Does GM hate diesels more than America?
Normally, I don't care about different groups' rants. They are typically self serving and meaningless.
But the one 40mpg.org sent out yesterday was a doozy. The group blamed General Motors Co. for Americans hating diesels.
Of course, while the group's intense hatred of Detroit -- something that seems to be at a pathological level -- remains, blaming GM for diesel's failure in the U.S. is as stupid as making a .org website.
40mpg uses a story written by a Fisker/Volvo dealer and former American International Automobile Dealers Association chairman in the Automotive News as the premise of its claim. (A Volvo dealer doesn't care for the company that dumped Saab? Hummmm.)
The author surmises that since GM built a lousy diesel in the '70s, it created a marketing campaign to show that diesels were underpowered, smokey and all around bad. GM hasn't been this evil since it created that 100 mpg car and then hid the plans because someone from Exxon asked them to.
The reason Americans think diesels from the 70s were bad are because they were horrible, horrible machines. GM's Oldsmobile was awful. But so was the 1977 Rabbit diesel, all of those early '80s Mercedes diesels and any other oil burner that arrived on the U.S. shores.
The the group continues with its header off the deep it. I love this particular line. (The quote marks are used around the Automotive News column.)
The echoes of that very public thrashing of diesels still reverberates today in the minds of American motorists. Too bad it no longer has any real connection to current-day reality. The truth is that today's diese ls [sic] are "highly sophisticated, quick-starting, quiet, powerful and fuel-sipping direct-injection turbo diesels built by Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi, Nissan, Toyota and most of the world's other manufacturers, curiously including GM's and Ford Motor Co.'s European operations." So why aren't we seeing more of these diesels make it U.S. shores faster?
Now I agree with 40mpg that diesels are great little engines. But the reason diesels sell so well in Europe and not in the U.S. starts with the fact European governments provide incentives to consumers to buy diesel vehicles and diesel fuel costs less there. Fuel costs alone will keep Americans out of diesels and really, diesel fuel should be cheaper than gas as it costs less to make.
In California, the incentive to allow the Prius an HOV sticker with only one passenger was an incentive that sold more Priuses than any marketing campaign by Toyota. (For a while, you could have bought a used Prius with the sticker for more than a new one with out it.) The VW Jetta TDI, which got better highway mileage than the Prius at the time, was not eligible. The U.S. government has made it very clear hybrids are the favored vehicle in the U.S. diesels are not. (Though there has been some movement on this with the new Jetta qualifying for a modest tax credit.)
Additionally, and I don't know why 40mpg forgot to point this out, until 2008, most diesels sold in the U.S. could not be sold in all 50 states and some of the biggest markets, such as California and New York, banned diesels because of emissions. If California, the home to e coli contanimation, says something is dirty, it must be.
As for the snarky comment about GM and Ford selling diesels in Europe and not here, please, of course they do --European consumers want diesels. Saab sells diesels there too, something the Volvo dealer forgot to mention.
Americans, however, have shown they do not. While the demand for diesel cars is high in the U.S. it is only high because the volume of diesels is so small. You can go to dealership right now and buy an affordable diesel car, and some people are buying them -- obviously, they were not influenced by GM's nefarious campaign 30 years ago.
If they ever change their mind, I have no doubt a flood of diesel vehicles will arrive shortly after that. I believe Audi's campaign for diesels is helping change minds and it should. As I've said before, diesels are great engines -- and lots of carmakers are ready. In fact, Ford's compact cars, the ones based on the new Focus, can have any engine it wants in it -- gas or diesel.
But note, nearly every diesel sold in Europe right now could not be sold in the U.S. because of the U.S. has stricter emission standards. It seems 40mpg's misguided anger over GM's behavior 30 years ago should really be directed at the U.S. government today. A minor point, indeed, but one it might want to consider.
I do like the last bit of maliciousness 40mpg has in its update -- saying how GM fought "tooth and nail" against the new fuel economy rules but has finally succumbed to them. Toyota also fought against the new regulations, as did Ford and a whole group of carmakers, but that seems to be overlooked.
And while it was a bad PR move, the reasons most carmakers opposed the fuel economy standards were they wanted to ensure one federal standard was enforced instead of a hodge podge of standards issued by different states -- which was the direction the country had been moving in. Oh, I may not totally believe that, but at least that makes sense.
40mpg's humorous piece that arrived in my email box, however, made none. If you want to give half the truth, I would have to assume the other half is lies.
Comments
| Jump to bottom |
40mpg....
.
mpf said: "You are correct, the US makers do offer, in europe, vastly better MPG ratings, but those are diesel-driven, and the EPA will not allow those to be sold here. We have the tightest regulations in the world regarding emissions, and to make these regs., the costs are unsustainable for the average purchaser, my diesel was purchased used...new german diesel, check out the price, you will faint."
---
Granted diesel specs are very tight here in the US, particularly on NOx (which is IGNORED on gasoline engines ... even though some domestic gas engines produce over 30 mg/mile of NOx compared to Euro diesels now getting into the range below 350 mg/mile).
Diesel particles have been resolved with DPFs.
However, keep in mind that the Det3 "helped" develop the current emissions regulations (compromises) back in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
Of course this diesel discussion has nothing to do with the 9 Ford, GM, and Opel gasoline vehicles rated ABOVE 41 mpg(US) combined cycle in Europe. Four (4) of those are Aveos, ever heard of them? And there are 2 Opels. How about Ford's Fiesta and Ka, 3 different versions?
That is 9 vehicles without even considering diesel ... and NO development required! What is the EXCUSE here?
And we have not even discussed the 9 gasoline Fiats or the other OEMs. That would be a least 18 vehicles over 41 mpg. Currently there are no more than 3 (unless you want to allow the VW Jetta diesels).
That could added more vehicles above 40 mpg combined average ... by more than 4X the number of vehicles Detroit currently has available in the US rated above 31 mpg combined average!
Would these vehicles sell in the US? The only way to tell is to try to find a low cost strategy to run "test marketing" like Ford is doing with the Transit Connect.
Back to diesels!
VW meets 50 state emissions requirements for diesel for roughly a $1,300 premium for turbo diesel with emissions abatement. Of course these are engines in the 2.4 liter (or less) range ...
NOT the 6~7 liter diesels currently used by Detroit, which probably WOULD ADD $7K to $12K for 50 state compliant diesel light passenger vehicle implimentation! I looked at some new Ford pickups last night and saw a price premium of $11K for diesel.
Of course these are some of the things I see ...
Thanks for your thoughts and comments.
.
40mpg....
You are correct, the US makers do offer, in europe, vastly better MPG ratings, but those are diesel-driven, and the EPA will not allow those to be sold here. We have the tightest regulations in the world regarding emissions, and to make these regs., the costs are unsustainable for the average purchaser, my diesel was purchased used...new german diesel, check out the price, you will faint.
"Public policiy" workers have killed affordable high-mileage vehicles in the US., not our Engineers!
40mpg.org is a subset of the "Civil Society Institute".
the other 'divisions' of this policy-pressure group are:
'hybrid owners of america' (pro-prious)
'700 mountains ' (anti-mining)
Its founder and president, Pam Solo, was Pat Schroeder's campaign manager...remember Pat, planned parenthood attorney and teacher, ran for president, and lambasted Reagan at every oppourtunity. Also, Civil Society Institute has interests in stemcell legislation, as well as anti-nuke regs. Also, "Global Warming Litigation Project", "Foundation for Middle East Peace","Freeze Voter", etc. Their stated mission?
"Catalysts For Change, especially in areas of critical need"
I wonder if they still have the obama/biden sticker on their toyota?
40mpg....
.
mpf declares: "Well, now that you have spoken some TRUTH about these USA haters, ... But those owners are reading 40mpg.org, and won't open their minds."
---
I have been watching 40mpg.org for about 4 years.
I believe the DetNews article "misrepresents" the 40mpg.org postion.
You need to read the article and associated references BEFORE jumping to a conclusion.
http://www.40mpg.org/ and http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/1632609.html plus the others
To me it appears that the folks at 40mpg.org and their followers are NOT "USA haters"!
I agree that they, and I, may express frustration because the US consumer is being systematically deprived of existing FUEL FRUGAL automotive technology options from Detroit, and other OEMS with US presence, that are regularly used in Europe and the rest of the world. BTW, some are gasoline, so no excuses!
And the absence of these FUEL FRUGAL vehicles DOES DAMAGE to the US economy and NATIONAL SECURITY, as well as costing domestic automotive sales, C4C and summer/fall 2008 are examples, in case you missed it!
Basically, 40mpg.org has been reporting/quoting reliable sources on a weekly basis ... because Ford, GM, plus other OEMs with US presence, have been offering HIGH mpg (above 42 [up to 63] mpg(US)) combined average vehicles elsewhere in the world for probably for at least 5 years. So, why should these technologies not be adapted for the US market FOR THOSE THAT WANT/NEED THEM? (paraphrased of course)
40mpg.org has also accumulated assorted data to support the idea that there has been a demand for SIGNIFICANTLY better fuel economy in the US market, a demand potentially above 50% (possibly approaching 70%) with proper designs, fuel economy, reliability/durability, and pricing.
As most of you recognize, I have been pointing out the economic advantages even if just 5% to 10% of the market buys into "above 44 mpg (up to 63) combined average" for light passenger vehicles and 30 to 55 mpg(US) combined for pickups/vans like to ones available in Europe today. The benefits would be HUGE in terms of "taxable" DOMESTIC ECONOMIC ACTIVITY EXPANSION, new tax revenues, and NATIONAL SECURITY.
IF ... these FUEL FRUGAL offerings are outstanding, they could possibly EXPAND the US auto market back to 16 million units per year. AND ... if those units are built in the US that could easily RESTORE 250 THOUSAND (or MORE) NEW JOBS to the US auto industry.
I believe that most owners of diesel pickups/vans would buy between 1/4 to 1 million diesel passenger vehicles/per year for at least the first few years ... particulary if built by Ford, GM, and Chrysler-Fiat to a lesser degree.
Sadly, I sense that many want to maintain the "status quo" and keep these types of fuel frugal vehicles out of the US market by "preventing" availability, thus restricting CHOICE.
I'm sorry, I just have great difficulty understanding the desire to restrict freedom of choice ... particularly when it is "ADDED" choice ... as opposed to a "take away" choice like outlawing vehicles that get less than, say, 25 mpg.
In conclusion, it appears to me that those that want better fuel economy are far more "open minded" than those in the "auto industry" (both management and labor), their fans, muscle car/truck enthausists, and ... possibly Congress.
Just the way I see it ....
Can anyone explain where my logic is wrong?
Thanks for your time, thoughts, and consideration. I look forward to all comments and criticisms.
.40mpg....
Well, now that you have spoken some TRUTH about these USA haters, how can you get this article, and others like it, into the minds of average americans, those who do not hang out reading automotive blogs?
Secondly, I have a M-B diesel, older, a 92 300d with 210k.
I get 36 mpg pretty much everwhere, no jackrabbit starts in city, and under 70 hiway. Parts cost a fortune, which is why
my other 4 rides are US made...1 of which is a CNG F250, which pollutes less than a group of priouses. But those owners are reading 40mpg.org, and won't open their minds.
Next!
| Jump to top |
