Lutz Says CAFE 35 Will Increase Price of GM Cars By $6,000

LOL, I will continue driving the Escalade and the range rover, SCREW whatever cafe 35 is, sounds queer. I hate the look of HYBRIDS, and i refuse to pay more for a retarded looking vehicle. “Just let us drill oil on our own soil”

Pay one way, the other or in this case, both. 35MPG, when considering more cars are added to the roadways every year, will yield NOTHING in terms of alleviating the thirst for crude in the U.S. or Internationally.
-
The problem is quite simple but people just want to keep trying to squeeze more and more out of IC and it sure sounds like it won’t be profitable… yet they persist.
-
I reallt think they’re dragging their feet on EV development, perhaps employing “planned obsolescense”. IC, Hybrid, Hydrogen/Electric, then finally Electric?
-
Frankly, when the Volt finally hits the streets (still and “If” in my book), it’ll be too little, too late. If at that point other auto makers would be considering similar vehicles, they’ll probably be a way off from selling them, and what’s gonna be the numbers on the price tags for them? How much will the operating costs be? If you’re plugging the car in AND filling up with H-bomb juice, that’s gotta add up.
-
All the while, they’re ignoring what’s already on the verge of accomplishment. A pure, simple EV that’s truly cheap to fuel… just expensive to buy. The reason why the Tesla Roadster is so expensive is not only because it’s akin to Lotus, but also because it took a small, upstart company to truly innovate without all of the bureaucratic B.S. and malintentioned steering of U.S. consumers toward expensive solutions to simple problems.
-
Simple solution? Continue making and marketing conventional IC cars, as good as they can be with current technology AND develope and sell PURE EV’s. Make a percentage of available models that are EV a requirement, starting with a small percentage, then increasing the requirement.

With gas on the rise, I think Americans are ready to buy almost anything at this point, but it seems the former big 3 are still pushing pickups and SUVs. So what’s the deal? Why do I see 15-30yr old cars getting just as many mpg as an new Civic? And why in the world would a 40yr old Plymouth Superbird have better aerodynamics than most of today’s cars(not that it was more fuel efficient, but I just thought I’d make a point on that)? We have the technology to outperform yesterday’s rides, but in some areas we aren’t. What should be done to improve mpg is take the weight and size of an ’80s subcompact, and equip it with advanced aerodynamics(I wouldn’t even care if it’s ugly as long as it gets like 70-80mpg) and modern drivetrain.

…And this is why GM is going down the tubes. They insist on continuously try to cheap out on their designs, selling the same car over and over again with 18 different names, while their competition consistently puts out better products proves repeatedly how horrible of a company GM is. I can’t wait till someone crushes GM. God knows why they are still around in the first place, because it sure isn’t due to their great products. There is a reason that very few people outside the US are interested in GM’s. And that “I buy American!!” stuff is BS, how many of GM’s cars and parts are less “made in the US” than the bulk of Honda’s and Toyota’s offerings? Keep whining GM. Leave car manufacturing to your much more capable competitors who don’t insist on crying about the fact that they are being forced to make cars that don’t take a crap all over the environment.

Oh boo-hoo, whiny diapers. Its the auto industry crybabies that are being retarded, not the CAFE rules. Seriously, 35mpg? Like kapow sayss, thats baby steps. They could have that done by tomorrow if they wanted to, it’s so conservative. They just don’t want to have to change, that’s all. And if it means ppl keep their existing cars longer, how’s that bad (except for them)? New cars are wasteful, most of the pollution a car generates over its lifetime is during its manufacture and its disposal. The longer ppl keep their older well-maintained cars on the road instead of shelling out for new junk, the better.

that new 35 mpg rule is retarded

Is this guy for real? 6k? Honestly? The only way it would cost 6k per vehicle to get 35 MPG would be if he insists on building massive SUVs with 400 HP that still get 35 MPG - that might be a challenge. That’s not the rule though - just make the cars smaller, lighter, or more efficient (or all three). It’s doable Bob… if you spent the same amount of time being progressive as you do complaining, we might get somewhere.