Oh Ye of Little MPG: Recently, the CEOs of Chrysler, Ford and General Motors lunched with Senate leaders, telling them the one-third vehicle mileage increase proposed by George W. Bush and Barack Obama -- you heard that right, Bush and Obama have offered nearly identical fuel-efficiency plans -- was impossible. Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, said at a news conference after the lunch that a one-third mileage improvement "doesn't look achievable." This is exactly the kind of excuse-making that allowed Honda and Toyota to wrap their hands around the Big Three's necks in the first place! As the UAW-Detroit contracts talks heat up, the relationship between mpg and saving Chrysler, Ford and General Motors bears exploring.

The National Academy of Sciences said in 2002 that a one-third improvement in mpg is practical using existing technology, and without sacrifice of safety or passenger comfort. Now, the U.S. automakers claim a one-third improvement can't be done. It's not that Detroit cannot achieve better fuel economy -- it's that Detroit doesn't want to. What the current executive-suite suits at the Big Three want is to maximize their bonuses and stock options during their short stays at the top, then let somebody else take the blame for the next round of decline of the U.S. auto industry that is inevitable if fuel economy does not improve. And that's setting aside the national-security implications. A one-third increase in car and SUV mpg is what's needed to break U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil. Wouldn't it be nice if Detroit CEOs acted as though they cared about national security!
This summer, the Senate passed something that on paper seemed even better than the Bush-Obama plan, ordering a 40 percent mpg improvement by 2020; the House has yet to act. But although the Bush-Obama plan had teeth, specifying that carmakers show annual mpg improvement beginning immediately, the Senate provision contained a huge asterisk: There are no annual milestones, just a requirement that the mpg rise be accomplished by 2020. That gives Detroit the green light to spend most of the next 13 years doing nothing about petroleum waste, and there is no endeavor in which American automakers are more accomplished than doing nothing about petroleum waste. Plus, the Senate bill contains a waiver provision -- as the 2020 deadline approaches, automakers can request a waiver. Thus the Senate mpg bill, widely praised by gullible editorialists, actually is pure froth.
Now remember that little phrase, "the House has yet to act." Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who boasts about how she will take the bold steps the president will not, won't allow a floor vote on any mileage provision. Pelosi says new mpg rules can be negotiated in conference committee -- that is, in secret, with no public disclosure. And she hasn't even scheduled a conference. George W. Bush proposed a strong, binding program of immediate mpg increases, and Democrats in the House refuse to allow an up-or-down public vote. The calculus is that Pelosi wants to prevent any kind of reform from passing so that, in the 2008 presidential election, Democrats can denounce Republicans for lack of progress on mpg. Wouldn't it be nice if House Democrats acted as though they cared about national security!
While the Senate was considering mpg rules, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a mostly Detroit-run lobby group, aired radio ads that were monuments to deceit. Two women were heard discussing how new mpg regulations could "force" automakers to "put safety in the back seat." One said, "I want to keep my SUV because it makes me feel safe." Several senators speaking against the tough Bush-Obama version of the mileage rules declared that higher mpg would imperil lives by replacing safe large SUVs with small cars. But the Bush-Obama proposal would not require automakers to reduce the size or weight of passenger vehicles. Fuel economy could be improved through engineering changes including reducing horsepower, which many vehicles presently have too much of anyway; the new Acura TL has an absurd 286 horsepower in a midsized sedan, showing that even former good-guy Honda has abandoned corporate responsibility regarding horsepower. Reducing the horsepower of new vehicles would reduce crash rates, thus improving safety.
And although being in a heavy SUV might make the driver feel safer, the reality is the opposite. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety continues to find that you are more likely to die in an SUV than in a regular car. In its most recent study, "very large" SUVs had a higher occupant death rate than midsized cars -- that is, trading in your large SUV for a regular-size car makes you less likely to die. The IIHS also finds that econobox-sized cars are death traps in crashes, so don't switch to a tiny car to save fuel, switch to a midsized vehicle with a middling-horsepower engine. Here are the most recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures on fatality rates by vehicle class. They show that people in "light trucks," the class that enfolds SUVs and most pickup trucks, are roughly one-third more likely to die per mile traveled than people in regular-size cars. It was quite cynical for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to tell consumers that SUVs will make them feel safe when statistics show that buying an SUV makes the driver more likely to die.
Not only has it been nearly two decades since the average fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the United States improved -- the sad story is here -- but the EPA continues to publish Pollyannaish statistics that make it seem as though American vehicles burn less fuel than they actually do. According to the EPA figures used to enforce the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, this year's new cars average 27.5 miles per gallon and new SUVs average 21.6. Is there one single person in the United States whose SUV gets 21.6 mpg? There can't be many regular cars that actually get 27.5 mpg, either. Researchers have long complained that claimed EPA averages are unrealistic -- vehicles tested using gentle acceleration with air conditioners off, with no weight onboard, and employing other gimmicks to make fuel consumption appear lower. Surely government-issued unrealistic mpg figures are a leading reason for years of national complacency about petroleum use. People go into auto showrooms and see impressive-looking government window stickers declaring that cars get 28 mpg and SUVs get 22 mpg. People think, "That's pretty good." They don't worry, buy something huge, then find themselves lucky to record 15 mpg.
Beginning with the 2008 model year, the EPA is switching to what it asserts is a realistic method of computing fuel economy; the agency's estimates of actual mpg performance have fallen about 10 percent as a result, although still seem on the high side to me. Good luck actually getting 17 mpg in the city driving your 4,090-pound, all-wheel-drive Lexus RX350! But although EPA estimates of fuel use are being adjusted for realism as

 

Retards.

 

coles notes?

 

Cliff notes?

 

it just an article about how people complain about high gas prices, the president has proposed a bill that would raise mpg by 4% starting this year and that the big three automakers said that it's impossible. but scinetists have proven that with todays technology it's very easy to do. and that people don't what to give up their big "safe" SUVs even thought studies have shown that mid-size sedans are actually safer.

 

No when these companies bring fuel efficiant cars out people complain about lack of power, when they bring out cars with power people bitch about the gas milage. Also I'm sorry but if I want to go into the dealer and buy a car that will run 12's and gets 20mpg on the highway I should be able to, how can the government say otherwise aslong as it meet emmisions standards. Oh and lets not put the rope around just the domestic automakers necks, what about Honda SUV's that get ****ty milage, what about a Toyota SUV that gets **** milage. The S2000 gets worse milage than my Vette but lets jump on domestics back over **** people let import companies get away with. This is a growing trend, give companies outside the U.S. a break but hammer the ones that are here and have supported the largest workforce out of any employer in U.S. history.

 

American automakers are shipping thier manufacturing (and therefore jobs) out of the company to places like Mexico citing that they can't make a profit. However, many other manufactures (Toyota and Hyundai) are actually building plants in the U.S. The problem isn't the American car manufactures, its the executives. They make a crap load of money while thier companies are run into the **** hole. If these guys actually managed thier companies instead of making excuses (like why they have to move plants out of the country) the big 3 wouldn't be in the ****ty situation that they are in right now.