Errr, maybe they could try putting a smaller more efficient engine in !
this guys comments are that of a school boy whos had his pocket
money cut off , makes me want to puke !

Cervus:

Smaller engine is more efficient *because* it is working harder. Gasoline engines are less efficient at part load, hence efforts at cylinder de-activation, etc, to overcome this inherent property.

andri:

Mostly because they can't make a profit selling small cars here. They lose money on every Cobalt sold due to legacy costs. So yes, they're going to focus on products with higher margins. But we've been over this before.

Nick:

That's new to me. I always thought that smaller, less powerful engines meant less economy because you have to jam on the gas more in order to keep up with traffic. I know I have to push hard on my 250cc Reflex scooter to keep up on the freeway.

there is an economy of scale why not just make one car in each
level to sell throughout the world
For example Gm make a car in europe called the omega in
europe , ok its not the best in its class, but why not sell this product
in the states.

just read the article in full , and now I am going to puke
why don´t they just get on the blower to their workmates
SAAB in sweden and get them to walk GM America through
the procedure for squeezing every inch of horsepower out
of a 2litre block and also return decent mpg!
Don´t these people talk to each other !

I'm disappointed with GM- but moreso with Lutz- in light of the fact that he is a former Marine Officer. Does GM pay him to whine?

Mr. Lutz, I'm sure "A Message to Garcia" was required reading at the Basic School when you went through. In light of your present difficulties, you might want to dust it off and read it again.

I realize GM's hands are tied by legacy costs and the intransigent UAW.

The domestics need to: 1. cut capacity, 2. drastically reduce their UAW footprint, 3. cut exorbitant executive pay, 4. stop diluting their vehicles through fleet/rental sales, 5. heed the demands of the market, and build what the market demands.

Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, and even MB continue to demonstrate that there is a valid business model for building cars profitably in the US.

Oh, and please quit whining. It's not professional.

moritz:

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but I'm not proposing putting the wrong engine in the wrong vehicle. All I'm saying is that gasoline engines in cars spend most of their lives running at part load, with the throttle open only a little bit, an inherently inefficient situation due to pumping losses, etc. All other things being equal, a smaller displacement engine running the same constant load at a higher percentage of its full output potential--throttle more open, etc--will be more efficient, not even counting reduced friction, less rolling resistance, etc, simply because pumping losses will be less. Of course car designers have to make many tradeoffs, including power (acceleration) vs efficiency (cruising), and many tricks and tweaks have been developed to make larger engines more efficient at part load (e.g. cylinder deactivation) or get smaller engines to have higher power (e.g. turbocharging, higher engine speeds, etc.).

I agree pickups that occasionally pull boats need a lot of torque. Perhaps a clean diesel is a better choice for that application than a 12 mpg V8 that rarely gets used to its full capacity.

As for cars, many are overpowered these days, and could do quite nicely with smaller, more efficient engines with a nice 5 or 6-speed tranny, IMHO.

Nick:

I appreciate the informative explanation. Thanks for clearing up my misinformation. I went from a 1.6L in my first car, to a 2.0 in my second, to a 1.8 in my Corolla. I was also considering my experience with my Reflex.

"We don't know how." We don't want to find out eigther because it will cost us more in current operations going forward. That
means less profit and shareholders aren't patient enough to wait and see. Our suppliers, (makers of our car parts before we assemble and sell them) are not going to retool and exacerbate legacy costs. They need to extract a profit from the non amortized current manufacturing infrastructure before they can reinvest in an entirely new business model. The NEW PLAN then is don't build RWD vehicles, if your Engineers and suppliers can't get on board with new CAFE standards. I'm sure others will be more willing to figure a way around this insurmountable task, and take that segment of your market, while hansomely profiting from it. Hearing Lutz say "can't" sounds a little more like "won't" , "UNLESS" he can leverage some Faustian bargain in for some good measure. If Lutz does't get some direction from his board at GM, he is headed into oblivion. Might be better if he kepthis trap shut, untill they finish fighting this CAFE litigation out in the courts.

mo:

Yes. As I said before, 'all things being equal...'.

Lutz is a pretty outspoken kind of guy on most things Automotive, and that's what I probably like best about him. I like that he's forthright about things like this.

In regards to what he said regarding the CAFE reg's., I believe he's pretty much 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 considerably 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. All of these technologies don't come for free. So with all that said, he's right--if Automakers are forced to produce all of their cars to be clean diesels and/or 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.

Most of us may already know that Lutz is not a fan of the CAFE regulations and never was. I'm not either. The reg’s. 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 gov't. may think that increasing reg's. on the car companies will change the heart and minds of the car buying populous, but they won't. It is too easy to just slap another hollow piece of legislation on the car companies, and say, "Now it's YOUR problem to make all of this work, we(the gov't.)are done with it". 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.

In a previous debate, one poster inquired if I see any other Automakers complaining about pollution control reg's. like Lutz does on behalf of GM? My response is, No, instead I see them happily pushing their hardest to sell Tundras and Titans, and they still get heaps of loving kisses on their behinds from this crowd.

Americans are stuck in a schizoid situation WRT what they want from auto companies. We want big vehicles and high fuel mileage at the same time. Compared to the 1970s the cars we have now are much more fuel efficient on a per pound basis. My brother has one of those large GMC pickups with a diesel engine and he claims he gets 20 mpg. This is a truck that weighs as much as a 70s Caddilac that got only 8 mpg. It's more about accepting less horsepower in exchange for more comfort and comfort is what old farts like me want to have. It is what we say in focus groups and market surveys. The questions that the market surveys don't ask is whether we would pay a price premium for plug-in pickup truck. If I had the money I would.