Why C.A.F.E Standards are Dumb

[ddrueding]

I think we (NorCal) should just start charging you (SoCal) triple for all the water you use, serves you right for living in a desert

 

[Bozo]

I'm sure you thought of this when you wrote it, but one of the things they certainly couldn't afford was a 10 year old car or truck. My grandmother lives on a very modest fixed income in a very small town. She was given the opportunity to sell her house and move into a less expensive managed apartment complex. The primary reason she declined was that it was too far to walk from the grocery store and her doctor.

Owning a car is a luxury. Living far enough from downtown that you need a car is a luxury. Every city I've been to in the world has a lower-class section right in the middle.

Owning/operating a car is not a right, nor is owning a color TV or internet access or many other things that seem to be slipping into the "deserved" category.

I live in a more rural area. A means of transportation is mandatory. I can't see my aunt (at 70) walking 4 miles to the grocery, or 10 miles to the doctor. (she live in susidized housing in town)
I have been working since I was 12 (I'm 60 now). I have a nice house in the country. I'll be dammed if I'm going to give every thing I've worked for up, so some politition can stick even more tax money in his pocket. Or move to city so I can give up my car, or anything else that I've worked for.
Tax the oil companies at 60%, put the CEOs in prison, until they get the message that the US citizens are not their personal slaves.
Stop shipping Alaska oil to Japan and China.
Stop sending our lumber to Japan
Start making ethanal from sugar beets instead of corn.
Tax the drug companies at 60% until they stop raping the US citizen. (the one pill I take is $2 a pill here. The same pill from the same company is $0.10 in Rio.) I don't want to hear any of that nonsense about it's money for "research" either. Most of it is government subsidized anyway.
Put the insurance companies CEOs in prison until they stop raping the US citizen. (check the profits of the big insurers some time.)
Grrrrrr
Bozo :joker:

 

[ddrueding]

Bozo, I agree with everything you just said.

Your nice house in the country is a luxury you can afford (and one I'm aspiring to, so congratulations). Your aunt driving to the grocery store in an average vehicle every day costs about the same as your one pill. Even if gas prices went to $10 a gallon and your car only got 30mpg, that is still less than a loaf of bread a day.

It's people who drive as much as I do that end up paying a lot, and if it becomes financially disadvantageous, you bet I will stop. I've already changed my business to cut driving in half and I'm negotiating deals to drop it by another 80%.

 

[Fushigi]

dd - I wouldn't say living far from downtown is a luxury. In Chicago, living downtown is a luxury (look at condo prices..). Anyway, I'd say living outside of a neighborhood is a luxury and by neighborhood I mean an area with a grocery store, park, maybe a clinic and library within walking distance.

You are correct about luxuries or more to the point wants v. needs. Even a land-line phone is a want/luxury and not a true need.

uda - Does your cell phone have a wired headset jack? If so you can pick up a headset for just a few bucks; I've got probably three or four laying around gathering dust myself.

My cell is only two years but I am considering upgrading. SmartPhone life cycles are pretty short.

Re: watering. My city goes by house numbers. Odd numbered houses can water the lawn on odd numbered days, evens on even numbered days, no watering on the 31st to make it fair. Watering must be done before 6 or 7 AM or after 5PM, not during the day. Timer systems are currently exempted as some can't be programmed to match the law. This started a few years ago when we were in drought conditions but they've maintained it to better regulate water supply. The fines are similar but smaller: $50, then $100, then $150 etc.

Re: Taxing oil/pharma: Won't help. They'll either pass it along by upping prices even more or move off-shore. Or maybe use it to justify laying off a lot of people (while spontaneously hiring in cheaper labor markets).

 

[Bozo]

Bottom line:
There is no easy fix for the mess we have gotten ourselves in. :crap:

Bozo :joker:

 

[mubs]

My cell is only two years but I am considering upgrading. SmartPhone life cycles are pretty short.

To which one? Abandoning the Treo?

 

[Fushigi]

Dunno yet. It's sad to say but Treos haven't progressed much. I may hold for the next actual PalmOS version, but if they don't get something with real new features/functionality soon I'll have little choice but to abandon the platform & go to Windows Mobile or a BlackBerry (what my employer would prefer I use).

 

[udaman]

WTF, diesel is still $4.99 at the local station, but regular gas just went up yesterday, another 10 cents to $4.45! That's 24cents in just 7days!!! At this rate we would see $7/gal gas before the November presidential election. So what's Obama going to do about that, lol? Nothing, but idiot voters flock to the superficial hype of "Change we can believe in"...until the next election when no change happens, and they will then 'believe' in the next orchestrated hype campaign slogan. American voters, by and large, are just plain stupid...believe that!

 

[Stereodude]

American voters, by and large, are just plain stupid...believe that!

Oh, I'm a firm believer in that premise.

 

[Fushigi]

In general I like Obama, but this campaign based on 'change' stinks. There's nothing that says the changes will be for the better. IOW there needs to be more substance - what will he try to change and how - to back up the declarations.

I'm stuck at home at the moment so I haven't been monitoring gas prices. Luckily that means I also haven't been consuming any.


A person can be smart, but a large group of people together are almost always stupid.

 

[timwhit]

On the topic of politics I have been watching Intrade a lot lately to see how well a futures market can predict elections. Check it out if you have any interest in a combination of a financial markets and politics.

 

[Striker]

WTF, diesel is still $4.99 at the local station, but regular gas just went up yesterday, another 10 cents to $4.45! That's 24cents in just 7days!!! At this rate we would see $7/gal gas before the November presidential election. So what's Obama going to do about that, lol? Nothing, but idiot voters flock to the superficial hype of "Change we can believe in"...until the next election when no change happens, and they will then 'believe' in the next orchestrated hype campaign slogan. American voters, by and large, are just plain stupid...believe that!

Not to start a party war but what exactly has Bush done for gas prices? What's Mcain's plan?
I think it was unfair to point out Obama in this case.

 

[Bozo]

Not to start a party war but what exactly has Bush done for gas prices? What's Mcain's plan?
I think it was unfair to point out Obama in this case.

Actually, what has any politition done for anybody but himself?

Bozo :joker:

 

[timwhit]

Not to start a party war but what exactly has Bush done for gas prices? What's Mcain's plan?
I think it was unfair to point out Obama in this case.

What can any politician do to lower gas prices in the long term? I think people overestimate the amount of power that the US government or any government has. Petroleum is an international commodity and there is no replacement for it. There's only so much you can pump out of the ground each day and once demand is higher than supply then prices will skyrocket since demand for it is extremely inelastic.

Sure there are short-term fixes, but those will just make the long term more painful for everyone. I can think of a couple things that might help slightly in the long run. Most of these are very risky or politically suicidal.

• Heavily regulate the US future markets (NYMEX->CME) to limit the amount of speculation
• Invade countries that have ample petroleum reserves, then take control of oil production and push all of that into the US.
• Issue forceful ultimatums to any country that will not allow foreign investment in drilling infrastructure
• Convince every country that subsidizes gasoline to stop
• Lower speed limits nationwide

There are definitely other things the government can do, but at best any solution will just delay the inevitable.

 

[ddrueding]

Great points, timwhit. The most effective steps a president could take would be the most suicidal; have realistic conversations with the people about what is likely to happen and how best to handle it. I can't remember the last time a politician voluntarily gave out preemptive bad news.

 

[Stereodude]

This article is a pretty good summary of some of the problems.

 

[ddrueding]

This article is a pretty good summary of some of the problems.

Is it just me, or was there a considerable slant to the language in that article?

 

[Stereodude]

What do you mean?

 

[ddrueding]

What do you mean?

helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels

The hoax of "peak oil"

this costly fraud

recently admitted

Seems to be quite loaded language, no?

 

[Stereodude]

It is an op-ed piece, so I would expect that.

 

[Striker]

Actually, what has any politition done for anybody but himself?

Bozo :joker:

Fair enough, so why point out one specifically when he has little to nothing to do with the current situation?

 

[udaman]

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/hybridcars/articles/103708/article.html


http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/463


Probably not too many 600h owners worried about payback?

At the absolute bottom of the pack was the Lexus 600h, which costs $18,858 more than the LS 460L, the most comparable non-hybrid model in the Lexus lineup.
Our analysts figure that the 600h, which combines Toyota's electric hybrid drive with a 5-liter V8 engine, saves only $189 a year in gas versus the 4.6-liter V8-powered 460L.
If fuel prices and all else remained stable it would take 99.6 years – 1.49 million miles of driving -- for the big hybrid to earn back its price differential! That's up from a mere 68.6 years, or a million miles, in March.

 

[udaman]

Well a lot has changed since Clocker started this thread. Bush is gone, the new era of Obama mania is here...and the worst recession since the great depression.

And Clocker is MIA on SF, and GM has until June 1 to declare bankruptcy, and Fiat is taking over Chrysler which has already filed for Ch. 11...and both Chrysler and GM intend to cut dealerships by the thousands over the next year...whew!

Now comes word that Tues, Obama Admn will propose new CAFE style standards , & *national* emission standards.

Hasn't been announced just yet, but the leaked figures are suspect to say the least!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

estimated ~250M cars/pickup trucks/SUV's in the USA 2006. add in decent sales in 2007, reduced sales in '08 & '09, and conservative estimate would be ~265M by year 2009 end.


So how the hell, equivalent of removing 177M, or roughly 2/3rd of all vehicles off the roads...please! Ridiculous figures. 1st, 25mpg average today, no F'in way. Highway mileage *maybe*, but most miles are driving in stop and go traffic, city driving; which I'll guess aver around 15-18mpg. So with 35mpg standard, still going to end up with 20mpg or less in actual real world driving. Unless these newer cars are almost *all* plug in electric or hybrid/alternative fuel cars, it's a hoax. Ergo, 177M cars removed is political BS.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_autos

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to propose the first-ever national emission limits for cars and trucks as well as average mileage requirements of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 — all costing consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle. Obama's plan couples for the first time pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent to taking 177 million cars off the road, senior administration officials said Monday night.


The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards — with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting a single national standard and more time to make the changes.

see, dd is only one online tonight . Hey, and now my main ISP seems to be able to access SF all day today (no, it's not a Mac problem, you twitterific™ trolls )

 

[Stereodude]

They're going to make sure that the only cars you can buy are the little unsafe death traps people aren't willing to buy now on their own. They're going to take away our freedoms by doing it in the name of the environment. :arge:

 

[LunarMist]

Whatever happened to Kevin? It has been a while since he posted at SF.

 

[Mercutio]

I'd guess he is a person with more important things on his mind just now.

 

[ddrueding]

They're going to make sure that the only cars you can buy are the little unsafe death traps people aren't willing to buy now on their own. They're going to take away our freedoms by doing it in the name of the environment. :arge:

I find that highly unlikely. You said the same thing about CAFE, and you can still buy 1000+HP cars that get single-digit mileage if you want to. The only thing this is going to do is change the cars that the mfgrs. are marketing hard. You act like everyone knows what car they want, when the vast majority are more like cattle; buying whatever they are told. I say tell them to buy the tiny hybrids, so I can buy whatever I want.

Smart4two hitting an S-Class and a concrete wall @ 70mph. Summary: The car will hold together fine either way, but stopping a human in one second will kill them regardless.

Hardly a death trap.

 

[Fushigi]

Hey, and now my main ISP seems to be able to access SF all day today (no, it's not a Mac problem, you twitterific™ trolls )

My limit has been reached. People have tried to help you with your problem accessing the site. But you have not only not followed their advice, you've taken to insulting those who tried to help, including me. Udaman, you are now on my ignore list.

 

[Handruin]

You guys also argued and bashed on his company quite a lot. I couldn't blame him if he didn't want to be around. I miss him, he is a good guy, and a good value to the group.

 

[ddrueding]

We did give him a hard time for the astroturfing, but I did enjoy his company. How old is his kid now, 2? That could explain it as well.

 

[Stereodude]

I find that highly unlikely. You said the same thing about CAFE, and you can still buy 1000+HP cars that get single-digit mileage if you want to. The only thing this is going to do is change the cars that the mfgrs. are marketing hard. You act like everyone knows what car they want, when the vast majority are more like cattle; buying whatever they are told. I say tell them to buy the tiny hybrids, so I can buy whatever I want.

Uh... You must be smoking something good. If GM wants to keep selling 20MPG 400+HP car they have to offset them with sales of 40+MPG cars to put the CAFE average where it has to be. It's not good enough to offer 40+ MPG models. They have to actually sell them. CAFE standards are based on sales, not what you offer the public. So, in order to lure people into buying the high MPG models they have to sell them at a loss in order to get their CAFE numbers up. At some point it's just not possible to offset the large high power cars people actually want to buy by giving away tiny, high MPG, death traps to meet the CAFE requirements anymore. So, they will stop making the large, high power, low MPG cars people want to buy. This is exactly what the gov't is banking on.

They know that most people won't choose to buy the type of cars they think you should buy so they're going to limit your choices so you have no choice but to buy the type of car they think you should buy.

 

[ddrueding]

Not a chance, Stereodude. The mfgrs. will stop running ads for big trucks, and stop marketing SUVs as mandatory if you love your kid, but they will still be there. They may even put some margin back in the big car market, while running ads for small cars and talking them up a bit. But they won't stop making them. They can't, really, or they will lose that entire market to Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Hyundai, VW, Audi, etc. These companies all make big trucks with V8s and/or large luxury sedans and/or high-powered sports cars, and none of them have anything to fear from this regulation, as they also make and market decent small cars.

People that really want big SUVs will always be able to buy them, people who want sports cars will always be able to buy them. Most of the market don't have a specific need/want, and will buy whatever they are told is cool. The 'cool' market has been SUVs for years, because that is where the big margins have been; getting people to buy $50k vehicles they didn't need.

Did you know that in europe you can get a GTI with adaptive chassis control and adaptive cruise control? Not in the US market because they claim US buyers don't see the value (that the rest of the world does) in small, premium cars. Why not? Because of the marketing that has been brainwashing the cattle-like masses for over a decade.

To re-iterate my main point; the auto industry can redirect the bulk of their car sales simply by redirecting their marketing budget. They haven't done so so far because of financial incentives. This is simply changing those incentives.

As a sidenote, I would prefer that they keep the incentive financial. How about a healthy emissions-based tax at time of import/manufacture directly to the manufacturer? Just a thought...

 

[Handruin]

These companies all make big trucks with V8s and/or large luxury sedans and/or high-powered sports cars, and none of them have anything to fear from this regulation, as they also make and market decent small cars.

Honda has been around for many years and still to this day they do not have a production V8 in any of their cars. They still survive without monstrous trucks and huge SUV's. Granted they still make some (one truck and a couple SUVs), but they aren't their bread and butter.

 

[Stereodude]

Not a chance, Stereodude. The mfgrs. will stop running ads for big trucks, and stop marketing SUVs as mandatory if you love your kid, but they will still be there. They may even put some margin back in the big car market, while running ads for small cars and talking them up a bit. But they won't stop making them. They can't, really, or they will lose that entire market to Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Hyundai, VW, Audi, etc. These companies all make big trucks with V8s and/or large luxury sedans and/or high-powered sports cars, and none of them have anything to fear from this regulation, as they also make and market decent small cars.

You seem to be missing the fact that all the car makers are going to stop making those cars because they won't be viable under the new requirements.

People that really want big SUVs will always be able to buy them, people who want sports cars will always be able to buy them. Most of the market don't have a specific need/want, and will buy whatever they are told is cool. The 'cool' market has been SUVs for years, because that is where the big margins have been; getting people to buy $50k vehicles they didn't need.

If you have enough money sure... Assuming those vehicles are still made, which seems doubtful, they will have to intentionally make them very expensive to discourage people from buying them so they can keep their CAFE numbers up.

Did you know that in europe you can get a GTI with adaptive chassis control and adaptive cruise control? Not in the US market because they claim US buyers don't see the value (that the rest of the world does) in small, premium cars. Why not? Because of the marketing that has been brainwashing the cattle-like masses for over a decade.

That's a pipe dream. People in the US don't want those kinds of cars. It has nothing to do with advertising. It has nothing to do with seeing the value. The vast majority of people in the US simply don't want tiny cars. If the rest of the world had a free car market and realistically priced gasoline (without a pile of taxes to fund their socialist programs) they'd drive the same type of cars we do. Those car sell in Europe because the price of gasoline is sky high and they tax cars based on engine displacement. People buy small fuel efficient cars because they can't afford anything else.

To re-iterate my main point; the auto industry can redirect the bulk of their car sales simply by redirecting their marketing budget. They haven't done so so far because of financial incentives. This is simply changing those incentives.

You're delusional man. You can market the heck out of something and still not sell it. Cars aren't popular music on the radio. You can't force people to buy certain cars by advertising the heck out of them.

You can't make a safe, fuel efficient, low polluting, reliable, reasonably priced car that people want to buy. If it was possible they'd be out in the market and selling in droves. Safety requirements either drive up weight or cost (exotic materials). Fuel efficiency, low pollution, and reliability are somewhat mutually exclusive. You can't have all three...

Considering CAFE standards were established to make the US less dependent on foreign oil and we're more dependent on it now than we were then I'd say they've been an abject failure. I see no reason to believe that they will suddenly start working. But then again, I'm judging the results not the intentions.

But in the mean time we'll burden the poor with all these tree hugging environmental policies because that's what this stunt and cap and trade will do.

 

[ddrueding]

Well, at least we now know where our disagreements are

 

[CougTek]

People in the US don't want those kinds of cars. It has nothing to do with advertising. It has nothing to do with seeing the value. The vast majority of people in the US simply don't want tiny cars.

The Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla wer respectively the 6th and 5th most sold vehicles in the U.S. last year. Both have been top rated by the IIHS for their 2009 models (those who were sold during the second part of last year). Both offer better than 30 miles per gallon.

People in the U.S. don't want to buy those cars?

Check your facts before opening it up.

As for the rest of your post...have you ever heard of the story about the quiet man sitting in the corner of a bar, saying nothing. Others folks in the bar were laughing of him, saying he was stupid. A newby came in, saw the situation and went to ask the silent man why he wasn't replying. He answered that he prefered to shut up and let them think he was stupid rather than speak and prove it.

That man was wiser than you, Dude. I'll go to the gym now. Thanks for the motivation.

 

[Stereodude]

The Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla wer respectively the 6th and 5th most sold vehicles in the U.S. last year. Both have been top rated by the IIHS for their 2009 models (those who were sold during the second part of last year). Both offer better than 30 miles per gallon.

People in the U.S. don't want to buy those cars?

Uh, those aren't small cars. The Civic and Corolla used to be small cars. The current Civic is larger than the Accord was 20 years ago. The current Corolla is larger than the Camry was 20 years ago. They also won't meet the new requirements, so I don't see your point.

 

[jtr1962]

If there's any one constant in business it's that you generally have to more heavily advertise things people don't want as opposed to things they do. The automotive market is no different. In the absence of any advertising, the majority of car buyers would just care about getting from point A to point B in reasonable comfort and safety and economy. Anything more is influenced by advertising. Because of this, the auto makers tended to heavily advertise features for which they could charge heavy premiums. This includes all sorts of car entertainment systems for starters. It also includes things which are relatively easy to engineer such as prodigious amounts of power. It's not hard from an engineering standpoint to make lightweight vehicles accelerate like gangbusters (on the spectrum of vehicles from bicycles all the way to heavy cargo ships even SUVs are relatively "light"). Just fill up all the space under the hood with engine, add a beefy enough power train, and bingo, your vehicle accelerates like the Enterprise after Kirk orders warp factor seven. Good luck trying to do that though if your vehicle is a 500 ton commuter train-that's seriously hard engineering. It's a lot harder (but not impossible as SD seems to think), to make a vehicle which offers a nice balance of reasonable power and good efficiency.

Anyway, continuing this line of thought, power is easy to engineer but can add a lot to the sticker price, so the automakers figure let's advertise it. Hey, look our new SUV can get to 60 mph faster than you can blink! Now let's look at other things which we can produce cheaply, and let's get the masses to want them. Hmm, there's a nice loophole in CAFE standards for vehicles over 6000 pounds. Originally the purpose was so that trucks used in commercial service wouldn't be unnecessarily burdened by mileage/emissions standards. At the time it was never even imagined that large numbers of 6000+ pound vehicles would be sold to soccer moms. However, advertising changed that. Not only were these vehicles exempt from CAFE standards, but also most emissions standards. Easy to engineer, can be sold at a premium, so of course the automakers used advertising to drive sales of large vehicles up.

The SUV trend also negatively affected traditional automobile design. Big and boxy was in, aerodynamics was all but forgotten, even in smaller vehicles. Sure, yet another thing the automakers loved. Aerodynamic cars are harder to manufacture even though once made the extra cost is more than paid for in fuel savings, even with $1 a gallon gasoline. It's a no brainer that any vehicle of a given size should be made in as efficient a shape as possible. Yet it wasn't being done because "styling" concerns took precedence over sound engineering decisions.

And that brings me to yet another thing which was heavily advertised-style. Being that the typical automobile owner spends probably 99.9% of their time inside their automobile, I would tend to think they shouldn't care at all what it looks like outside. The outside shape should be whatever it is so as to enhance both efficiency and interior space given the vehicle's intended usage. Large vehicles intended for commercial use and quick loading/unloading might not necessarily be as streamlined so as to facilitate their intended function. On the opposite spectrum, vehicles intended mainly for passenger use as fairly high speeds should be as streamlined as possible given the contraints of seating their occupants comfortable. But no-let's get users to actually care about what their vehicles look like outside because that's something we can alter relatively cheaply. In short, advertising is and has been used to shift buyers away from features which were costly but for which large premiums could not be charged. Obviously a person who cares solely about saving money has no money to pay for the extra features to enhance economy.

Now the new laws, while still disappointing to me in many respects (why no zero emissions requirement as an ever-increasing percentage of vehicles sold, for example?), change the game by forcing buyers to pay more of the true cost of some of the cheap to build "features" mentioned earlier. Want enough horsepower so you can get to 60 mph in 0.2 seconds? You'll still be able to get, provided you can pay. Want a vehicle large enough to carry the entire crew of an aircraft carrier even though it'll mostly be used carrying one occupant to work? You can still get, but it'll cost you. Is this fair? Well, I'll answer this question with another. Is it fair that those who exercise their so-called "right" to buy huge, overpowered behemoths to intimidate those in lesser vehicles out of their way put enough junk into the air to drive up cancer and asthma rates, not to mention in general make many areas just plain unpleasant to live in? Their use of such a vehicle benefits nobody except themselves, yet others must pay the price for their choice. Now I'm all for free choice, so the answer is clear here. If those who wish to drive these vehicles as if it's their God-given right want to continue to do so, then at least let them pay for some of the societal damage they cause. And let's use some of this money to reengineer these vehicles so that in the future they can do what they do, but with far less impact on those around them.

So in the end I see these laws as more of an equalizer. If it ends up costing the buyer more to get power as opposed to economy, then many will opt for economy. If the automakers can make more money selling features related to boosting economy or safety instead of power, then that's what they will influence the masses to want through advertising. Further down the road, if the government can use its influence to downplay the desirability of auto travel over other modes, then so much the better. Even at their most efficient, cars are still ill-suited for many of the roles we shoe-horn them into. And that's really the heart of the problem. Had autos remained a niche market then there might have been no need to heavily regulate them. It's their very ubiquity, the fact that a good portion of the population owns one, causing the ensuing problems of congestion and pollution (I won't even get into the costly annual death and injury toll). If we can go back to a world where the majority neither need nor want an auto, then in the end we all win, both auto users and non-users alike. If these laws make car travel in general more expensive, then so much the better. It might actually encourage us to get serious about providing decent, useful public transit to those no longer able to afford car travel.

 

[Fushigi]

The A in CAFE does stand for Average, so for every Suburban GM sells, they'll need to sell a Cobalt or two to bring up the average. This may limit the supply of guzzlers but it certainly won't take them off the road. And it should encourage manufacturers to innovate towards higher economy in those vehicles.

 

[Stereodude]

The A in CAFE does stand for Average, so for every Suburban GM sells, they'll need to sell a Cobalt or two to bring up the average. This may limit the supply of guzzlers but it certainly won't take them off the road. And it should encourage manufacturers to innovate towards higher economy in those vehicles.

Yes, but the problem is they can't sell the required number of Cobalts needed to hit the CAFE numbers at a price point that allows them to make money on the Cobalt. They lose money on every fuel efficient Cobalt they sell now, and that's with the current CAFE standards. You can't break the laws of physics, so there isn't a lot that can be done to make the Suburban more efficient without making it a lot less useful... You can't make the Cobalt more efficient to help your average without make the per vehicle loss even greater.

So, tell me, what's the solution if your GM?