"Car Talk" guys bust on US automakers in a letter to Congress

edkwon

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
6,802
Location
The OC
Car(s)
2020 Kia Telluride, Tesla Model Y
Tom and Ray Magliozzi, the NPR 'Car Talk' guys basically write a pretty spot on letter on how Congress has had a long history of allowing the US auto industry to get away with what they want, since the big 3 have had a tendency to cry wolf every time a new measure was being made to improve fuel economy and lower emissions, claiming such moves would force the companies to build little shitmobiles and destroy the US car industry as we know it. The letter urges congress to have some balls and enact car related legislation that would catch them up with europe and parts of asia.

http://smnr.us/thespookytruth/cartalk.html

transcript of the letter:

Tom and Ray Magliozzi
Box 3500 Harvard Square
Cambridge MA 02238

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
United States House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

Oct. 25, 2007

To Members of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

You are about to make a crucial decision that may be a turning point for our country. As you consider how high to raise our nation?s CAF? standards, you are undoubtedly coming under a barrage of lobbying from various parties. Including us! The obvious question is, who do you believe?

On the one hand, you have people like Ed Markey, who?s been trying to increase fuel economy for as long as we can remember. Admittedly, he?s from Massachusetts. And yes, we?ve seen his haircut.

On the other hand, you have the automotive industry (i.e. car salesmen), whose ratings for honesty are below even those of Congress in public opinion surveys. Let?s remember why:

In 1972, Ford President Lee Iacocca, told you that if the ?EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.? Hm. That wasn?t exactly right on the money, was it?

A couple of years later, car makers were back in front of you guys, squealing over proposed new fuel economy standards. Chrysler Vice President of Engineering, Alan Loofborrow, predicted that imposing fuel economy standards might ?outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars?or even smaller ones?within five years.? That thing got a Hemi, Alan?

As the industry triple-teamed Congress to keep America from improving fuel economy, a Ford Executive let fly this whooper: If CAF? became law, the move could result ?in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles?? Ask the man who drives an Expedition if that ever came to pass.

The onslaught of ?we can?t?it?ll ruin us? you?re denying Americans a choice of vehicles? begins every time we the people?through our elected representatives?try to bring the auto industry, kicking and screaming into the modern era. And every time, their predictions of motorized-skateboard futures have failed to materialize. Let us repeat that, because the historical record bears it out to a tee. Every single time they?ve resisted safety, environmental, or fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull-feathers.

Isn?t it time we (you) stop falling for this 50 year-long line of baloney?
The truth is, significantly higher average fuel economy can be achieved. In fact it?s already being achieved. And if we don?t push our own auto industry to set world class standards, they?ll be beaten again by the Japanese, the Koreans, and maybe even the Chinese, who will do it with or without U.S. Congressional action.

There are technologies aplenty that already exist that could be used to meet much higher CAFE standards.

* Hybrid-electric vehicles. Hybrids offer, in many cases, a 50% increase in mileage over gasoline versions of the same vehicles. GM just introduced a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, that reportedly gets better city mileage than a Toyota Camry.
* Clean diesel engines. With new, clean diesel fuel now mandated in America, expect a surge of clean diesel engines in the next three to five years that get 25% better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts.
* Diesel-electric hybrids. Combine the advantages of hybrids with more efficient diesel engines.
* Turbo chargers and super chargers. These force additional air into cylinders to wring more power out of available fuel.
* Cylinder deactivation. Cylinders that are not needed at any given moment, are deactivated, and instantaneously reactivated as soon as the driver demands additional power. Widely available now.
* Plug-in, series hybrids. Now on the drawing boards, plug-in hybrids allow drivers to charge up overnight, when the electric grid is underused, and they?ll handle most commutes without ever firing up their internal combustion engines.
* Automatic stop-start technology. At least one energy analyst we spoke to believes that this simple technology, in and of itself, could result in a 10% decrease in fuel use. It?s already used in hybrid vehicles, foreign and domestic, and is on its way in more vehicles in the next couple of years.
* Higher voltage electrical systems. These save fuel by allowing energy draining systems, such as power steering, and air conditioning, to be run electrically, instead of by draining power from the engine and using fuel.
* Regenerative braking. Captures energy otherwise lost when the car slows down to give further boost to onboard battery systems.
* Safe, lightweight materials. Lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber panels reduce weight, allowing a smaller, more efficient engine to propel a car just as fast on less fuel.
* Better transmissions. Six speed automatic transmissions, widely available now from Ford and others, increase fuel economy by 5% and offer smoother acceleration. Mercedes has seven speeds. Lexus has eight. Nissan has CVTs?continuously variable transmissions. All of these improve mileage AND performance.
* Common rail fuel injection. Now standard on modern diesels, this same high pressure fuel delivery technology is beginning to be used to increase fuel economy in gasoline engines, too.
* All wheel drive systems that use electric motors at the non-driven wheels, like on the Lexus RX350 hybrid, eliminate heavy, gas-wasting differentials and drive train components on cars designed to go in the snow.
* More appropriately sized and weighted cars. When we?re facing a future of global oil wars and economy-killing gasoline prices, perhaps having single commuters drive 5,000 pound SUVs is something we?ll just have to learn to live without. And modern computer electronics, such as stability control, can now ameliorate any driving dynamic issues that result from lack of mass.
* More appropriately powered cars. In 1964, the most powerful, over-the-top Mustang muscle car you could buy came with an optional, four-barrel, 271 horsepower engine. Today, that?s what comes standard on the highest rated minivans. 275 horsepower. To take your kid to nursery school? What does this say about our national priorities? Do we really want to send our kids to fight and die in the desert so that can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten seconds?

The truth is, we could achieve a CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon in five years if we made it a priority. Every one of the above technologies is either available now or is well along in the pipeline. There?s nothing ?pie in the sky? here that hasn?t been thought of or invented yet.

Look what American industry did in World War II. Look what we did with the space program. It?s time to make energy independence just as high a priority. And it starts with you guys (and gals), our representatives. Don?t buy the ?can?t do? bull this time.

Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAF? standards dramatically, you?ll be helping the American automotive industry compete?by forcing them to synchronize their priorities with those of the American people, and the populations of other countries where they will be increasingly marketing their cars.

It?s the job of private enterprise to design and sell products. But it?s the job of Congress to set our national priorities. Trust us, the car companies won?t go out of business because America insists that they build the world?s best, most efficient cars. We urge you to set the bar high for American ingenuity. We have no doubt out car industry will make the grade?to the benefit of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Tom and Ray Magliozzi
 
Urgh, stuff like this shouldn't be made illegal it should be up the manufacturers to do that stuff.

Seriously who'se going to buy one car if it gets 20mpg and another comparable car gets 35mpg.
 
Urgh, stuff like this shouldn't be made illegal it should be up the manufacturers to do that stuff.

Yes, it should, but if Generic Large Car Company is given the choice between chucking out a million more SUVs or investing in some green technology and small cars that they think nobody will buy, which do you think they will go for?

edit - and the problem is that at the moment, most car makers are thinking like this. Current green efforts are slightly half-arsed. Okay, so you can get a hybrid Prius. Or a Ford Escape. Joy. I think one GM exec mentioned having hybrid options on all their range within the next x years. That's more like it - you've got the tech, you just need to implement it.


edit - that letter speaks a lot of sense. I can't really argue with it.
 
Normally I'd say "let the market decide" but the problem is anyone who comes out with a new idea that isn't a major manufacturer gets beat into oblivion before they get a chance to get a foot hold. Also, the US is just to damn reliant on cars, we basically have to force them to give us an option.

Even if one of the big companies do try and do something, unless they are near/at the top they have no chance. In the Late 50's Ford started to push for cars with optional "safety packages" and GM told them if they go through with it, they'll do everything they can to boot Ford out of the market, and they did.

I still don't like the idea of gub'ment telling me what I can/can't buy, or what anyone can or can't build.
 
If I want to buy a car with no airbags that gets 2MPG, let me.

sure, but i'd rather the automakers take the blunt of it then have the government impose retarded taxes on fuel prices and congestion charges.

GM in particular has some brilliant minds, all their doing is asking to be lazy IMO if they really are so worried about these CAFE standards.
 
It does amuse me that the big three already produce fuel efficient cars for sale everywhere else in the world on the same plaforms, they just don't give the US the option to buy them??? If that's not dragging your heels I don't know what is.

I completely agree you should be able to buy that V8 solid axle super muscle truck if you want. But with the bulk of America is getting fed up with high fuel costs attitudes need to change.
 
Ottobon said:
GM in particular has some brilliant minds, all their doing is asking to be lazy IMO if they really are so worried about these CAFE standards.
Ha, then show them how to make a fullsize truck get 35mpg. That new 4.5L diesel and 6 speed transmissions help, but I'd be amazed if they'll get it to 30mpg. That's the problem, something like half of the big 3's sales are trucks or truck based SUVs. Maybe "we didn't have a choice" 25 years ago, but today that couldn't be further from the truth. I say let the market dictate what's produced. Domestic automakers have seen what complacency does to their bottom line, and they've been forced to play catch up. That's fantastic, but it's not the time to penalize them further. And now I'm going to stop before I really start ranting.

If I want to buy a car with no airbags that gets 2MPG, let me.
:yes:
 
If I'm not mistaken, the Truck and Cars are judged different in the CAFE rating.

They are and you don't need to have big Full size BOF SUVs getting 35 mpg. The fleet average just needs to be 35 mpg so you will have some 60-70 mpg hybrids or diesels and then larger SUVs getting in the mid to high 20s range.


Maybe even get 30 mpg out of a diesel or hybrid SUV so the average still comes in at around 35 mpg.

The TDV8 in the nearly 6,000 lbs Range Rover gets it low 30s mpg on the Euro cycle with imperial gallons. That vehicle has no gas saving technology except for the 6 speed auto and the fairly high tech TDV8. Wait till the all aluminum model comes out in 24-30 months with start-stop technology and who knows what else. I can see that vehicle hitting 35 mpg highway with over a 1,000 lbs less weight to carry around.

Oh and that TDV8 is nearly as fast as the 400 hp supercharged gas engine that gets low 20s highway in the euro cycle and 18 mpg on the EPA cycle.

http://www.landrover.co.uk/gb/en/Ve...rt/Specifications/Engines and performance.htm

http://www.landrover.co.uk/gb/en/Ve...tions/Range_rover_engines_and_performance.htm
 
It does amuse me that the big three already produce fuel efficient cars for sale everywhere else in the world on the same plaforms, they just don't give the US the option to buy them??? If that's not dragging your heels I don't know what is.

It is because of the American auto union, the UAW. For example, the modern Pontiac GTO just barely got the US market, because the UAW was up in arms that this was not made here.

Yet most American car parts are either made in Mexico, China or Japan. you figure it out. Bottom line is, the UAW is really killing the American car.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the Truck and Cars are judged different in the CAFE rating.
They are and you don't need to have big Full size BOF SUVs getting 35 mpg. The fleet average just needs to be 35 mpg so you will have some 60-70 mpg hybrids or diesels and then larger SUVs getting in the mid to high 20s range.
Ah good to know. That should be more than attainable, at least for GM.
 
They are and you don't need to have big Full size BOF SUVs getting 35 mpg. The fleet average just needs to be 35 mpg so you will have some 60-70 mpg hybrids or diesels and then larger SUVs getting in the mid to high 20s range.


Maybe even get 30 mpg out of a diesel or hybrid SUV so the average still comes in at around 35 mpg.

Unless they made changes, the Euro cycle is BS. Fifth gear made mention of it, I think the "highway" rating is figured by driving at 47mph.

30mpg Imperial is 25mpg US. Still better than many gas trucks in the US though.
 
Unless they made changes, the Euro cycle is BS. Fifth gear made mention of it, I think the "highway" rating is figured by driving at 47mph.

30mpg Imperial is 25mpg US. Still better than many gas trucks in the US though.

It can't be too much of a BS since the Euro cycle says the SC Range Rover Sport gets 19.7 US MPG which is slightly less then the 2007 and Under EPA test and slightly more then the 2008 US EPA test. I could beat both the old and new EPA numbers to get 22 mpg highway out of a Sport.
 
LET THE MARKET DECIDE!
352px-Atlas_shrugged_cover.jpg


Raise the tax on fuel - let the market sort itself. If paid Euro fuel prices, we would drive Citroen C2's too.
People who NEED trucks and SUVs per their utility would still be able to get them and pay from necessity, whereas SUVs will become untenable as normal family vehicles. When you have CAFE vehicle classifications - car companies will try really hard to push vehicles over one or another side of the line, trying to get SUVs as close to utility vehicles as possible to get in that category and follow a lower standard.

Forcefeading any specific technology (which politicans seem bent on) gets wierd. To the meat of their argument, Saftey frustrates weightloss, power is a non-problemm, its not like they sacrificed fuel economy tuning the Honda Odyssey, over-night plug0ins are anacronsiticly robbing Peter to pay Paul, and hybrids have enviornmental issues in manufacturing, plus a handicap in weight and saftey. Other than that I'm all ears.
 
Last edited:
The only problem with raising taxes on fuel is it'll raise the cost of everything. Everytime fuel goes up another $.50 the local truck drivers all start raising their prices to cover the fuel costs.

Though it would be nice to have some better roads around here from the extra funding in the system.
 
The quick fix, for a whole lot of reasons is go Diesel (Bio Diesel is even better) - but I fear America is not ready for this:
1. The US domestic companies are so far behind in this technology for cars that they would bring out the old old arguments as outlined above and it will not happen.
2. The US consumer is unaware of what a modern Diesel car can do and to try to build a market would be expensive.
3. Does the US have widespread low sulphur (sulfur) diesel? Last I heard it was pretty rare.

I sure hope that Congress do the right thing anyway - for the American consumer and their own security of supply.

/EDIT and KABOOM will bring up out dated arguments. .. Oh he has! See over :lol:
 
Last edited:
Top