gm pushing for higher gas tax

[Caliman93230]

Originally Posted by StreetStrip

Even if the CEO thinks the government should increase fuel taxes, it's incredibly dumb to make a public statement in that regard.

Why does he not recommend the government do things to increase domestic fuel supply/capacity? Why does he have to play the game on the governments terms? Oh....that's right....the government owns them.

[cab2g]

Originally Posted by Shurenuff

This new CEO Akerson does not seem to be a car guy at all, and that concerns me as a GM fan and enthusiast.

Quote from Detroit News:
"Akerson, who became CEO Sept. 1 and board chairman Jan. 1, already is weighing in on new vehicles. He recently greenlighted the next generation of the compact Chevrolet Cruze, but vetoed a new engine for a sports car set for production in 18 months."

http://detnews.com/article/20110606/...#ixzz1OVCSwJ6h

Sure it doesn't specify what type of engine he vetoed and what direction he prefers, but reading the comments below has me concerned as a Corvette and Camaro fan and for us as performance enthusiasts.

Another comment from the CEO:
"In a recent meeting with engineers, for example, Akerson pressed them to explain the logic behind putting a big 6.2-liter engine in an unspecified car whose competitor has a 4.4-liter turbocharged engine. The engineers replied: "Well, we want to be able to beat the other guy."

Akerson responded: "I don't think the average buyer is going to buy an eight-cylinder, 530-horsepower (car)." His point: Decisions must be supported by a solid business case, and not just for bragging rights or as a marketing tool."

http://detnews.com/article/20110606/...#ixzz1OV89SLS4

Newsflash, people who buy these type of cars are not your "average buyer" and care about performance and bragging rights within the segment! This isn't the a Toyota Corolla demographic.

I totally got upset when I read this, but. Then I got to thinking, what do all your "senior" managers do? They push for the business case. It's not necessarily a bad thing. "just because" isn't a good enough explanation. Instead the engineers could show them stats showing that customers want the car with the best stats and sales swing according to the car's stats. They could show research that showed people preferred naturally aspirated 6.2L over a turbocharged 6 cyl engine because of the ability to upgrade or the exhaust note. etc etc. If you prove your case, then you will get the senior managements buy in.

I feel this current CEO puts his feet in his mouth in public though. He needs to watch it or his stockholders will oust him. But pushing engineers to think outside of their engineering box and think about the business side is not a bad thing. The engineer that can do that is the one who will be able to move up in the company.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Why is letting the free-market determine what we drive never even considered? I know, crazy thought, right?

Not buying or selling but since global demand is going to be unpredicatalbe and in the not too distant future prices will go up due to demand in an incredibly fast growing Chinese auto market (not even considering India). How do you get Americans ready when that "free market economy" could explode in our faces in an instant? You saw what happened to our economy 2 years ago when gas spiked at 4, now we are "kinda" used to it. What if it spikes to 8 or 10 as Chinese damend skyrockets in 5 or 10 years? Again, not buying or selling, just asking how we get ready for that.

Today, gasoline has infrastructure, energy denisity and easy of tranportation and storage that no other energy source can touch. Not even at $10/gallon. If it CNG were a viable alternative, Europe would have already gone there. The U.S. has HUGE reserves of natural gas. And it is in every home. But to get your car filled to 500 PSI (enough range for about 200 miles) you have to connect your car to a home pressurization unit ($7,000 from Honda) and pump for 14 hours. EVs? Batterys are hugely expensive, range is under 100 miles and recharging can take up to 15 hours depending on the battery. Hydrogen? Well even at current technolgy levels, a house is remains cheaper.

So we are hooked on "Jed Clampett Oil" (shootin' at some food and up came some bubblin' crude - so easy to get to you can just poke a stick in the ground). Tar sands in Canada require added processing and is more expensive. Shale oil, although not commercially developed yet last I did any research, requires even more steps to refine. So even more expensive.

So do we wait for a cataclysmic free market shift? or do something, anything at all, ahead of time?

Again, not buying or selling. I don't have an answer to that one. But it's a big question, and one that is a bit longer term than what most of us like to deal with.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by StreetStrip

Even if the CEO thinks the government should increase fuel taxes, it's incredibly dumb to make a public statement in that regard.

Why does he not recommend the government do things to increase domestic fuel supply/capacity? Why does he have to play the game on the governments terms? Oh....that's right....the government owns them.

Don't disagree on the benefits of him not saying anything. Could have save a lot of server usage today.

But please, oh my God, please stop with this government owned crap. The Treasury holds less than 30% of GM stock now. We the people no longer have a controlling interest in GM. The UAW stake is nearly as big as what the Treasury holds now. The U.S. is a minority share holder. It's kind of like being a minority owner of a major league sports team. Get's you a nice suite and you can tell everyone you are "an owner", but you don't really get a say in anything.....................unless you agree with the majority owner.

[GTAHVIT]

Here is my problem with all this....

The knuckle heads in office are no smarter than we are... and that is giving them more credit they they deserve.

And they are continuously being swayed by experts/lobbyists who have an agenda that is rarely in the best interest of this country and it's citizens....

there is no big secret about oil... it is a consumable limited resource. I get it.

I'm sorry but the arrogance of our elected officials who think they know better, and who themselves are surrounded by tainted information, which causes them to depart from their role of doing what we tell them to do is maddening...

Let the market come up with alternative fuels... Let the smart people in this world develop and refine new ways to feed vehicles... give incentives for those who succeed..

Stop punishing the companies who employ bright engineers for what they've done in the past with constraints that limit their ability to do that risky and forward leaning research...

These knuckle heads in DC have no idea how to move the automotive industry in the right direction... Let the industry thrive on its own need for future sustenance and find the right technology to sell what the public wants/demands/needs...

we need to stop forcing them to comply with ridiculous standards that force them into using existing technology to solve a future problem...

It's like saying.. OK so you have a wood burning stove and a bunch of wood... make sure that stove burns to a certain temp and is safe but don't burn more than 10 logs an hour... and tomorrow burn 5 logs an hour... Meanwhile the /electric/propane/solar/chemical oven can meet all the requirements but we can't use that crap until you make log burning as efficient as electric/propane/solar/chemical heaters...

We elected them to speak on our behalf, not to put words in our mouths...



Please don't use this as an excuse to debate party politics. that's not my intent.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by GTAHVIT

Let the market come up with alternative fuels... Let the smart people in this world develop and refine new ways to feed vehicles... give incentives for those who succeed..

Please use this as an excuse to debate party politics. that's my intent.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Just do it knowing that Ford himself and others have suggeted the same thing.................including Bob Lutz.

All he is saying is, "government, if you want people to buy small cars, you can't simply make it illegal for us to make them".

Do you recall Bob Lutz's comment on this? CAFE is like trying to get a fat guy to lose weight by making him wear smaller pants................or something to that effect. Funnier yes, but the same message.

Akerson wasn't talking to you and I, he was talking to the (ahem) good people in Washington that think you'll eat less if they make you wear smaller pants.

The only source provided linking Bill Ford Jr. to a similar sentiment was from 7 years ago when gasoline was $2/gal and NOBODY bought fuel efficient vehicles, once again this was also during a FAR stronger economic period. Even so, who said Bill Ford Jr. was correct then? Meanwhile, sales of fuel efficient, smaller cars are increasing specifically for GM, the economy is HORRIBLE, and gas prices are near their all-time high, yet someone thinks adding 25% to the cost is a good idea to support one of the companies that has already been supported by tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. This simply does not make sense from any logical perspective.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

The only source provided linking Bill Ford Jr. to a similar sentiment was from 7 years ago when gasoline was $2/gal and NOBODY bought fuel efficient vehicles, once again this was also during a FAR stronger economic period. Even so, who said Bill Ford Jr. was correct then? Meanwhile, sales of fuel efficient, smaller cars are increasing specifically for GM, the economy is HORRIBLE, and gas prices are near their all-time high, yet someone thinks adding 25% to the cost is a good idea to support one of the companies that has already been supported by tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. This simply does not make sense from any logical perspective.

Ok, here is the first item that comes up if you simply search on "Mullaly gas tax"

http://green.autoblog.com/2007/08/09...y-regulations/

Circa 2007.

But I'm confused are you guys upset that Akerson said this NOW but it's ok that all the other leaders said it earlier? I'm pretty sure everyone was upset when Bill Ford said it and when Mullaly said it. That's my recollection. Read the posts in the link. Not a lot of support then either.

So everyone on here that wants to run buy a Ford to spite GM for Akerson's comments is going to do so not because Ford and Mullaly didn't say the same thing, just that they didn't say it yesterday?

The reasons Mullaly said it then are the same reasons Akerson said it this week.

And CAFE doesn't make sense from any logical perspective, but it's the world the auto companies are forced into. Wait and see what this does to our automotive future and how much it's going to cost us. So you can pay at the pump or you can pay for the technology mandated by CAFE to get 62 mpg................regardless of the price of gas.

[Russell James]

Who cares if the Ford CEO said the same thing. Then they are both out of touch with what the general public wants.

Reasonably priced gas is key to the U.S. economy. Our economy is very different from the other countries that have huge gas prices/taxes. When our gas shoots up, the country grinds to a stop, unemployment goes up....
Just coming off the worst recession since the 20's, oh yeah - perfect time to crank gas prices way up.

[ponbigi]

Number three. People on here are upset because we support gm by spending anywhere from 23k to 45k+ on a car that has a v6 or v8 that consumes a generious amount of gas. Then we see the CEO make what we think is an incredibly insulting comment to a customer base. We may not be big base but we are one non the less. It's insulting to me that I already pay 100+ a week in gas and this guy whom I helped with his paycheck saya I should pay $200.00 a week for gas. This is why people r upset. I could give 2 $hits about Ford, dodge and any others who made the same comments. I didn't but their product. I bought a GM.

[Russell James]

Let's ponder if these two CEO's get their wish:

Tomorrow you drive to your gas station and see

87 - $5.09
89 - $5.19
93 - $5.29

And then on the nightly news, the lead story on all networks is - at the request of Ford and GM's CEOs, gas taxes have been raised $1. Here's why.... CAFE.... blah blah blah....

Do you think people will be thrilled with GM and Ford, should that happen? Going to rush out and buy a new GM and Ford?

Millionaires out of touch with reality, plain and simple. They probably wouldn't mind milk being $5 a gallon either.

[motorhead]

I can't believe on the people on this forum that are supporting what this guy is saying. I guess you all must be getting tired of driving your camaros or you all enough disposable income to pay more to own one.

[anthonyj9h]

Originally Posted by OldJedi

Anthony, I am sorry to be off topic, but what model Ferrari is that in your signature? It has beautiful lines.

italia 458

[Number 3]

Apparently any mention of taxes creates an emotional response that overshadows necessary discussion on the root cause of the Akerson comment, that being the perpetual lack of any US energy policy or CAFE, which is a failed attempt to drive the manugacturers to invent the solution for the lack of such a policy.

I don't like the comment any more than you guys. As usual I just tried to provide some rationale on why it was made.

Tapping out on this one. Too emotional.