Tow vehicle shrinkage coming soon!
06-02-2009, 06:53 PM
#1
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Tow vehicle shrinkage coming soon!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Reinventing GM
Commentary: GM driven to downsize
Fuel standards will eliminate vehicles, make profits difficult
William H. Noack
Now that General Motors Corp. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the focus will shift to a judge's deliberations, lenders' claims and other court actions. But even after the company emerges from bankruptcy, its greatest challenge will be to sell the cars and trucks the Obama administration will force it to build.
Last month, President Barack Obama set forth fuel economy standards that will be next to impossible to achieve and have the potential to eliminate nearly all of the most popular vehicles on the road.
For the companies, the one redeeming feature of the new federal rules is that they are better than what might have been: a patchwork of state standards that would have driven certification and distribution costs through the roof. Now, at least, the companies can see more clearly the mountain they must climb.
Advertisement
The new standards call for a car average of 39 miles per gallon and a light truck average of about 30 miles per gallon by 2016. This replaces the Bush administration standard, approved by Congress, of 35 mpg for all vehicles by 2020.
A major difficulty is the shorter timeframe. To comply, companies must meet the standards in little more than one model cycle. Since many fuel-saving technologies are still under development, to even come close to the standards companies will likely respond by ceasing production of family-size vehicles, SUVs, vans and pickups.
This is what environmentalists have long hoped for. But big families, farmers, small business people and others who rely on larger vehicles will have to make do with smaller, lighter, mostly hybrid or all-electric cars and trucks.
How much will all of this cost? The number $1,300 per vehicle has been bandied about, but the truth is no one really knows. It could go much higher. In reality, it's a steep tax on anyone who must buy a vehicle, even though Obama's officials will never call it that.
As in the past, the new rules will enable elected officials to avoid the more effective -- but politically dreaded -- solution of raising fuel taxes while shifting the blame to the companies when consumers can't find the vehicles they want.
And no one at the White House seemed interested in asking how this "green movement" will affect highway safety.
Nearly every prominent safety organization -- including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety -- has demonstrated that higher fuel economy standards, and the smaller and lighter fleet they produce, result in a higher fatality rate. The laws of physics that govern what happens when a large vehicle collides with a smaller one cannot be altered even by the Obama spin machine.
With today's preponderance of larger vehicles on our roads, that issue will come into sharper focus when thousands of smaller, lighter vehicles are purchased.
At some point, Obama may have to question whether his decision to force production of small vehicles was worth the price.
But that remains a question for tomorrow. For now, GM and the other companies seem to be accepting the new standards -- perhaps because their survival is a higher priority than Obama's environmental agenda.
William H. Noack is a Washington, D.C.-based automotive consultant and former GM executive. E-mail comments to letters@detnews.com.
Better get them while they last. Guess it will be a dooley or something tiny in the future.
Reinventing GM
Commentary: GM driven to downsize
Fuel standards will eliminate vehicles, make profits difficult
William H. Noack
Now that General Motors Corp. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the focus will shift to a judge's deliberations, lenders' claims and other court actions. But even after the company emerges from bankruptcy, its greatest challenge will be to sell the cars and trucks the Obama administration will force it to build.
Last month, President Barack Obama set forth fuel economy standards that will be next to impossible to achieve and have the potential to eliminate nearly all of the most popular vehicles on the road.
For the companies, the one redeeming feature of the new federal rules is that they are better than what might have been: a patchwork of state standards that would have driven certification and distribution costs through the roof. Now, at least, the companies can see more clearly the mountain they must climb.
Advertisement
The new standards call for a car average of 39 miles per gallon and a light truck average of about 30 miles per gallon by 2016. This replaces the Bush administration standard, approved by Congress, of 35 mpg for all vehicles by 2020.
A major difficulty is the shorter timeframe. To comply, companies must meet the standards in little more than one model cycle. Since many fuel-saving technologies are still under development, to even come close to the standards companies will likely respond by ceasing production of family-size vehicles, SUVs, vans and pickups.
This is what environmentalists have long hoped for. But big families, farmers, small business people and others who rely on larger vehicles will have to make do with smaller, lighter, mostly hybrid or all-electric cars and trucks.
How much will all of this cost? The number $1,300 per vehicle has been bandied about, but the truth is no one really knows. It could go much higher. In reality, it's a steep tax on anyone who must buy a vehicle, even though Obama's officials will never call it that.
As in the past, the new rules will enable elected officials to avoid the more effective -- but politically dreaded -- solution of raising fuel taxes while shifting the blame to the companies when consumers can't find the vehicles they want.
And no one at the White House seemed interested in asking how this "green movement" will affect highway safety.
Nearly every prominent safety organization -- including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety -- has demonstrated that higher fuel economy standards, and the smaller and lighter fleet they produce, result in a higher fatality rate. The laws of physics that govern what happens when a large vehicle collides with a smaller one cannot be altered even by the Obama spin machine.
With today's preponderance of larger vehicles on our roads, that issue will come into sharper focus when thousands of smaller, lighter vehicles are purchased.
At some point, Obama may have to question whether his decision to force production of small vehicles was worth the price.
But that remains a question for tomorrow. For now, GM and the other companies seem to be accepting the new standards -- perhaps because their survival is a higher priority than Obama's environmental agenda.
William H. Noack is a Washington, D.C.-based automotive consultant and former GM executive. E-mail comments to letters@detnews.com.
Better get them while they last. Guess it will be a dooley or something tiny in the future.
06-02-2009, 10:55 PM
#4
Former Vendor
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: Loganville GA
Posts: 5,774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I am totally opposed to any Govt involvement in GM and even the mileage standard increase, calling the increased cost of 1300 or whatever it is a tax is really not correct. At least that increased cost will go into engineering and therefore into American jobs.
I'm not happy, just always try to find the bright side.
I'm not happy, just always try to find the bright side.
06-03-2009, 08:29 AM
#5
Race Director
Member Since: Oct 2000
Location: Deal's Gap 2004 NCM Motorsports track supporter
Posts: 13,915
Received 1,103 Likes
on
717 Posts
While I am totally opposed to any Govt involvement in GM and even the mileage standard increase, calling the increased cost of 1300 or whatever it is a tax is really not correct. At least that increased cost will go into engineering and therefore into American jobs.
I'm not happy, just always try to find the bright side.
I'm not happy, just always try to find the bright side.
06-03-2009, 11:04 AM
#8
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,089
Received 8,928 Likes
on
5,333 Posts
One way to do it is to make your own. There is a guy who comes to Watkins Glen that has a GMC quad cab pickup body mounted on an International truck chassis. The kind of truck chassis used by local delivery companies to deliver furniture and appliances. Its diesel powered and can pull any of the larger trailers with a couple of cars in them that we might think of pulling. It makes a 1 ton dualie pickup look small. When he got it several years ago it cost him $15K. He told me unless you look in the mirror you don't even realize there is a trailer attached to it.
Last year at Spring Carlisle I saw something called a Ford 650 (I think that was the number) for sale which was a similar size vehicle.
Bill
Last year at Spring Carlisle I saw something called a Ford 650 (I think that was the number) for sale which was a similar size vehicle.
Bill
06-04-2009, 05:47 AM
#9
Team Owner
Thread Starter
One way to do it is to make your own. There is a guy who comes to Watkins Glen that has a GMC quad cab pickup body mounted on an International truck chassis. The kind of truck chassis used by local delivery companies to deliver furniture and appliances. Its diesel powered and can pull any of the larger trailers with a couple of cars in them that we might think of pulling. It makes a 1 ton dualie pickup look small. When he got it several years ago it cost him $15K. He told me unless you look in the mirror you don't even realize there is a trailer attached to it.
Last year at Spring Carlisle I saw something called a Ford 650 (I think that was the number) for sale which was a similar size vehicle.
Bill
Last year at Spring Carlisle I saw something called a Ford 650 (I think that was the number) for sale which was a similar size vehicle.
Bill
and the cost one be for that one purpose vehicle would be?
06-04-2009, 06:27 AM
#10
Le Mans Master
all the more reason to keep your current tow rig in top shape and keep it for towing.
06-04-2009, 08:26 AM
#11
Burning Brakes
Maybe I'm missing something......
Bush's restriction would have been 35 mpg for ALL vehicles.
BO's is 39 mpg for CARS. 30 mpg for LIGHT trucks.
Other than moving it up 4 years, how exactly is this more restrictive for people looking to buy tow vehicles,etc??
Bush's restriction would have been 35 mpg for ALL vehicles.
BO's is 39 mpg for CARS. 30 mpg for LIGHT trucks.
Other than moving it up 4 years, how exactly is this more restrictive for people looking to buy tow vehicles,etc??
06-04-2009, 08:57 AM
#12
Team Owner
Aren't those figures still a CAFE average? Maybe the definition of a "light truck" could change under these new mileage rules. Take the Ford Ranger or Chev Colorado. They are not the same as a Silverado or an F-150 in terms of size or carrying capacity.
A simple change in terminology, and 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks become "medium-duty" and may not be subject to new mileage standard or at least not as high a mileage number.
I had read that Chevy shelved the small diesel for the 1/2 Silverado's and I believe Ford did the same on the F-150 diesel. If there is a substantial increase in fuel economy to be made through the use of smaller diesel motors, then that could bring a whole new series of trucks that would have better performance (in terms of towing capability), that the current crop of gas motors.
The pickup truck is still a big seller for both business and personal use. Just look at the current total sales volumes for Chevy and Ford compared to passenger cars. There will have to be some sort of workaround to keep the pickup truck plants running.
A simple change in terminology, and 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks become "medium-duty" and may not be subject to new mileage standard or at least not as high a mileage number.
I had read that Chevy shelved the small diesel for the 1/2 Silverado's and I believe Ford did the same on the F-150 diesel. If there is a substantial increase in fuel economy to be made through the use of smaller diesel motors, then that could bring a whole new series of trucks that would have better performance (in terms of towing capability), that the current crop of gas motors.
The pickup truck is still a big seller for both business and personal use. Just look at the current total sales volumes for Chevy and Ford compared to passenger cars. There will have to be some sort of workaround to keep the pickup truck plants running.
06-04-2009, 08:43 PM
#13
Pro
Member Since: Jul 2001
Location: Bradenton FL FL
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you notice the heavy duty (250,350,2500,3500) trucks do not have mileage information on the window stickers. I believe these vehicles do not fall under the CAFE standards.
06-04-2009, 09:07 PM
#14
Pro
Member Since: Jul 2001
Location: Bradenton FL FL
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to this as long as you have a bed longer then 6', you will be exempt from CAFE standards. That may or may not be a good thing as I sure would like to get better mileage from my truck.
Source; Energy Information Administrationhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/fuel.html
I'm still a believer that high energy prices are the only thing that will drive conservation. When gas is expensive, people drive less, slower and buy more fuel efficient vehicles. No CAFE standards needed. Control gas prices and let demand drive the market for fuel efficiency. What would happen if everyone new that in 2016 gas was going to be $5/gal? Manufactures would be working like crazy to make the most fuel efficient vehicle and consumers would be scrambling to buy them. Businesses small and large would be coming up with out of the box ideas to reduce thier consumption.
Starting in MY 2011, light truck CAFE standards will also apply to medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), which are defined as complete heavy-duty vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR that are designed primarily for transportation of passengers. The definition of an MDPV does not include vehicles sold as incomplete trucks (i.e., a truck cab on chassis); vehicles that have a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; vehicles designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the driver’s seat; or vehicles equipped with an open cargo area (e.g., a pickup truck box or bed) of 6 feet or more in interior length. Hence, the definition of an MDPV essentially includes SUVs, short-bed pickup trucks, and passenger vans that are within the specified weight and weight-rated ranges. This implies that, starting in MY 2011, all SUVs greater than 8,500 GVWR that are currently excluded from CAFE consideration and all passenger vans less than 10,000 pounds GVWR will be included in determining a manufacturer’s light truck CAFE compliance.
I'm still a believer that high energy prices are the only thing that will drive conservation. When gas is expensive, people drive less, slower and buy more fuel efficient vehicles. No CAFE standards needed. Control gas prices and let demand drive the market for fuel efficiency. What would happen if everyone new that in 2016 gas was going to be $5/gal? Manufactures would be working like crazy to make the most fuel efficient vehicle and consumers would be scrambling to buy them. Businesses small and large would be coming up with out of the box ideas to reduce thier consumption.
