Arnold to automakers: Stop whining!

In the ongoing battle over CO2 emissions limits in California, a group of car company executives from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers recently met with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to plead their case. They say the state should drop its proposed limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, which would effectively require cars to get better fuel economy. Since the federal government recently established higher fuel economy regulations, requiring cars to average 31.6 mpg by 2015, they say the California mandate is unnecessary and would result in a patchwork of fuel economy regulations across the nation.

However, legally, there could be no "patchwork" of regulations, since California is the only state allowed under federal law to pass its own emissions standards. (Other states can follow either California’s standards or the federal ones, but not set their own.)

American automakers have never been known for their enthusiasm for improving fuel economy. Even the outspoken Vice Chairman of Global Product Development at GM, Bob Lutz, has said, "There has been this perception that Ford, GM, and Chrysler are not forthcoming with new technology."

After meeting with the automakers, the Governator still wasn’t buying their long-held arguments. He told them, "The train has left the station," according to an Associated Press report.

Then the muscle-bound governor got tough, saying, "While you’re whining, you should be creating new technologies. That’s how you meet the date."

Ouch.

Do you think automakers are dragging their feet on improving fuel efficiency? Or are they right to resist increasingly stringent fuel economy standards? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

—Eric Evarts

Read: Gov. Schwarzenegger's official statement

Comments

[Adam]

Of course they can meet it. The technology is there, we just need to accept slightly smaller cars, and slightly less powerful engines. Why do we need a 250 hp+ Accord? They were perfectly fine cars when they were pushing out 140 hp. If you want to have the power, you should pay for the emissions you put out.

[ACY]

I am not a fan of the Governator's rightwing politics but his green line is a winner. The American Big Three plus the German and South Korean contingents need to dragged, kicking and screaming if need be, to be more sensitive to environmental concerns and not their selfish profits.

[John Furno]

The Governator is on the right track,but like most people in power,he doesn't press for the hydrogen fuel cell car.It's available and the total solution for the enviornment.All we have to do is demand that the USA stop pandering to the oil companies and get it out there.

[madmak]

Look we all know that global warming is due in part to automobile emissions. Euorope has more stringent emissions laws in place and the American auto manufacturers are selling cars in Europe. Now what does that say? They must be meeting emission controls there. So why not here. The auto makers could figure it out. They just don't want to do it. Tell the japanese to make more gas efficient cars. They will do it and if they wanted to they could put American car makers on the rocks! AGAIN!! We need to do our part here in the good old US of A. We were once the industrial capital of the world. What happened??? That's just my slant on it. And I say good for the Governor of California. He's got the right idea. We have to get tough and make things happen. Necessity is the mother of invention. But sometime you have to force the issue.

[Joe]

How about Consumer reports rethink the emphasis the CR auto reviews place on acceleration and power? There's performance creep. I offer that most cars have more than ample acceleration for merging and passing. Why not base the rating on tests that gauge merging onto a 65 mpg freeway, time to accelerate and pass a 55 MHP vehicle? There are diminishing returns for speed and power in these real world tests unless we jack up speed limits or shorten merge lanes.

BTW Hydrogen, H2, comes from water BUT requires energy to split the water molecule. Hydrogen cars would use hydrogen made predominately from fossil fuels. Longer term options like solar/electric H2 generation have to consider physical limits. Full sunlight is 500-600 WM^2 at noon and diminishes as the sun lowers in the sky. With a 15% conversion efficiency, 75WM^2, we're going to need a lot of solar farms to make all that Hydrogen.

[Caroline]

They could have done it years ago, but they are so firmly entrenched with the oil companies and backed by the government that they have been able to drag their feet as long as they want. If nothing else could kick-start their 'creativity', it should be consumer response to not only the 'green' issues, but the price of gasoline. Most people these days are looking for cars with the best gas mileage. It is increasingly difficult to afford gas for many people these days. I know many people are choosing alternatives, including public transportation, bikes and motorbikes, etc to help alleviate the price of gas. This should be all the incentive auto manufacturers need to quickly produce more efficient cars. I honestly don't know why they are dragging their feet. I also believe that the fuel cell cars are, or should be, the wave of the future. We need to begin giving the auto manufacturers a 'kick in the incentive' by voting with our pocketbooks. However, until many Americans are willing to give up their gas-guzzling vans and mini vans, this might not happen as quickly as it should.

[Doug]

Anyone truly concerned about this should see Sony pictures "Who killed the Electric Car?" narrated by Martin Sheen, Fuel cell tech is still wayyyyy too far out of our reach, and viable remedies ( Like EV1) are killed by big car companies, oil co's and misinformation to the public. Politicians don't give anything more than 'lip service to the plight of our future, as they are rich enough in most cases to weather out the coming pandemonium!

[Steve]

I believe it was the new CEO of Chrysler, who use to head Toyota USA that said the Japanese gov't subsidized T's development of the Prius to the tune of 25 billion(!) dollars. If the Japanese gov't can help its auto industry like that there is no reason the US can't.

[Mitchell]

I have to believe that technologies are withheld in favor of, dare I say, I don't know why. I once bought a ten year old Volvo that was using almost a quart of oil every hundred miles. A friend told me of an engine oil from a major supplier... GTX with `liquid tungsten' that would help. My oil consumption changed to using a quart of oil every one thousand miles. I was amazed. I used the product for several years and then the labeling changed, the `liquid tungsten' claim was removed and my consumption of oil increased.

[Mark]

Bob Lutz has said, "There has been this perception that Ford, GM, and Chrysler are not forthcoming with new technology."

Using large displacement pushrod engines, who's design originates from the Chevrolet 2.8L 60 degree V-6 engine for 1980, through the middle of the new millennium will do that! The big three sell no competitive small vehicles in North America and have no competitive four cylinder engines. Why not leverage their European subsidiaries who've been selling small, efficient cares for decades?

What's sad is GM would be enjoying Toyota's position as the "green" automaker had they continued to develop the EV1. They'd be selling a third generation electric car, instead of scrambling to develop the Volt. Bypassing all the hybrid and hydrogen hype.

Apparently a cultural phenomenon, Japanese mindset is to engineer the best, most efficient vehicle with respect for the environment and ensure society's positive perception in the future. These things will lead to profit.

In American culture, profit and personal gain is the primary concern regardless of consequence. Most striking are differences in corporate vision and philosophy. Found all over Japanese corporate web sites, they constantly mention society and the future. Americans mention history and heritage, and I could not find a section for vision and philosophy.

The Big Three, err Domestic Three allowed big oil and greed to influence business decisions for the personal gain of a privileged minority. I can't believe Americans aren't rioting in the streets over what their leadership, both government and corporate, have done to the American people.

[Tim]

The Big 3 would eventually profit from becoming 'greener'. It's a known fact that the price of technology comes down after time. I'm betting the engineers at the Big 3 would love to have their names recognized as pioneers, but the boards are so reluctant to spend much of their capital on R&D. It's all about the investors. They're the ones who can afford the high gas prices, and they're the ones who don't really care about the environment.

[Alan]

American carmakers really don't get it. What they are really whining about is losing fat margins from expensive SUVs. At the same time,the hybrid/electric car makers are eating their lunch, or preparing to. (I note that both Mitsubisi and Subaru brought plug in e-cars to New York). These fat CEOs will take US carmaking to the same place as T-rex.

[Robert]

There is only one incentive needed to bring forth more efficient vehicles: high gas prices. Efficient cars are on the market now and have been for years - trouble is most people don't buy them. E.G: I have some good friends who vote for things like higher mpg requirements. I suggested they test drive a Honda Fit, which actually gets nearly the proposed mileage. The wife refused to have anything to do with the Fit, preferring a V6 sedan or a compact but not high mpg SUV. The Toyota Echo got the mpg of the current Prius for thousands less but without the style points, tax credits and HOV pass. It died here due to low sales.

Quit whining that the carmakers don't make what you think they should. They make what people vote for with their *wallets*.

I don't want every ounce shaved from my car and aerospace-level technology applied to squeeze out the last mpg; that's a nightmare as the car ages, gets out of warranty and gets into fender benders. I'd rather save fuel by driving a medium car less or switching to a small but not over-optimized car, choices that will be denied with mpg standards.

[Robert]

"They were perfectly fine cars when they were pushing out 140 hp. If you want to have the power, you should pay for the emissions you put out."

Actually today's Accord is far safer, gets better fuel economy, chuffs out far less pollution and drives better than the deathtrap of the 80s you mention. It's also gotten supersized, perhaps to accomodate supersized buyers.

The one person I know who bought a hybrid lives in a 5000 sf house with a solarium that alone eats as much fuel as a typical apartment. Right when people move out of single family homes they don't "need" into apartments of no more than 600sf, out of suburbs they don't "need" into homes no more than 4 miles from work/kid's school/shopping, cuts the summer house and airline flights for vacations they don't "need" and most importantly produces no more than 2.1 kids -- I'll concede their right to dictate what cars people should drive. I think it'll be a while.

[Jim]

I don't see us ever getting any relief from the high oil (gas) prices as I believe most of the politicians blow as much smoke as the old gas guzzling cars we complain about. Until the politicians hurt in the wallet as do the majority of Americans they will just keep giving us lip service as usual. As for the big three, they deserve to lose money they could have got on the eco wagon years ago and could have and should have been heads up by now along with Toyota and Honda, but again politicians and oil companies rule.