huge, inefficient SUVs, and as Patrick noted earlier, they are increasing the torque and HP at a rate higher than the mandated 4% fuel economy increase. I would love to see GM change its ways and start selling appealing, fuel efficient cars in the North America (like they do in other parts of the world), but talk like this makes me doubtful that it will ever happen.

Posted by: Bob Bastard | Apr 5, 2007 2:18:23 PM

Lutz said wider use of E85, the 85% ethanol fuel blend, would accomplish a far greater reduction in gasoline consumption and reliance on foreign oil than any fuel economy increase.

Could GM take another survey...of how much(K)Lutz makes the planets brains hurt?

Posted by: fred | Apr 5, 2007 2:18:42 PM

If GM makes no changes to their auto mix and continues to emphasize monsters on the high end in terms of size, weight, and performance, and focuses solely on making those offerings with improved mileage at 4% per year, then, yeh, that will cost a bundle.

But GM knows that a 4% per year increase will require them to concentrate more on the low end in terms of size, weight, and performance. GM knows it cannot compete and win on that end of the automobile spectrum; therefore requirements for increase mileage may very well mean a significantly decreased market share and the dominance of Toyota, Honda, and others.

On the other hand, consumers could demand a change in the market right now by voting with their dollars. They choose not to and will only respond if and when their is an increase in gas prices (through taxation or not) of at least 100%, maybe more.

But do not the auto companies have some influence over their own markets? Or is all that advertising just a monstrous waste of money?

Advertising of cigarettes was banned because of their impact on human health. Advertising of gas guzzling autos, especially monster trucks and monster SUVs should be banned because of their impact on both human and planetary health.

Posted by: tom | Apr 5, 2007 2:27:13 PM

Tom:

We've discussed the Big 3's legacy costs here several times. A friend of mine who has been a line worker at GM for 25 years tells me that they lose money on small cars. It's understandable that they would focus on their most profitable vehicles, SUVs. GM alone has hundreds of thousands of retiree pension and health care costs to deal with.

People who want the company to die need to think of the consequences to the American economy if that should happen.

That said, an intractable organizational culture that goes back decades is part of the company's major problems.

Ultimately, if public sentiment really does change to smaller vehicles, it's their management's inability to see such change and direct their product development in the right direction that will kill the company. That GM developed these three concepts, as well as the Volt, might indicate that they DO have a Clue.

What will end up happening is that they'll build them in South Korea and China where they don't have the legacy costs to deal with.

Posted by: Cervus | Apr 5, 2007 2:45:53 PM

Lutz and his media monkeys throw out "sensationalist" claims like these to scare the public into voting against those who demand higher fuel economy standards. I'd be curious to see how much money GM and other auto manufacturers have funneled into politicians' pockets in order to perpetuate the status quo.

E85 is not a viable solution. It is just a loophole GM and the domestics wish to fully exploit in order to continue selling their complete line-up of gas-guzzling V8s: Hemis, Hummers, Expeditions, Escalades, Explorers, Yukons, Suburbans, full-size pickups, etc., etc.

And when the market demands change (every time oil spikes the need to ween ourselves off of foreign oil is brought to the center of the American psyche)- the bureaucratic intertia of these companies (as evidenced in Lutz's comments) costs us thousands of US jobs in "restructuring."

Surely more must be done to pull the domestic leadership's collective heads out of the sand? How many more months of losses can GM, Ford, Chrysler absorb before they become a total burden (through bankruptcy and bail-out) on the US taxpayer?

I've voted with my checkbook- I bought an import for my wife and kids. And as soon as my domestic daily driver dies I'll probably be forced to buy another import.
This is no small task for a loyal & patriotic red-white-and-blue "only-buy-American" 18-year military servicemember.

Posted by: DieselHybrid | Apr 5, 2007 2:49:31 PM

So what? Find a way to make the car more affordable rather than whine about the price increase!

Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr. | Apr 5, 2007 3:31:53 PM

Statements like Lutz' are the death rattle of what's left of American ingenuity and competitiveness. We used to be able to do anything, and now it's just "can't, can't, can't."

It's really won't, won't, won't. He's playing to his thick-headed monster-truck customers. "The 'merican way of life is non-negotiable." Just plant more industrial crops and use more of our dwindling aquifers to feed E85 to the machines. Couldn't possibly make the machines better and more efficient, could we?

They've only got a few years left before reality hits them all over the head with a 4x4.

Posted by: BlackSun | Apr 5, 2007 3:50:12 PM

According to Wards Autodata
http://wardsauto.com/keydata/USSalesSummary0703.xls

Prius is #9 among cars in 1st 3 months of this year.
No SUV is in Top-10 among trucks.

There are 4 Pickups, 3 Vans, 3 CUV's.
Infact, CUV's are slowly sliding up and automakers are finding it hard to sell Pickups.

Pickups may also follow the trend of SUV's.

Time for Big-3 to rethink about the market.

Posted by: Max Reid | Apr 5, 2007 3:52:00 PM

Lets see, you raise the CAFE 4% a year, and some where down the
road the cost of this more efficient vehicle goes up $4,000-
$6,000 over the next 10 years. With the current US inflation rate, and the future money saved on MPG efficiency, due to higher oil prices from India and China getting in the game, it is a net gain to keep these Dollars at home. More countries will continue to compete for the same or declining oil output. With the ongoing slide of the dollar in foriegn currency markets, and the amount of US currency being held by Foreign oil producers, it is a net inflow of capital from Dollars that would have otherwise left this country to begin with. This savings would line the pocket of every person who has to pay interest on the Fedral Budget Deficit that is growing daily. That translates into more money supply to afford the very vehicle that is supposed to be "more expensive". Exactly who do you want holding and controling the future of our financial markets? Especially the The Federal Reserve! I prefer to have those people who produce the goods and services within this country to have a choice of where and how they spend their energy dollars. Financial security and National security are hand in hand. GM better get a grip before their shareholders loose theirs.

Posted by: William | Apr 5, 2007 3:54:23 PM

The short sellers kick back 4% profits from the Lutz churn machine; compounded that is... hmmm. How easy to quake the ranks with a single "press release." It's a security pump no matter how you look at it and... one of the oldest spin rackets in the business. Trick is to sell short now, buy back before the PHEV intro.

Posted by: gr | Apr 5, 2007 4:13:18 PM

Hi All,

They could probably achieve a 4% increase by implementing the psuedo-atkinson cruise mode right now on the standard Honda Accord. That has to be like a less than $500 modification.

Put a little aerodynamics to work and they would probably up to 10 % improvement. I mean, these SUV's and Chrysler macho fronts ends are just plain billboard drag coefficients. Over the life of a car that costs nothing.

Posted by: donee | Apr 5, 2007 5:10:05 PM

"meeting a 4% increase would require hybrid systems and other technology on nearly every vehicle and could add $5,000 to $6,000 to a vehicle's cost."

_That is if you do a decade's worth of fuel efficiency improvements in one year. The key is to ramp up component production smoothly, and rapidly to take exploit scale of economy. One year, its DI (injectors, pumps, etc), the next start-stop (microhybrid) parts. Continue this pattern over a decade, and GM will move all the way up to 2-mode hybrids (or its successor), and Tier2Bin5 (or better) diesels. Granted, this is a tight schedule to meet, but they must or they are doomed to shrink (in NA at least).

Posted by: allen_xl_z | Apr 5, 2007 6:12:23 PM

I believe many of you sincerely, truly, deep-in-your-heart want GM (and Ford and Chrysler) to "figure it out" and start providing more fuel efficient vehicles. Otherwise, why would there be so many posts complaining about these guys?

I personally think it's funny to see the sales numbers from the March report and then hear Lutz make those remarks. Ladies and Gentlemen, the market is speaking. If GM, et al. don't "figure it out" soon, then someone else is going to take the lead. It's that simple.

One final thought is the notion of GM, Ford, and Chrysler being good ol' red-white-and-blue. What American branded car does not have parts that come from some other country? What non-American car company isn't assembling cars here on US soil? The lines are blurred beyond distinction. The point is, it doesn't matter! We have cars built around the world by companies originating around the world. We're global.

Posted by: TheGiant | Apr 5, 2007 6:57:56 PM

T. Boone Pickens was quoted over at EV World as seeing oil hitting $80 per barrel this year. I doubt that if this occurs GM would wake up...what is the freaking point of voting on the next Chevy concept car if you have no intention of selling in the US? Liars...

Posted by: Eddie | Apr 5, 2007 7:23:18 PM

The report, suvsolutions.org , is typical of government bureaucrats that quote sources who do not have to back up their claims with production vehicles.
The 20% fuel economy improvement claimed for direct injection is not attainable according to the most recent statements by BMW, Denso, Bosch etc in either a stoichiometric or lean burn engine.
When incorporating changes like these the final vehicle never achieves the projected improvements because the individual changes are not additive.

Posted by: RCA | Apr 5, 2007 7:39:17 PM

Dear GM,

Toyota will drive you into bankrupcy. How can they sell the Prius for $22,000?

Wake up now!

Posted by: AutoXprize - 100MPG challenge | Apr 5, 2007 8:05:30 PM

$5,000 or $6,000 dollar increase in price per car over 10 years or bankruptcy?

Frankly, the first option seems quite a bit better for GM, but given the remarkable, profitable performance of GM under men like Lutz, I'm inclined to believe that they will not actually pick the option that is good for the company.

Posted by: Aaron | Apr 5, 2007 8:21:21 PM

As I have said before, the only way to save GM is to fire the lobbyists, and start building good cars.

Posted by: Energex42 | Apr 5, 2007 8:51:32 PM

Instead of wasting ethanol on E85 or even E10, let's see GM buy the rights to the Ford-MIT ethanol-DI engine. Drop power by 20% (savings right there), then cut the size and weight of the engine in half through turbocharging. The engine alone is 30%, the cut in power might save another 5%. Cut the weight of the other components which used to support the original engine, add aerodynamic tweaks, you're probably up to 40% (and restore a lot of the lost performance). There's 10 years of 4% improvements right there.

The reason GM "can't" do this is because GM is run by finance and marketing people, not engineers. If GM listened to its engineers they'd have boatloads of fuel-savings in store, just like if Ford had listened to its engineers 15 years ago it could have had a PHEV out the door before the end of the Clinton administration.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 5, 2007 8:52:10 PM

You fools need to realize that all cars including the hybrids will be required to increase their fuel economy 4% per year. Your 40 mpg car will have to get 41.6 mpg next year, 43.3 mpg in 2009, 45 mpg in 2010 and will have to get 59.2 mpg in 2017.
Have any of the car manufactures increase the fuel economy for a specific model, engine and transmission in the last 5 years? New models will have to increase at this same 4%, so if you start low you will have a better chance of making the incremental increase.

Posted by: Ed Danzer | Apr 5, 2007 9:02:22 PM

This is total manure. These companies are capable of giving us cars capable of going 40-50 mpg, but they are telling us it will cost 5,000-6,000 more?! What's the foreign cars makers excuse then?! To hell with GM and Ford! Make them produce these cars with any means necessary!

Posted by: Gerald Shields | Apr 5, 2007 9:19:19 PM

Morover, they need to get rid of their "Big Oil" stockholders and start shipping those concept cars that never get shipped.

Posted by: Gerald Shields | Apr 5, 2007 9:24:59 PM

Why small or fuel efficient car should be exclusively from GM? On US market there are small Honda Fit (33/38 mpg), Mini (32/40), Nissan Versa (30/34), Toyota Yaris 34/40. For GM lovers there is Kia Rio (32/35). Sales of these cars are sluggish, because much more versatile and powerful Corolla (32/41), Sentra (28/34), Civic (30/38) offer comparable fuel efficiency and much more bung for a buck. For seriously fuel-consumption-savvy there are Prius (60/51), Civic hybrid (49/51), or bigger Camry hybrid (40/38). Mini, Civic, and all hybrids are highly technically sophisticated and offer tons of upgrades and options. Why it is fault of GM that US public prefers oversized and overpowered cars, or clumsy SUV?

BTW, for second year in the row 20 GM executives do not get their bonuses (if that matter for anyone; Wagooner paycheck is 2.2 M and Lutz paycheck is 1.55 M). GM is turning profit for 4 quarters in the row, and future estimations are solid. GM shares gained 50% in last year, and if GM decided to concentrate on big vehicle market – all the best, it is their decision and their pain. If this decision will be mortal for GM, so be it. Chapter 11 is a good way to get rid of legacy financial obligations and UAW, and turn the company around under wiser leadership.

Posted by: Andrey | Apr 5, 2007 9:27:36 PM

And that's the main reason you should get a Pruis! Protest GM and Ford's inepitude. Get a Prius or a Yaris! To heck with E85 also. Ethanol won't resolve these issues and it bumps up the price of corn and other things too.

Posted by: Gerald Shields | Apr 5, 2007 9:46:37 PM

You fools need to realize that all cars including the hybrids will be required to increase their fuel economy 4% per year. Your 40 mpg car will have to get 41.6 mpg next year, 43.3 mpg in 2009, 45 mpg in 2010 and will have to get 59.2 mpg in 2017.
That's silly. It isn't going to work that way. Why should it? To punish the guys who are not contributing to the problem?

Posted by: George | Apr 5, 2007 10:25:58 PM

Current GM subcompact Chevy Cobalt is:

2.2 l, 148hp, 25/34 mpg, disk/drum brakes, semi-independent rear suspension, 2991 lb vehicle with awful long-time reliability history.

Manufacture 1.8 liter VVT hydraulic and roller cam followers high-rev 160 hp engine, 32/40 mpg, disk/disk brakes, 5 speed automatic tranny, independent rear suspension, 2500 lb weight, aluminum hood & brake &calipers & wheels standard, long-lasting gaskets and AC, rust resistant exhaust, iridium spark plug and K&N air filter subcompact, backed with 7 years warranty, and witness Japanese import fold to oblivion, at least for couple of years.

Is it beyond capability?

Posted by: Andrey | Apr 6, 2007 2:43:18 AM

This is complete rubbish.

Remember GM sell cars in Europe too (Opel/Vauxhall).

We had a mid-size vehicle called the Astra which was available as an ordinary gasoline version (32 mpg US), a diesel version (46 mpg US) and a economical version of the diesel, termed the ECO4 (55 mpg US).

The only changes made to the ECO4 to make it so economical were:

1) Plastic panel underneath to smooth airflow.
2) Slight changes to skirtings/spoilers (with above cut Cd from 0.30 to 0.28).
3) Lower rolling resistance tyres.
4) Longer ratio 4th and 5th gears.

The additional cost, to GM and consumer, was ZERO!

And yet it still managed to get over 75 mpg US on real roads at real traffic speeds:

http://www.sycamores.co.uk/news/july01_astra.htm

There is NOTHING to stop GM producing the ECO4 again and turning a profit on it.

Posted by: clett | Apr 6, 2007 2:49:57 AM

Andrey - how much would your idea cost? Considering the fact that due to legacy costs GM make little to no proffit on smaller cars would that really be a good idea.
The reason euro/asian manufacturors can make profits on these cars is that they don't pay out billions in pensions and health care. Perhaps chapter 11 to get rid of these costs would help GM in the long run?

On the other hand, if Lutz thinks biofuels are the answer why arn't all GM products E85/biodiesel ready?

Posted by: James | Apr 6, 2007 4:45:38 AM

Hey Lutz, don't sweat it. Toyota will put you out of bussiness.

Posted by: mark | Apr 6, 2007 4:50:59 AM

James, all stuff I described costs close to nothing. Couple of hundreds bucks over regular production cost of Chevy Cobalt. It is not Chevy Volt, or hydrogen FC vehicle. Yet I believe it could make a big difference in sales.

Mark: do not kid yourself. GM is yet the biggest automaker for a reason.

Posted by: Andrey | Apr 6, 2007 5:26:37 AM

The market will take care of this whether the big three gets on board or not. It is already in motion and it has taken them this long to figure it out.
How much does a Civic cost?

Posted by: Paul | Apr 6, 2007 5:59:26 AM

Is there a better way than a yearly 4%, across the board, fuel consumption reduction?

Another way would be to set yearly and 2020 objectives for each category, for example:

By 2020:

1) Micro cars = 100 mpg
2) Minicars = 90 mpg
3) Small/compacts = 80 mpg
4) Intermediates & small suvs = 70 mpg
5) Large cars/suvs + pick ups = 60 mpg
6) Very large pick-ups/vans = 50 mpg.
7) Etc. (if required)

Such a scheme could be adjusted to average 4% per year but should force gas guzzler manufacturers to do relatively more or downsize oe limit production etc.

There chould be a per vehicle penalty and bonus (up to $500/mpg and/or $5k) for not meeting or do better than the set goals. The Canadian Federal government has just started such a revenue nuetral scheme with
-$4K for gas guzzlers and +$2K for hybrids and high mpg cars. It may not be perfect but it is a good start. A range of -$5k to +$5k may be needed if this one do not work.

Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 6, 2007 7:00:07 AM

The obvious solution to GM's problems with meeting proposed fuel efficiency targets is to institute national health care, thus unburdening the company from its legacy health care costs. Then it could build the Astra (with body and hybrid variants) in north America for a profit. This WILL HAPPEN in the next 2-4 years or it's taps for GM and Ford.

Chrysler, as we all know, is going under the gavel. Toyota is the likely buyer, needing the truck capacity the most. The nameplates of Dodge and Chrysler are so damaged that it is unlikely that they will be recycled. A purchase by any other entity doesn't make economic sense to me.

Posted by: JC | Apr 6, 2007 7:59:30 AM

Shatter proof windshields, seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, horns, lower emissions, antilock brakes, and fuel economy. GM has fought them all and many more.

Any corporation is ONLY "legally" accountable for maximizing profits for their stockholders. In this case, it’s Big Oil. http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm

An “entity” like a corporation has no heart or conscience and is not bound by things such as “morals” or “ethics.” They are bound only by LAW. They only have to tell the WHOLE truth under oath and a half-truth is the blackest of lies because it can be partially defended. Is Mr. Lutz under oath? I didn’t think so… always follow the money!

Posted by: Tim | Apr 6, 2007 8:09:55 AM

Yes, (K)Lutz is clueless, but GM produces low mileage cars with higher horse-power because that's what USA customers buy. Forcing incremental changes to Internal-Combustion-Engine-only cars is a waste of resources. The days of the ICE-only cars are coming to an end. PHEVs can produce far greater improvements AND still benefit from improvements to ICE as part of generator. Altair Nanotechnologies battery can already deliver the power. A123 batteries just set motorcycle 0-60 record. All we need is economies of scale to bring the battery price down and a good PHEV design will easily out sell even the Prius. This is obviously the future. Anything else is just transitional. Forget about punishing fines to promote incremental changes. Support positive incentives for higher order changes. Rep. Camp's tax credits for PHEVs and EVs:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/03/congressman_pro_1.html#more (Tax Credit for PHEVs – March 2007)
“tax credit for the purchase of vehicles with larger battery packs, such as plug-in hybrids or battery electric vehicles” “at least a 4 kWh battery pack” “lesser of either 10% of the cost of the vehicle or $4,000 plus $250 for each additional kilowatt hour of battery capacity above 4 kWh up to 50 kWh”
http://camp.house.gov/press/PressRelease.aspx?NewsID=1830
Many of you at this site are motor-heads, fixated on the idea of significant improvements available for the ICE. Sure, the potential for improvement is there, but it is insignificant relative to what PHEVs and EVs can acheive in terms of reduction in oil imports and reduction in pollutants. Look at what EVs could do even 5 years ago and what they can do now. Suddenly there cars with way better performance than the EV1 being sold for profit by several small companies, with significant further improvement to battery price/performance on the horizon. Let's kick this into higher gear with incentives! If the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, or Europeans get there faster than GM, then tough GM. Give GM the PHEV chance to leap-frog and that's it. Fish or cut bait!
Why CAFE? Because it worked so well years ago in CA?

Posted by: mds | Apr 6, 2007 9:05:08 AM

I don't know if someone else mentioned it before me, but GM is bringing the Astra over as the new Saturn Ion in 08. I can't remember where I heard this, but I'm fairly sure the Corsa is coming over as well, although I don't think in 08. Check http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/12/08/saturn-astra-replaces-the-ion-for-2008-no-more-plastic-bodies/

Posted by: anonymous | Apr 6, 2007 9:41:38 AM

Detroit has a long history of exagerating costs of government mandates. In the 60s it was safety improvements. In the 70s it was pollution controls. The 80s saw the first round of mileage improvements. The 90s was just record profit upon record profit. Now in the new century they cry in their martinis at the country club and whine about how they can't repeat what they did in the 80s. If a large vehicle like the Dodge Sprinter can get double the mileage of equally heavy SUVs then it just shows how stupid Lutz is. 150 HP is more than enough power for any vehicle.

Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 6, 2007 10:07:38 AM

GM's problem, as well as the other couple US automakers, is that they have been in the business of making MONEY for too long. With couple of exceptions, they have forgot how to make GREAT CARS.

Posted by: BillW | Apr 6, 2007 10:23:30 AM

An increase of 4% is too much? I know of a guy who got an increase of 28% from his pick-up just by changing its aerodynamics.
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=870

Posted by: ai_vin | Apr 6, 2007 10:55:08 AM

I hate to agree with all the negative comments because I want the US to be on top in every sector of business, but GM is doing a terrible job of PR and in delivering any answers to the oil crisis. Just talking ethanol is plain dumb. Why? because we cant make enough now even if we all converted. For GM, who has thousands of full time empoyees to say it cant get done is BS. What they are truely saying is it cant get done with a 100% profit margin we have come to expect.
I advise GM to close now before Toyota shames them with a 100mpg Prius.

Posted by: Bob | Apr 6, 2007 11:34:25 AM

When GM gets national health care they aren't going to change their products. They will just lower their expenses and enjoy the larger profits.

I say 'when' because I expect national health care next year just in time for the elections.

But the CAFE settings no longer matter. The US consumer will buy what seems to offer better mileage and value. It took decades but that trend is clear.

As to Lutz. His PR ideas are obviously not current. Thumping the fender of a 700hp Camaro concept car isn't going to work anymore. But he may very well have great skills in areas harder to see e.g. costs, personnel, team direction, etc. He looks like 1965 to me but GM likes him.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler can do as they wish but they will survive only by doing what customers wish.

Many in the US think our $3 gasoline is just temporary - another periodic gouge by big oil or another world dominant shadow. But many others see that gasoline will be $3 then $4 then $5. Yes there will be dips along the way.

Posted by: K | Apr 6, 2007 12:28:19 PM

Yeah, the US consumer will buy what seems to offer better mileage, IF they know which cars do that.
Have you seen the adverts? They're all about emotions not facts like MPG. Try finding the MPG rating in one, you'll get eyestrain. Why? Because MPG is a number that can tell you 'this car is better than that car' as a fact. Horsepower wont do that because hp without reference to weight (among other things) doesn't tell you how the car performs.

Its the ads that have changed America for the worst. Americans use to love small cars, they made the VW bug into a best seller, couldn't get enough of the early vettes, etc. but then the big 3 wanted to sell you big cars. I once heard (don't quote me it may be wrong) that over the last 20 years they have spent between $1-2 BILLION each year marketing SUVs. That's more than _all_ the other types of cars combined.

Americans will act but only if they know to act. People are like sheep = sheeple, most times they just do what they're told.

Posted by: ai_vin | Apr 6, 2007 1:19:10 PM

GM talking E85 is a lot like saying they would make the Volt when batteries are available. Both seem to be delay tactics to hold off sales to other companies until they can get their act together. It does not seem to be stopping people from buying Toyota cars.

Posted by: SJC | Apr 6, 2007 3:30:39 PM

the difference is that all these new fuels bring about a certain level of redundancy
which makes money for the car companies , you just cannot switch your exsisting
car over to run on E85 or any of the other fuels so you buy a new car , in this
case GM will be glad to sell to you .
However once we have electric cars , then the whole thing is much simpler
if a new type of battery is launched giving better range , shorter charging time etc
then you can always adapt it to power your car , this of course would open the door to a whole new industry which hopefully would be outside the control of the car
or oil companies , cars would last longer with the need to replace every few years
a thing of the past , incuring less waste in the long run .
Its all very well but this is one of the reasons why we will never be able to buy
an electric car from the likes of Mr Lutz , it simply does not make enconomic sense in their world .
So I think it is up to those of us who can , and have sufficient funds to go out
and buy an electric car now , it may not have the range that you think you need at the moment , but that will all change in the future , the important thing is to get
them out on to the road , and into public awareness , I am afraid that all the comments in the world on this site and others are not going to change anything
exchanging hard cash will .

Posted by: andrichrose | Apr 7, 2007 5:48:22 AM

MDS gets it right. Incentives go much further than price hikes. Let the consumer conclude that the purchase that kicks back cash will also save a bundle in fuel costs.

Posted by: gr | Apr 7, 2007 1:06:17 PM

This is so disheartening. It is such a basic statement that GM is unwilling to change, and unwilling to compete.

The cost of start-stop, better alternator/battery management, taller gearing and some weight reduction could not possibly exceed $1500, and would garner 15-25% gains. Add in diesel, and incremental technological improvements in combustion, battery technology, weight management, tire design, and electronic systems management, and 50% gains are probably achievable over ten years with no more than that $1500 cost.

Bottom line, Lutz is afraid that he'll never win that race, becuase it involves innovation and change.

Second bottom line, he should be fired. Today. The US economy, GM's board, shareholders, employees and retirees all deserve someone with courage and willingness to execute, not this pathetic lobbyist pretending to be a corporate CEO

Posted by: Dollared | Apr 9, 2007 2:33:39 PM

One last golden Lutz nugget in the NYT 4/7..."Anybody who thinks that the auto industry will invent some sort of device that will eliminate or absorb CO2 is dreaming".
Turbo and supercharging allow smaller displacements. hence lower CO2. Diesel is right up there...do those count Bob?

Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Apr 9, 2007 5:11:05 PM

Ok, I've read the article here, the article at the Detroit press, and Lutz's allegedly horrid comments.
I can't see what the big deal is. I am probably finding this article too late as by now everybody has spouted their 3 cents, and then some. But here goes
anyway:

Let's look at what Lutz said.

"...six or seven thousand dollars more expensive, this technology does not come for free."

Right on in my opinion. How? I believe Lutz is suggesting that in order to eventually hit or even exceed the proposed CAFE regulations, even if they are incremental as the government suggests, will require the collective U.S. fleet to be converted to all hybrids and diesels. Anyone with a little background on this subject knows that with complexity and new technology come added cost. A hybrid of any form, costs $3000-$6000 more than a regular ICE model. A Clean diesel costs thousands more than even a regular diesel due to the more complex emissions controls.
The new lithium ion batteries coming out are considerably more expensive than the Nickel ones.
I've read that to convert your regular Prius to a plug-in hybrid version is a $10,000 add, and voids all of your warranties. So with all that said, he's right--if Automakers are forced to produce all of their cars to be clean diesels and hybrids, that won't come for nothing. Even Toyota, who can do no wrong, will charge $3000-$4000 more for the added technology for a hybrid. And what will happen when Automakers eventually switch to Lithium batteries? More money of course. This is all no-brainer stuff as far as I'm concerned--again, I can't see what everyone is up in a huff about. This is Hybrids 101.

Most of us may already know that Lutz is not a fan of the CAFE regulations and never was. I'm not either.
They are a joke in my opinion. The Government can try and regulate the car companies until they are blue in the face, and it really won't do a bit of good. The only thing that turns peoples' heads, are big gas price spikes. A sting in the wallet is the only thing that really gets noticed. Al Gore may be a heck of a nice guy, but a little documentary won't get peoples'
attention like a gas price spike. So again, I think Lutz is right about CAFE reg's. and their inability to change market direction.

Now the E85 comments. Most of us here know that the U.S. can't make enough Ethanol to completely displace all of the imported oil we use. I don't think he's suggesting that. He is saying, E85 conversions to the U.S. fleet would be a relatively easy and cheap baby step for getting started towards lower emissions and fuel independance. GM is ahead of every body else in that regard. Nothing earth shattering about his comments here in that regard either.

Now as to the blatent disrespect that runs rampant around here. I'm all for sharing ideas and opinions or I wouldn't frequently visit this place. But too many times, I think people cross the line and just spout mean, offensive garbage that is of absolutley no value to anyone, much less the collective cause of promoting a green world. Just the other day I was reading the posts under an article here regarding improving Lithium Ion batteries. The article didn't even mention GM, yet a few people started going off on some conspiracy tirade about GM. The offensive garbage that gets dished here on a daily basis is entertaining for some, but that's all it gets accomplished--entertainment. If some were as intelligent as they proclaim, then where is their start-up car company? Where's their groundbreaking, revolutionary ideas? Start being a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem. Instead of calling Bob Lutz "an idiot", give us some thought provoking ideas of your own for promoting fuel efficiency. Sadly, most will just continue to spout their hate gibberish, blame the world's ills on Bob Lutz, and keep dishing trash, because that is just so much more easy than to actually think, and add opinions that can truly motivate people.

Posted by: John Schmeltz | Apr 10, 2007 8:14:18 AM

John,
I sometimes come back to check blogs I've hit.
I disagree with you and see where some of the anti-Lutz sentiment comes from. Toyota is already showing what can be done with the Prius. Their 09 model will have significantly higher mileage, AT REDUCED COST. Toyota can play it safe. They already own the HEV market. We are dealing with a transformation in technology. GM does not need a careful accountant type. They need a maverick Howard Hughes type. They have a chance to leapfrog Toyota and get to large scale production with a PHEVs and batteries for the same. They have the money to do this. The technology is there (Altairnano) and evolving fast. The government is already giving GM money to work on this. It is frustrating to many of us that they are so slow on the uptake. Lutz's $6,000 or $7,000 extra is pure anti-CAFE politics speaking. Again, the Prius proves it is not that high now...and the premium in pricing will be going down, not up. A Series Hybrid may mean more for the battery, but the ICE is a smaller generator and the transmission is simpler. Again, new Li Ion technology and economies of scale for production, will bring battery prices down. ...Lutz gets paid what amount for this? Ouch!
It's all good though. That's what we have startups for!

Posted by: mds | Apr 10, 2007 1:14:44 PM

...even you have argued with Mr. Lutz: "A hybrid of any form, costs $3000-$6000 more than a regular ICE model."
Mr. Lutz should be ignoring CAFE. Who cares. He should be soliciting tax credits that make PHEVs viable until economies of scale and new technology bring the battery price down to where PHEVs can compete on their own. This is GMs free development ticket for the asking. The CAFE described here could be eclipsed by GM. I think he is missing a huge opportunity. Do you see any foreign auto companies wasting breath arguing with efforts to reduce pollution from cars?

Posted by: mds | Apr 10, 2007 1:33:07 PM

MDS:
Thanks for your posts. The main drawbacks with a hybrid are added complexity, higher up-front cost, and the potential fright of having to replace the battery further down the road in its life. It is well known that Hybrids, (including the Prius), cost $3000 more than a regular gas version of the same size vehicle. The Honda Civic is a perfect example of this. We are mentioning cars here with Nickel Metal Hydride batteries also. Lithium batteries are potentially better, but will be more expensive too. I wouldn't count on the next Prius being sold at "a reduced cost". Reduced from what? Except for computers, most things up in cost, not down. I don't want to come off like I am against Hybrids...I'm most certainly in favor of Hybrids, and fuel efficiency by any other clever means. I just wonder if some people have become dis-illusioned in that they somehow think the cost of all of these new technologies will be negligible or even non-existant when millions of customers will be writing checks out for their new cars in the next few years. Again, a perfect example of what Lutz was saying is the Honda Civic comparison. The gas ICE version already gets good gas mileage. The Hybrid version is better, but it costs more too. As a result, people still buy quite a bit more regular ICE versions of the Civic than the Hybrid. Now, imagine being only given the choice of the more expensive Hybrid to buy since the Automakers will need to do this to meet the CAFE reg's. That's going to be hard to swallow for a lot of people. I think that is what Lutz was getting at.

As for Altair Nano batteries, some people here think they are great, but the auto manufacturers seem to avoid them like the plague. There's got to be a reason for that. It's not just Detroit either, Tesla doesn't use them. Neither does Toyota or Honda.

You asked if I see any other Automakers wasting their breath arguing about efforts to reduce pollution for cars? No, instead I see other Automakers pushing their hardest to sell Tundras and Titans, and still getting the love and adoration of this crowd.

Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 11, 2007 5:34:14 AM

John,
Thanks also for your post. Think we agree on a number of points. I do not favor CAFE, but do favor tax credits on PHEVs and EVs, for the reasons you mention. When people ask me about my Prius, I tell them it gets better gas mileage but, I purchased it for political reasons. The gas savings are still not enough to cover the increased cost of the car. I can afford the extra cost, so I'm voting for better technology with my pay check.
This is where we differ. I am optimistic that this technology is improving, rapidly right now. New technology products do go through a drop in price: PCs, PC printers, cell phones, cameras, digital cameras, solar panels, etc. Battery performance has already been significantly improved. It seems clear cost will come down. There have been breakthrough improvements on several fronts: Li Ion (Altair, A123, Valence, Electrovaya, Johnson Controls-Saft, Misubishi Heavy Industries, ABT in China, and others are working on this including Toyota & Honda), Lead Acid with graphite or carbon (FireFly, Power Technology, Altraverda, e3, others?), and Super-capacitor (EEStor and Maxwell, with the later being used to augment battery performance). Too many players with too many improvements. We will see lower prices that are already causing a technology shift. Mr. Lutz should see this and move to capitalize. Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi see it. He is making the IBM PC mistake. There IS a risk to being too conservative at times in business. This is one.
The lesson of the Prius is that early adoption of new technology, at smaller scale, leads to success later when the technology becomes more cost effective. I am not saying the 2009 generation Prius will be cheaper. Toyota is. I do think it will be much more cost effective. The mileage will be significantly higher. Toyota is getting there. GM is not.
I have no problem with either company selling large cars. People buy them and they're profitable to sell. That's capitalism. I have no problem with GM never selling PHEVs or EVs. I'm just predicting their loss if they don't and GM shouldn't coming crying to the USA government when this happens. GM pensioners and stock holders need to wake up and push to change this.
I cannot explain why they aren't using Altairnano. I suspect the cost is too high and they want too perfect a solution to start with. GM should be willing to start high end (like PC and cell phones did, like Toyota is) and improve the product. It may be they are not willing to have a single source supplier. It is also possible the Altairnano does not perform up to their claims. We'll see, because it is being used in Phoenix Motorcar's EVs. The Altairnano was not available when Tesla built the Roadster. How do you know it is not being used in the Whitestar? How do you know there aren't other PHEV or HEVs planning to use it? ...or EVs after the Phoenix Motorcars contract for 3 year exclusive use in EVs expires.
My main point is multiple sources for significant battery improvement, most not on the market yet, will mean reduced prices with improved performance. This will mean increased cost effectiveness for HEVs, PHEVs, and EVs. This means now is chance for GM to be USA hero, leapfrog Toyota, and produce PHEVs first.

Posted by: mds | Apr 11, 2007 7:53:02 AM

btw 'Series' PHEV, like the GM Volt concept car, is simpler than Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (PHEV). It can also get much greater mpg than any HEV. This is why PHEVs are the future as battery prices drop ...unless full blown EVs take over. Mr. Lutz should stop obfiscating, save his breath, and help produce early version of the Volt. Zealots like me will pay more for them to help them sell and continue to be improved. There's actually a lot of us out there. Our government should supply tax credits for PHEVs and EVs, until they can sell on their own. This could help GM and people who can't afford higher cost, higher mileage cars (as you pointed out), again, until they can sell on their own. This would better the pants off of the billions we're spending to secure oil by fighting in Iraq. Spend this money on the Future, not on the past, not on imperialism.

Posted by: mds | Apr 11, 2007 8:17:20 AM

MDS:
I too favor tax credits for Hybrids, PHEV's, heck even clean diesels if that were an option.

I agree that GM, as well it's Detroit siblings need to get more on board with hybrids, etc. The Volt looks like a good prospect if they can get it to work. Lets keep our fingers crossed.

I hope that with economies of scale mixed with some hopeful breakthroughs, that hybrids and their fellow alternative energy technologies will come down in price. I have often envisioned a hybrid as an option for every car model, just as you chose a V6 or a V8. Sadly, I feel with many of the technologies spoken of being in their relative infancy, we will not see economies of scale for a long time.

AltairNano may have a good product as you pointed out. I don't know much about their batteries to be honest, but I was just pointing out my observations. If they prove to be the superior technology, and the price comes down, then we'll all stand to benefit.

I think Toyota is a great company, and have done a lot of things well. My frustration is that Toyota is easily forgiven by many here for things like the Tundra. And in contrast, GM can never catch a break from people here, seemingly no matter what they do.

Posted by: Schmeltz | Apr 11, 2007 8:59:04 AM

Schmeltz writes:

A hybrid of any form, costs $3000-$6000 more than a regular ICE model.

Toyota claims to have reduced the premium to around $2000. Power electronics in particular are getting cheaper at a fairly high rate.

I've read that to convert your regular Prius to a plug-in hybrid version is a $10,000 add, and voids all of your warranties.

That's for an essentially hand-built mod kit. Some mods to conventional car components have pricetags in the same region. When the same technology is incorporated in production models, the price drops steeply; "economies of scale" is not an empty phrase.

The new lithium ion batteries coming out are considerably more expensive than the Nickel ones.

The price per watt-hour was getting competitive a couple of years ago, and the new electrode formulations will shortly make Li-ion cheaper than NiMH. The NiMH cells must be limited to a narrow charge range to guarantee their lifespan; some new Li-ion cells have a much higher fraction of usable energy, allowing the job to be done with a smaller battery. Last, the specific power of Li-ion has surpassed NiMH.

[Lutz] is saying, E85 conversions to the U.S. fleet would be a relatively easy and cheap baby step for getting started towards lower emissions and fuel independance.

You are misinformed. We already subsidize ethanol energy to the tune of at least $2.00/gallon ($3.00 or more per gasoline equivalent gallon) yet we have no prospect of supplying even enough E85 for the existing fleet which can use it. E85 is just an excuse for GM not to meet CAFE standards.

(continued in next comment because of spam blocker)

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 11, 2007 8:43:26 PM

Sorry, but the spam blocker won't even let me quote one sentence and post a 3-sentence reply to it. I am forbidden from continuing here.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 11, 2007 8:50:16 PM

One word: BULLS---T! Im only 33 but even I remember the dire warnings from GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC etc., about the forced switch to Unleaded gasoline, emissions controls/catalytic converters, and oh my Gd, how they howled when passive restraints were mandated! It would be the end of the world and people would be priced out of cars they cried! And now look -- we're all still here, all the while driving horrendously wasteful SUV's with those catalytic converters and eight airbags and ABS and DSC, yadda yadda yadda. The market will adapt and GM will find an affordable way to eeke out a lousy 4% mileage from their cars. The new Saturn Aura Green Line hybrid is billed as 30% more efficient than a standard version, and oh my, it's only about $1,900 more than the base V6! (With hybrid tax credits, only about $600.) Unfortunately the Big 3 always wait to act when things lapse into a crisis. Sheesh.

Posted by: Paul | Apr 19, 2007 5:22:25 PM

Posted by: Paul | Apr 19, 2007 5:22:27 PM