On FYI: Why Tom Friedman Is Still Wrong

Well, as a proud member of the NRDC, I doubt if you are really going to want to hear what I think. So, I will try to keep it short.

Soon enough, the price of gas here will be equal to what it is now in Europe. Europe may still be higher because of the tax difference, but the underlying cost of gas here is going nowhere but up.

When that happens, the market will sort all of this out. You can either be ready with the products the market demands, or you can suffer the consequences.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

I live in SF, California. I just filled up my small Toyota Tacoma with it's 12 gallon tank and 30 MPG average engine. It cost me close to $40. Ouch. I can only imagine how much the guy one pump over the F-250 was paying...

Simply put,20 and even 30MPG is going to become increasingly less significant as fuel prices climb higher. We're talking about $100 a barrel oil by next year.

Thankfully I make a decent income, so $40 a fillup isn't putting me in a world of hurt. But for all those construction workers, farmers, and other folks who tend to buy large SUV's and trucks this isn't the case and is only going to get worse. The fact is that sooner or later anything that gets under 30MPG is going to become impractical to drive.

We are now living in an era where people ( including myself) are driving farther and farther away from their homes for work. This is partially due to the rise in housing prices, which have in effect pushed people further and further away from their places of work. So the other part of the equation that I think is missing from the fuel economy argument is that not only are people paying more for gas, but they're also driving farther than they were even 10 years ago, which double-compounds the cost equation.

I'm well aware that GM is one of the most aggressive developers of alternative energy propulsion and powerplant development. I'm actually quite impressed with GM's latest efforts. But now is no time to be even thinking that a 20MPG full sized truck is A-ok because unless that MPG rating continually improved, gas prices will swiftly eliminate whatever cost advantages they offered.

Fuel efficiency should be the TOP priority on your agenda. If it isn't, then something is wrong. As Noel pointed out, gas prices will eventually be as high as they are in Europe. Being prepared for the future is an absolute necessary.

PS: The first carmaker that can make a small truck that gets 40MPG gets my money. This is why I am holding out with my 12 year old truck as long as possible.

How many years of declining sales due to second rate gas-guzzlers do you need to have before you finally dip into the corporate coffers to purchase a clue?

Seriously, NOT ONE GM vehicle gets over 40mpg EPA Hwy.

And sure, there are cars that run on hydrogen and electricity in GM's future, but that's always where they are, the future.

The future is now. Stop whining and get with the program.

Remember, the CAFE is an AVERAGE. If you jackasses can start selling small cars that people actually look forward to driving, then you can keep making the big trucks.

Stop fighting for the right to sell more polluting products and start building more efficient cars that people want to drive.

Remember that GM is a global company, and we are a major competitor in Europe and China, just as we are here. The portfolio in each market reflects the needs and wants of customers there. If we get too out of step, the customers will go elsewhere. We are going to keep improving efficiency across the board, and continue developing new technologies like hybrids and electrically driven vehicles. If higher fuel prices cause customers to shift to more efficient vehicles, we will be there -- our new midsize crossovers are a great example

Money.cnn.com had a rebuttal to his argument as well. Sounds like no one is taking this guy seriously.

To respectfully disagree with the previous posts, raising fuel efficiency is only a temporary measure. Gas prices will of course continue to rise (though the real pinch is people driving more, since prices haven't really increased that much over the $0.25 a gallon days when inflation is factored in). The key is not just using less petroleum, it is getting off petroleum all together and using clean, renewable fuel that can be produced domestically, or at least from countries that actually like us. Luckily, GM seems to have more interest in alternative fuels than any other major manufacturer. So by all means raise MPG, but hopefully the real end goal is to switch energy sources all together.

"If higher fuel prices cause customers to shift to more efficient vehicles, we will be there -- our new midsize crossovers are a great example"

First of all, thanks for replying. I am continuously impressed with the transparency of this blog.

That said, Not to sound obnoxious, but I hope that you all are well aware that your current North American lineup is lacking in many segments that are popular with younger , metropolitan drivers. Luckily, you seem to be very much aware of the sucess of the Prius, hence the future production of the Chevy Volt. So far so good. But what I'm talking about are small cars. The Cobalt isn't sophisticated or refined enough for those who currently own Civics or Corollas. The Aveo is pretty much a scraping the barrel bottom feeder car that looks exactly what it is, which is a small, sort of ugly looking Korean import that nobody my age cares one cent about. Lastly, your current small truck offerings are also fairly low-cost and cheap in comparison to the Tacoma and even Frontier.

Yes, you all do have products to fill these segments, but in order to realistically have products in place that will be appealing to people who would either shift from Honda or Toyota to a GM product, or for those who might find that a 20 MPG enormous truck is no longer cost effective, the current lineup are somewhat forgettable.

This is not the case with your mid-sized cars or trucks, which in my opinion offer comparable quality and refinement. Thus your fix isn't as astronomical as one might imagine: refine all of your market segments and you'll be better prepared.

Even though the Enclave is indeed a nice vehicle, it still doesn't solve the problem that those who are now driving Civics would never buy one. If you're losing market share, then instead of going after the big truck and SUV crowd, you should also be putting as much effort or more going after people like me, who are young and live in large cities where imports rein supreme. We are your future buyers and if you can't produce vehicles that flip our lids, then you can count on that market share dipping lower and lower.

I for one would love to see GM succeed. But in order to do so, you are doing precisely the right thing, which is doing things like this blog which enables you to see what people in the real world think.

I guess this is one of those last jab articles.

In a nutshell it says...

"So what! So you solved your health care crisis, you resolved your cost competitive issues, you solved your quality issues, you stabilized and grew your market share, you energized your car designs, you saved the company from bankruptcy, takeover...But

BUT you still did not save the world!!!"

Well I say...

Stay tuned, hybrid, zero emission hydrogen, electric, ethanol, bio-diesel, 150 mpg Volt...They are working on it.

I appreciate everyones concern on the fuel economy standards, but I drive and need a full size truck. Th e small trucks are not enough for what I have use for.
If I owned one of the smaller trucks it would take 2 times the work, at least 2 times the miles to do the same job my full size will do. Never mind that I can also tow larger trailers and take 6 people with me while doing it.
So in short I'll keep driving my 2000 GMC Sierra ext cab 4x4 with 180,000 miles. With proper care, and at 20 mpg, I plan to drive this full size truck, and as 1 jack-ass put it "second rate",(It's too bad people who know nothing about automobiles except what they read in the biased magazines are permitted to blog.) to 300,000 miles. Then I will buy another GMC Sierra

Edvard:

If you think your Tacoma has a 12 gallon fuel tank and it gets 30 MPG you are really out of touch.

The Tacoma Regular cab comes with a 21 Gallon Tank and is rated @ 20 City and 25 Highway MPG if you have the 2.7 liter engine with the 5 speed manual transmission.

That is the best of any of the Tacoma line - it just gets worse as you go to the 4.0 Liter engine.

Please try to stick to the facts when you are boasting about your Toyota.

The Tacoma comes only with a 21 gallon tank and if you have the 4 Liter Engine with the 5 Speed Automatic you get 16 MPG City and 20 MPG Highway.

You can get 17 City MPG and 22 Highway MPG with a V8 Silverado my friends!

Hi Noel and Edvard,

although we are paying nearly 7 Dollar/Gallon in the meanwhile, SUVs (and big sedans) are even getting more popular over here. So I don't think, gas-prices may change so much as people might believe. A former co-worker told me about a high-speed ride of his neighbor with his Porsche Cayenne. Consumption on the Autobahn: Embarrassing 5.3 mpg (= 44 liters/100km!). Mr. Friedman simply should stop pointing only at certain companies all the time. In my opinion it's much more frustrating that the US-government doesn't go after LPG as an alternative fuel, whereas the USA is one of the largest producers of Propane/Butane (if I am not mistaken). I actually believe, that the majority of Hummer's, which are registered in Germany, have been retrofitted with an Autogas-system.

Here's how I see it. Some people buy cars out of necessity for the sole purpose of commuting from point A to point B, others buy cars for driving pleasure. So, why are people complaining about which car gets over 30 mpg and which car doesn't. You, the consumer have a choice. If it's fuel economy you are worrying about, buy a hybrid or diesel. No one is stopping you from doing so. People who buy sports cars and SUVs know exactly what they are getting and what fuel mileage to expect.

From a different perspective, the simple rule of supply and demand is economy 101 stuff. We as consumers dictate the products. In the future, when a gallon of gasoline costs as much as your first born child, consumers will choose whichever vehicles that are most fuel efficient. At the same time, manufacturers will adjust their products to meet that demand. You see, things will work themselves out, no worries.

Tom Wilkinson, 10/4, 3:02 PM:

"If we get out too of step, the customers will go elsewhere."

Don't look now, but I think they already did.

What was your market share 20 years ago? 10 years ago? Now? That's exactly the point we are trying to make.

edvard, 1:07 PM:

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. That's also why I am nursing along my 7 year old S-10. It gets a consistent 25 mpg in real world combined city/highway driving. No truck in the GM lineup today can do that.

Mark, 6:36 PM:

I have a 2004 3500 crew cab 8.1 gas as well. I use it ONLY to tow my trailers, which the S-10 can't do! At the rate we put miles on it, I figure it will last until about 2028. At that point I will be 85 years old. Alas, I will probably not be driving my race cars any more at that point, so I will not need a new truck. I do 25,000 miles per year in my S-10, so I am with edvard in being all over a 40 mpg small pickup.

Robert Wilson, 10/5, 9:46 AM:

If edvard's Toyota is 12 years old, I would not be the least surprised to learn that it gets better mileage than a new one. My S-10 gets better mileage than a new Colorado. The Tacoma got too big and fat, just like the Colorado did.

E-flex small truck???? Maybe I can just get a Volt and stick a home made pickup bed out of the hatch, a la "The Grapes of Wrath".

Robert Wilson,
I have the older, smaller tacoma with a 2.4 liter 4 cylinder and a 5 speed manual tranny. The stated fuel economy is around 24 city, 27 freeway. Given the fact that I use full synthetic oil and drive mostly freeway, it does get around 30MPG.That's with over 200,000 miles too.

That said, I will agree with you that the new Tacoma ( at least the full sized one) get horrible le fuel economy, as in 16-20MPG at best. They still make the smaller 4 cylinder version,which gets roughly the same fuel economy as my old one, but people seem more inclined to buy the bigger one.Honestly, I was turned off by the poor fuel economy of the V6 model. Hence I'm holding onto my old one.

Gereon , It is interesting to hear the perspective of someone from Europe,which has different car related issues altogether. I've seen a few of those Porsche SUVs and to my understanding, they cost almost 90,000 US dollars, which is an awful lot for a car anywhere. I suppose anyone with that kind of money must not concern themselves too much about fuel economy.

I also agree with Steve in that we have our own choices as to what we buy. If a company produces what people want, then they're not doing anything wrong in regards to sales. But at the same time it also helps to look forward and beyond what sells now and what the future consumer will demand. You already seem to have a grasp on the notion of ever-increasing fuel prices and it's effect on future fuel efficiency requirements. That's probably the most important agenda. Just make sure all your ducks are in a row in regards to product design too.

I would like to respond the John, or anyone else complaining about the lack of a 40 mpg car. To my knowledge, there is one car in the US market that gets over 40 mpg, and that is the Prius, and not nearly as far over 40 now that the more accurate tests are in place. The Corolla got 40 under the old tests, but certainly not now. It is interesting to note that in my experience (granted I don't have exact figures to back this up, just a trend I noticed) Toyota vehicles had a much larger gap between EPA's theoretical MPG and actual real world MPG than GM. Really though, it is unfair to pick on GM for not having a vehicle with that no one else has either. If you must have 40 mpg then get a Prius, but please try to not fall asleep at the wheel, good luck with bringing your Ikea purchase home, and have fun at your monthly trip to the dealer to have the newest recall taken care of. Also, as much as people complain about fuel efficiency, when it comes to really buying a car, that is still not the primary driving factor. I would argue that quality and perceived reliability are much bigger contributors to GM's declining market share. I've talked to many people who have switched from GM to Toyota vehicles, and I never once heard fuel economy as the primary factor. Quality and Reliability almost always were mentioned. Once again, this is just an observation, not statistical fact, but it is worth considering. Some may buy strictly for fuel economy, but far more consider quality, performance, utility, and style before that. Personally, if gas prices every proved too much of a crunch, I'd just take good old public transportation or move closer to work, if the savings on gas outweighed the increase in housing costs, if any.

I have 2 GM vehicles bought new, one with 53 K and the other with 30 K. With the price of gas I drive less, will not need new vehicles for years to come. The price of gas has cost GM 2 new sales. Just think GM will be selling less vehicles as the price of oil goes up, and that trend will continue. Good Luck GM with your Suburban sales, they are keeping me home.

The U.S. gov't should be giving incentives to the Big 3 to get as far away from dependence on petroleum based cars, thereby eliminating dependence on foreign oil.

CAFE was fine when the plethora of countries weren't developing or were developed.

The market sorts out who sells cars by whatever means.

I would appreciate some comments on the Pontiac G8. What became of the 6 speed manual transmission? Isn't this still the excitement division? What is exciting about an automatic transmission? C'Mon Pontiac -real performance cars need a manual - and Holden already has one that works for this car. Lets get the Pontiac guys onto this blog to explain what they are doing to fix this situation. And how about adding an AWD drive option with the 6-speed MANUAL while you are at it?

Mr Barger,

Friedman is correct that Toyota and GM are not without blame when they repeatedly say, "We only respond to customer demand."

As you well know, both companies spend billions each year shaping and creating customer demand. In 2006 GM had an advertising budget of $1.8 BILLION, and most of that money was spent persuading customers to "desire" the vehicles on which GM has the largest profit margin -- trucks and SUVs.

Your marketeers play not only the sex appeal and manliness card, but also the safety card. You want men to think they will be sexier, tougher, and more manly if they buy a heavy, energy-consuming SUV or truck such as the Hummer; and you also want soccer Moms to feel guilty they don't care enough about the safety of their kids if they aren't chauffeuring them around in safe, heavy, energy-consuming vehicles.

Your marketing people know very well what they are doing when creating "demand" for your most profitable -- but also most energy consuming -- vehicles.

Your marketeers could just as easily devote the bulk of your ad budget to creating demand for your fuel-efficient vehicles, but as Mr Lutz has said several times in this blog, "We can't make money building and selling small vehicles in North America."

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

By the way: What happened to the Chevy Triplets? After a great deal of buzz several months ago, they seem to have fallen off the radar screen.

Mark said: "I appreciate everyone's concern on the fuel economy standards, but I drive and need a full size truck."

Mark,

People who need big trucks to do their jobs should have them. Contractors, ranchers, farmers, forest rangers, etc. all need big, professional trucks to do their jobs, and no one wants them not to have one -- if they really need it.

The problem is that GM spends billions each year convincing those who don't really need big vehicles, that their lives will somehow be more satisfying if they buy one anyway.

Steve said: "So, why are people complaining about which car gets over 30 mpg and which car doesn't. From a different perspective, the simple rule of supply and demand is economy 101 stuff. We as consumers dictate the products.People who buy sports cars and SUVs know exactly what they are getting and what fuel mileage to expect."

Steve,

I care and complain, because people who drive gas-guzzlers only in order to fulfill their emotional needs, drive up the price I must pay for fuel.

I walk three miles (one-way) to work each day and as I do, I see a constant stream of single-occupant SUVs carrying suburban cowboy want-to-be's from their suburban homes to their office buildings.

The demand those drivers create for fuel means that on the days when I need to drive my car, I must pay more than if they drove a reasonably sized vehicle -- or Heaven forbid -- walked or even carpooled.

The problem is that Econ 101 is in direct conflict with Psychology 101, and that much of that demand for fuel is driven by nothing more than people's perceived emotional need that they will be sexier and live more satisfying lives if they drive heavy, flashy, gas-guzzling, vehicles.

Everytime you see someone driving a big energy-consuming vehicle who doesn't really need one, you should be upset because they are driving up the price you pay for fuel.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

John is right. We should all only drive subcompacts as they are the most efficient vehicles available.

We should also go ahead and get rid of our 40" HD TVs, and washing machines, and toilets since there are more efficient alternatives.

The 1995 Toyota Tacoma is rated to get no more than 28 MPG Highway and that is only if you had the 2.4 Liter I4 engine.

The statements regarding the Tacoma getting 30 mpg. are just simply overstated.

Bryan,

Last I heard the G8 will have a manual transmission offered later in the model year. I don't know if those plans were dropped, but if nothing changed then just wait another couple months and you can drive off with a Pontiac equipped with a proper 6 speed manual transmission. Worry not, I think.

I hope I'm not wrong, and that plans are still on to offer the G8 with a manual tranny. Granted though, it isn't a car you'd pound through the turns with anyway. At its size it is more of a powerful highway cruiser.

Tyler said: "I would like to respond about the lack of a 40 mpg car. To my knowledge, there is one car in the US market that gets over 40 mpg, and that is the Prius, and not nearly as far over 40 now that the more accurate tests are in place."

Tyler,

Not to beat a dead horse, but I drive a VW Jetta station wagon with a TDI engine. I average in the mid- to high-40s, and once got as high as 53 mpg during a long trip at steady highway speeds on with a slight tailwind.

We all owe the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) a vote of thanks (tongue firmly planted in cheek as I write that) that their policies keep many U.S. citizens from driving super-efficient turbocharged, injected diesels capable of getting Prius-like fuel economy figures. (Some turbocharged diesels in Europe get as high as the equivalent of 60-75 mpg.)

I'm sure EPA and CARB have their reasons, but they'll never convince me that I am harder on the environment using one gallon of diesel fuel to go 50 miles than someone who uses three gallons of gasoline to go the same distance. (There may be slightly more particulate matter from the diesel fuel, but there has to be an advantage in using only one third as much fuel.)

Someone at EPA and CARB has to use some common sense and evaluate both diesel emissions AND the increased fuel economy of diesels as an integrated package, and not just look at emissions alone.

If I were GM, Ford, or Chrysler, I'd spend some of my lobbying dollars on having Congress and the California State Assembly tell EPA and CARB to reevaluate their diesel standards. Think how easily the U.S. carmakers could bump up their CAFE if the EPA and CARB would relax diesel emission standards enough to let them put efficient diesel engines in their cars, SUVs, and light trucks.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

Noel Park said: "That's also why I am nursing along my 7 year old S-10. It gets a consistent 25 mpg in real world combined city/highway driving. No truck in the GM lineup today can do that."

Same here Noel, only mine is a 1999 GMC Sonoma -- the perfect size for what I need, and it gets 32 mpg on the highway, and in the low 20s around town.

I don't know what I'll do when I have to replace it, since the current "small" trucks from GM, Ford, Toyota, and Nissan have all ballooned well past the definition of "compact" truck.

Perhaps one of the Korean companies, or a new Chinese or Brazilian import will come through to save the day -- but I'd really much rather buy an American-made small truck.

Best,

Gary

John is right. We should all only drive subcompacts as they are the most efficient vehicles available.

You should only drive a subcompact if it matches your needs.

My stepmom wants a 4-door F-150 so that she can put a kid-seat in the back for her grandson -- the machine doesn't match the job in any way, and I'm trying to talk her into a nice smaller car. A Prius holds a kid-seat as well as an F-150, and does so for less money in every way. For her driving-profile, a Volkswagen TDI would be another ideal machine. Or any small car with a nicely sized backseat with compelling looks. Anyway, choosing an F-150 without thought for the consequences is kind of dumb.

On the other hand, my father actually HAS an F-150. It's a 1988 F-150 with a V8 that he uses to haul stuff from the hardware store, and tow trailers full of construction-waste to the landfill. He also has a normal car that he drives when he actually wants to go somewhere.

I drive a VW TDI to work, and I have a Ford Ranger for trips to the hardware store.

Use the right tool for the right job, or pay the consequences during the next gas-price hike, trip to the repair-shop, and/or rise in global temperatures....

"The statements regarding the Tacoma getting 30 mpg. are just simply overstated."

Absolutely incorrect. The "stated" fuel economy of any given car can actually be either higher or lower than the stated amount simply because there are countless variables that can affect ultimate fuel economy: Terrain, engine condition, engine oil, engine timing, tires and tire tread, and driving speed just to name a few. I drive at an avg of 75 MPH. I live in a part of California that has barely any hills to speak of. My commute is basically flat. I use full 0W-40 synthetic oil which means there is less lubrication resistance.

I also pay close attention to the mileage between fillups. So I stand corrected. I get approximately 30MPG on a regular basis.

On the other hand, if I lived in a hilly region, had higher profile tires, drove at erratic speeds, and used 10W-40 conventional oil, then I could very well be getting 20-25MPG. But that isn't the case. It has nothing to do with brand, driver, or the posted fuel economy.

Gary:

I am a resident on the fringes of the "Diesel Death Zone" surrounding the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Diesel exhaust is an extremely toxic air contaminant, and we do not need even one more gram if it.

Instead of spending their lobbying dollars convincing CARB to relax the diesel standards, I would rather see them spend the same money to develop a diesel that can meet them.

Honda is going to do it next year as is, I believe, Volkswagen. Alas, they will blow Detroit into the weeds one more time.

Yeah Gary, there are no cars except for the Prius that are currently being made that break 40 mpg, and you can't blame GM, Toyota, VW, or anyone else for the regulatory problems with diesel. I agree with your point wholeheartedly that diesels are misunderstood by the emissions folks, and by the American market in general, which is odd given our love for good old stump-pulling torque. Be careful when comparing to diesel powered cars in Europe, as they are often lighter than American market cars (gotta have our massive infotainment, AC, and heated/cooled seats and cupholders you know).

Mr Lutz,

The cynic in me says the car makers aren't addressing a key message of higher CAFE standards. That is, the government is telling you guys to drop dead. Better mileage will come at your expense and at the expense of domestic makers' ever dwindling headcount(jobs). Foreign based OEMs already make high mileage cars and if americans have no choice those cars will be provided at your expense and the expense of your shareholders. For politicians they can also avoid the barbed plunger of a fuel tax. In effect we would be importing the gas tax rates, which the rest of the world has already accomodated. What do you think?

Gary Dikkers said:

"The problem is that GM spends billions each year convincing those who don't really need big vehicles, that their lives will somehow be more satisfying if they buy one anyway."

Thanks for reminding us why they say common sense isn’t common Gary. Common Sense 101. If GM’s marketing had such a hypnotic hold on Americans don’t you think the company would have used that power to stem the 25-year-long market-share loss that has led to its current problems?

Second, putting aside for a moment the obvious statistical irrelevance of your observations on what you see on your daily commute to work, when you say you see, "a constant stream of single-occupant SUVs carrying suburban cowboy want-to-be's from their suburban homes to their office buildings" I’m curious about something. How do you KNOW this to be an accurate description of these people? Or is it just your smug, small and completely insignificant assessment of them based on how little you really think of anyone who has the temerity to purchase an SUV without your express written permission? Maybe SUV purchasers should be required to wear a little symbol showing that their purchases have met your standard for approval and are in fact purchased for a purpose that could not be met by a Pious (sorry, Prius).

Maybe SUVs should be required to carry more than one person at all times so that they can meet your standard for on-the-spot judgment (hopefully you have some time from your jury and executioner gigs) of the worth of the owner/driver.

Gary Dikkers said:
"Friedman is correct that Toyota and GM are not without blame when they repeatedly say, ‘We only respond to customer demand.’"

Then neatly segues into a diatribe against GM with no mention whatsoever of Toyota. This Gary, yet again, exposes your constant and tiresome bias against GM despite your transparent pretense to the contrary. So here’s what Gary 'forgot' to mention after claiming that GM and the other company he apparently can’t recall are up to.

Toyota’s relative success of late has not been fueled by a diet of small, efficient machines but by a MASSIVE uptick in truck/SUV sales. Trucks were only 26.7 percent of the 1,083,709 vehicles Toyota sold in 1995. By 2005, Toyota had more than doubled its U.S. sales to 2,260,296 vehicles, and of this much larger total, trucks had increased to 43 percent. Put another way, Toyota sold more than three times as many trucks in 2005 as it did in 1995.

Today, only a few hundred thousand sales separate Toyota from building more trucks/SUVs than cars. But with their last three North American assembly plants dedicated to building the mammoth Tundra (no pun intended) pickup, mid-size Highlander and small RAV4 SUV expect them to rectify that little oversight in short order.

In typical Toyota understatement they expect the Tundra alone to ramp up to 200,000 units which means expect much more than that. This is doubtless aided and abetted by the nearly $133mm U.S. taxpayer subsidy the state of TX gave the richest auto company on earth to build the plant there. Nice. Note that Toyota's website lists six cars but nine trucks/SUVs offered for sale. For Lexus, their perennial bestseller is their RX SUV.

I now return you to your previously scheduled program of selective 'facts' as presented by the all-knowing God who can determine the character and purpose of every human being at a glance on his way to the office.

Over to you Gary.

Tyler,

Great response to John and the 40 mpg posters.

B

Hey Gary,
Actually my father in law has a 03' Jetta station wagon diesel. Indeed- the thing gets 50MPG on a regular basis.I drove it from TN to PA last year. Previous to that, my only experience with diesels was our old Kubota tractor and a friend's 82' VW Rabbit diesel. Both of these had to be warmed ( glow plugs) before they would start and the engines were unbelievably noisy. I was fairly impressed at how gasoline-powered car like the new Jetta was. Unfortunately, their car has had some rather serious transmission issues along with some electrical problems. If they sold them in California, I'd probably buy one anyway.

Needless to say, I too feel that the American consumer is ill-informed when it comes to modern diesel cars and trucks.

Chris Barger,

The New York Times deserves to abuse you guys at will. I cheer them every time they do it. Because despite the fact that they desperately need you more than you need them GM continues to support them and their affiliated entities with ad dollars which they then use to buy steel-toed boots to kick you in the teeth with.

I guarantee you that a one-year ad ban by you and your local dealers with dollars shifted to their many competitors in the "media capital of the world" would get their undivided attention while bringing some much needed balance to their perspective. Don't tell them how long the ban will be. Jus say a minimum of one year with additional year's extensions dependent on how happy we are with their replacements. See how that suits them and their beleagured stock price.

You keep plaintively begging for the bully to come to your house. When are you going to learn that the only thing bullies grasp is a stronger and more dangerous enemy who will not hesitate to deal with a perceived slight?

How long before you further grasp that the rest of the media outlets will take careful notice of the financial harm visited on one of their kind if you make a meaningful ban stick? If your friends at Ford and Chrysler joined you you would be surprised at how effective you would be.

It still amazes me that despite Friedman's most aggressive column against you when you had the infamous gas card giveaway that you failed to sue him for libel/defamation despite the fact that Friedman admitted on TV that he was over the top. You have to be kidding. You think if you had said something about Friedman which you later admitted was "over the top" you wouldn't have been fired and or GM would have been defending themselves in Civil Court?

Go ahead and comment on the energy requirements of Friedman's home. Surely you've heard of it? In 2003, the Friedmans built a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, now valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club. His wire's very, very rich it turns out. Never fails to amuse me when I hear that hypocrite prattle on about how America needs to downsize its car needs. Ask him when he is moving into a home that mirrors one of the same size as the average American. Ask him how many people live on the 7-acres he felt was necessary to build a house.

Bottom line, anything you say against him that he doesn't like can be considered actionable. Don't think he will hesitate either. That's for weaklings. If you're wondering what that is have GM look in the mirror.

They can complain all they want about large vehicles, etc.
But it must be made known for all to see during the Super Bowl that the Tahoe Hybrid
gets 50% BETTER GAS MILEAGE.

In fact, tell LaNeve to air a commercial featuring the new-for 2008 GM cars/trucks!

Astra, VUE, Malibu, G8, Enclave, Tahoe Hybrid, CTS!!!

Give three compelling reasons why each is best-in class.
Conclude that GM is the best manufacturer peiod.

Use "American Band" as the background music...

BY THE WAY,

You need to slice $1000 out of '08 Malibu's base price, because the new price point gives Hyundai/Kia a reason to exist. They're idling their plant because it's become difficult to justify those cars vs the current entry point of Malibu, Fusion, etc.

Don't let them off the hook.

REMEMBER, THERE MUST BE NO REASON FOR THE COMPETITION TO

E X I S T!

Further,

That policy of leaving no reason for competitors to exist is the only proper way to gain market share without
incentives!!!

Further,

The CTS being a 5 Series/E class competitor at the 3 Series/C Class price is the best exapmle of what GM's global philosophy should be.

The steady increase in CTS sales over the past 5 years must be spread over the entire global lineup.
Enclave is another good exaple as it is priced like the Acura RDX.

LaNeve and Lutz must be dedicated to this so that incentives can be cast out and simple comparisons substituted to leave people with NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO BUY GM unless they're just plain crazy.
HAMMER the global ibdustry with this philosophy every product, every time.

Let me check again...

Yup, he's still wrong!!!

Checking again,

Yup!!!

Still wrong.

Hay one editor got it right in the Washington Post and several other favorable articles concerning On-star, sales, health car and - well let's call it round table negotiations.

The articles are so positive they might think the media works for GM. Nope, they just got it right and caught up to me.

Basically the idea that the on-star system could disable and slow down a stolen vehicle is the kind of game changing technology that is going to put GM on the technological map and reintroduce Detroit back to the research playing field.

GM the next Google? Probably not but Google is not the next GM. If GM's stock was half the amount of Google's $600 imagine what wonders GM could do for the US and the world.

Zero emission cars in production? Most likely.

100% of cars running on E85? No problem.

E85 infrastructure created? Why not.

Cars going 150 mpg? Of course, but sooner rather than later with cars like the Volt speeding into production with GM's coffers full.

Help reduce global warming? You bet.

Reduce the trade deficit? Most likely.

Energy independence? That would be plausible.

Car thieves? They will go nowhere.

High speed car chases? Thing of the past.

Manufacturing jobs created and maintained? The outlook would be improved.

That is why my position never changed since day one when this blog was conceived by Bob Lutz and allowed by the sharp thinking of Rick Wagoner. I knew that you don't have to go to Washington D.C. to solve the greatest problems facing America and the world. Washington will just slow you down with red tape.

Nope, you buy GM stock and go to your computer and blog Rick and Bob and tell them a thing or two and let them know that their power over these issues is infinitely greater than any candidate or Congressmen honing a ranting speech to assuage disgruntled voters for failing yet again to do a single thing to solve any of the top ten issues facing America or the greatest problems facing the world.

And GM does not need to do much more than just do whatit does every single day , R&D, negotiate, plan, design, and dream. We have to get it into our heads just how important the automobile industry is to the US and realize its impact on the greatest issues facing America.

There is no doubt in my mind that if we allowed GM to fail or become weaker most of these problems would never be solved and indeed, most would get only worse while we ship R&D dollars and white and blue collar jobs abroad just hoping and praying Toyota would come to the rescue again riding on the white horse, hollowed our and made of wood.

In short...

Your time probably will be better spent sending a line or two to Rick and Bob and stop waisting paper and trees writing to a sleeping Congress.

That's my opinion, anyway it looks more and more like reality now.

So as I always say, may God continue to bless GM and all here that can, will, and do make a difference on those things that hurt, plague, and problem us most.

JOhn,

You and others of your ilk astound me with your ignorance about the industry. The idea that GM has lost market share simply because it doesnt offer 40mpg vehicles is laughable. Fuel economy wasnt a major issue from the mid 80s until about 2 years ago when gas prices spiked suddenly. People like you use this blog to take shots at a company you would never patronize while ignoring the realities of the market. You cant attack GM all you want but the truth is that the American public likes SUVS and luxury cars, period. The idea that GM's ads trick people into buying gas guzzlers is a complete joke. Americans and Europeans have completely different vehicle tastes and the cost of gasoline is a major reason for that. Americans are so self righteous and quick to play the blame game that they refuse to accept any culpability for our current situation. Its not a Ford created problem, its not a GM created problem, its an American consumer created problem. The way we live and the vehicles we like to drive are whats behind our oil consumption, not GM's product offerings.

Also, I find it interesting that many of the people who come on here to lecture and admonish GM know so little about their products. Yes the Volt is years away but the Aura GL, Vue GL, Tahoe/Yukon hybrids, etc. are here now or will be within weeks. This is not pie in the sky technology that is years away from the showroom, this is stuff that you can buy now. The idea that GM is always promising and never delivering when it comes to fuel saving tech is totally false. Meanwhile Honda and others are shying away from hybrids. The fact of the matter is that GM has the 2nd most hybrids on the market even if none of them gets 40mpg. The idea that one car with that type of mileage is enough to make you a "green" company is spurrious at best. Toyota has yet to apply its hybrid tech to one of its larger vehicles.

noel,

do you do any homework before posting? That is a rhetorical question since I know the answer.

GM will have a 2.9L diesel V6 and a 4.5L diesel V8 out before the end of the decade. So much for being blown out of the water by the competition. If you are going to come here and attack it would be helpful if you had your facts straight. I understand that could interfere with your self righteousness but it would add to your credibility.

Your politicians want better economy but at the same time are demanding air pollution standards that diesels cannot meet. Its pure stupidity and its what happens when people with no technical background start making rules without regards to how they impact the automotive industry. How can we praise Europe for its vehicle efficiency while making diesels impractical in the US market with stringent emissions regulations?

Tyler,

You are 100% correct and anyone with common sense would agree with you. Fuel economy isnt a major factor for most people and it's hardly the primary reason for people to buy Toyotas. No one gave a darn about fuel economy when gas was $1.50 a gallon 5 years ago and yet we have people saying the fact that GM doesnt have 40mpg vehicles in its fleet is the reason its share has fallen. BTW, it should be noted that GM's share isnt really falling anymore in spite of the fact that is sells a ton of trucks and SUVs in the era of $2.75/gal gas.

Even Toyota admitted that they didnt anticipate hybrids being popular when they launched the 2nd gen Pruis. It was a case of perfect timing even though it wasnt planned that way. Noel, John and others conveniently omit that fact when preaching from their soapboxes about how GM is the only company who doesnt care about fuel efficiency.

Still looking for the 40mpg vehicles from Nissan, Hyundai, Mazda or any of the GErman companies. Oh wait, they dont get criticized because they arent based in Detroit.

"By the way: What happened to the Chevy Triplets? After a great deal of buzz several months ago, they seem to have fallen off the radar screen."

Hi Gary,

there's just a survey concerning those triplets at the Chevrolet Deutschland-Website... So I don't think, these concepts have been dropped.
BTW: Two weeks ago we spent vacation on Lanzarote (Canary Islands). To me it seems, that the Chevy Aveo on the Canaries is the same popular as it is with the VW Golf in Germany.

Best regards
Gereon

Hi BWright, I appreciate your thoughts. Speaking only for myself and NOT for GM as a company, I'd respectfully disagree with the idea that the NYT (or any media) "need us more than we need them." It's symbiotic; they need us, and we need them. And while we can take issue with what individual reporters do or say, I think the idea of throwing out the baby with the bathwater is both shortsighted and spiteful.

If we took our marbles and went home every time someone said something ill-informed or inaccurate about us, we'd quickly find ourselves not doing much advertising at all, wouldn't we? Beyond that, if we were to hide behind advertising dollars instead of pointing out fools' logic when we see it, we'd diminish the impact of our own argument -- we'd look like we had no factual response, so we were resorting to withdrawing our money.

I think it's a more constructive -- and ultimately, effective -- approach to call individual reporters out, whether they're writing for the New York Times, Fox News, or any outlet anywhere along the ideological spectrum, and openly question their conclusions, arguments or logic. Engaging in a public discourse and highlighting the inaccuracies of drivel like what Friedman recently wrote is a better way of rebutting their arguments than pulling out of the conversation altogether.

That's the advantage of having the truth on our side: we have more to gain by stating our case than by retreating.

I recognize that it's a fashionable sport to beat up on the media in many circles... and sometimes, I confess, I am tempted to join in. But in the end, I think we get more people to see our point of view if we respond and engage, rather than withdrawing and retaliating.

No matter how frustrating Friedman and his ilk can be, I'd prefer to win the battle with our arguments and the truth rather than with financial pressure. But that's just me. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and I appreciate your listening to my response.

Spot on response Christopher. Blogs and articles responding to the media and creating discussion are key to keeping the truth clear and apparent and giving everyone a fair voice. I'm glad GM took the time to respond with a meaningful discussion.

Oh and I have to disagree with Phil about Malibu pricing. I think it is pretty much exactly what it should be for the content and quality level. The path to profitability and market share for GM is to be the quality alternative, not the cheap alternative. Keep the value, but do that by offering fair prices for a quality product, not cut rate prices for a cut rate product.

Now I know I said that fuel economy isn't always the primary factor for the consumer, but it is there and it is a growing influence. Don't let up on that front. The mild hybrids are a good start, but they are only a start. Keep on refining what you have now. Engineer E-flex to the extreme, make it put every competitor to absolute shame. Continue developing alternative fuel solutions, and lobby the government to be more helpful by supporting and assisting that beneficial change rather than laying down arbitrary rules that sound good to the uninformed public but are totally unrealistic and pointless. Honda just previewed a hybrid sports compact. Explore that possibility. Leave no rock unturned and no gem unpolished.

BWright said: "Over to you Gary."

OK, I've got the stick.

Actually, I couldn't care a flying fig whether or not you need to drive an SUV to fulfill some emotional need, except for one huge reason: Everytime you or someone else drives an SUV who doesn't actually need one, they consume ireplaceable resources that all of us will someday need.

A thought experiment

You tell me: What sense is there in a 120 lb woman or 200 lb man driving a 6,000 lb SUV to get from suburban house to office?

Why do we need to consume resources and burn energy to move 6,000 lbs of steel, rubber, glass, and plastic in order to move a single 120 lb body?

Most of the motor fuel we burn each day in the US does nothing more than move those millions of tons of steel, glass, plastic, and rubber around. Burn energy each morning to move 6,000 lbs from suburban home to office -- and then in the late afternoon, burn more energy to move that 6,000 lbs back to the suburbs to do nothing more than move a 120 lb woman or 200 lb man.

Do you think that makes sense?

Wouldn't a 1500 or 2000 lb basic people-mover do the job just as well? Of course it would, except for people's emotional needs that cause many to believe others will see them as more successful, sexier, or more powerful only if they are behind the wheel of an automaker's latest 6,000 lb offering.

That's the reason most of the advertising budget of GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, et al. goes to creating "demand" for their heaviest, most profitable vehicles. The major carmakers make most of their money fulfilling people's emotional needs -- not their transportation needs.

BWright said: "Maybe SUV purchasers should be required to wear a little symbol showing that their purchases have met your standard for approval and are in fact purchased for a purpose that could not be met by a Pious (sorry, Prius)."

I hadn't thought of that, but, hey, it's not that bad of an idea. :-)

What I have thought of is a requirement to maintain "SUV currency" in order to keep the right to own one. Anyone who owns an AWD SUV should have to take it off-road at least once every six months to demonstrate their need for an SUV and to demonstrate they really know how to drive one off-road and can make optimum use of AWD.

People who can't demonstrate their continued need for a heavy SUV and/or a lack of proficiency with AWD, would lose their right to own one, and would have to settle for a leightweight, but economical, 2WD car for commuting between home and work. (Actually, just kidding -- sort of.)

I'll leave you with this last thought: "If we do nothing, the problem will eventually solve itself, but not in a nice way."

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

Gary, and who is going to decide who is qualified to drive an AWD SUV? And why does it need to go off road if it is AWD? A lot of people who live where it snows sure love their AWD because when the white stuff comes down, they might as well be off road. Will that technically count? Why is your definition of the "proper use" the only one that is valid here. The problem with your thinking is you want to create artificial regulations that lead to artificial solutions instead of letting real market forces solve the problem. You may think that gas is too expensive right now to justify driving a full size SUV on your morning commute, and I share the sentiment, which is why I choose to drive a Chevy Cobalt on a daily basis rather than my 1970 Olds (that and it starts up every morning and doesn't break something every time I drive it). However, the people driving full size SUVs don't feel it is too expensive yet, so they'll keep driving them, but they'll pay through the nose for gas. Eventually it will get too expensive and their ranks will dwindle. It has started already. As the market shifts, the automakers who shift with it will succeed, those who don't will not. More fuel efficient cars will rule the day, no new CAFE needed.

It's not just a matter of saving the planet, abating global warming or any of that...

Toyota and Honda have both real hybrids and really high-mpg cars NOW. This is one of the reasons that people increasingly look to them as technology leaders.

Every time GM shows the Volt concept, a group of dittoheads pops up on FastLane and other GM-friendly venues and high-fives you for it.

While it might make all GM's execs feel good on FastLane, out on the street, the Prius rules.

I'm about ready for a super-high mpg hybrid and, right now, GM's got nothing for me. Fix that. Stop wasting money on corporate communications to rebut the irrefutable and build a high-mpg hybrid.

And "Volt" as a name leaves me cold. It would be like calling a current vehicle the "Gasoline."

Tyler said: "Who is going to decide who is qualified to drive an AWD SUV? Why is your definition of the "proper use" the only one that is valid here. The problem with your thinking is you want to create artificial regulations that lead to artificial solutions instead of letting real market forces solve the problem."

Tyler,

That was a joke. This is America pilgrim, and everyone is free to buy whatever car their checkbook and conscience will permit, even when it's not a very smart choice for society as a whole. And GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, et al. are free to make and sell whatever cars they deem will fulfill our emotional needs and make a profit for their companies.

I don't want a totalitarian society where we are all commanded to drive a Lada or Trabant. But nevertheless, it's not smart for someone to think they're being socially responsible using a 6,000 lb SUV to move their little pink, black, brown, or red body to work and back.

And in my opinion it's not particularly smart for carmakers to optimize profit by building and selling resource intensive, gas-guzzling big cars.

When asked, I think any reasonable person would have to agree it doesn't make sense to burn energy to move around 6,000 lbs of steel, plastic, glass, and rubber in order to move a single human body weighing at most a few hundred pounds.

What a lousy efficiency ratio: Burning energy to move 6,000 lbs just in order to move a single 120 lb woman or 200 lb man.

It would be better to think out a solution that makes the transition easy and acceptable to all, but we aren't a dictatorship, and are therefore all free to stumble into the future as we wish.

As you said, real market forces will eventually solve the problem. As I said, such a solution won't be pretty.

Cordially,

Gary Dikkers

Chris,

I appreciate the thoughtful response and that you are not speaking for GM but I still respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

First, your assertions seem to assume that GM cannot do two things, i.e, make its point AND reinforce it by withdrawing its advertising from all of the Times media outlets and affiliates. But this has been done by GM most recently with Dan Neil of the LA Times. There, as in this instance, GM articulated its quite valid point and backed it up by showing that it would not continue to be treated like a punching bag. The reason GM’s actions there were less effective than they could have been are twofold. First, the ban was short-lived and second everybody expected it to be. Had GM announced that the ban would last for a minimum of one-year with the ominous addition that further extensions would be considered at the end of that time I GUARANTEE you that you would not now be plaintively asking the NY Times to be reasonable.

I’ll remind you of one other situation in which GM’s resolve proved deadly and that was when NBC felt so confident that anything they threw at GM would stick without question that they blew up one of your trucks and claimed it exploded on its own. Remember that? Here’s a quote from a NY Times piece on that incident and the abject apology that came immediately after GM warned that the penalty for that infraction was an INDEFINITE ban: “NBC's apology came at the end of the ‘Dateline’ program on Tuesday night. A three-and-a-half-minute statement, which conceded virtually every complaint G.M. raised in its lawsuit, was read on the air by the program's anchors, Jane Pauley and Stone Phillips.” Have you had any further significant issues with NBC since then? No, I would think not.

When media outlets realize that they are looking at the reality of staff cutbacks and a stock hit as a direct response to persistently irresponsible and false columns and, in the case of the New York Times, a situation where you are denied even a fair chance to respond in kind, THEN you will see a meaningful change. You think you can reason with the kind of irrational hatred behind Thomas Friedman? Keep believing that. For a look at how effective that has been note that you guys are back here, again, because their unfair reporting persists unabated. We’ll see you back here in a few months.

You think the relationship between you and the New York Times publication is symbiotic? They are one paper in the acknowledged media capital of the world. You can easily shift your advertising to other outlets (Post, Wall St. Journal etc.). But GM’s U.S. advertising budget is the largest of any automaker. Unless this has changed then the relationship is decidedly asymmetric and cavalier writers would do well to remember that.

You say you can’t take your marbles and leave every time someone says something unfair or unreasonable about GM. I agree and would not and did not suggest otherwise. However, as with the LA Times incident and Friedman’s two most recent columns, when those times are sufficient to provoke an official response from GM then you need to do more than merely talk in the faint hope that Friedman's readers regularly read this blog. You don’t have to issue an official statement. Just do it. They can figure it out. If they ask, say you just decided to try something new. This brings me to my next and final point.

Have you ever considered simply using the ad dollars you pay to the Times on both coasts to put out your own color monthly magazine showcasing your products? You could either give it away for free or charge $1 for it. Deliver it to people’s homes or offer it on newsstands. Then you could really target your ad distribution better than you do now with the traditional newspapers. See what the traditional media outlets would think then. Think of it. You guys couldn’t get your response to the New York Times published by them. But since you now have your OWN Blog platform you could and did get the word out. Maybe you should consider expanding on this ownership theme with a similar change in your advertising approach.

Gary,

All that and you still haven’t told me how you know that your characterizations of SUV drivers are by and large even remotely accurate.

Gary Dikkers said: "Drive an SUV to fulfill some emotional need." How do you know that’s why they are driving an SUV? Or is this more of your tiresome belief that anyone who drives something that you don’t must be fulfilling an emotional need and not a physical one?

Gary Dikkers said: “You tell me: What sense is there in a 120 lb woman or 200 lb man driving a 6,000 lb SUV to get from suburban house to office? Why do we need to consume resources and burn energy to move 6,000 lbs of steel, rubber, glass, and plastic in order to move a single 120 lb body?” Again, you keep carping on this description but how many SUV drivers do you know for a fact fit your description or anything resembling it? Do you have anything remotely resembling a statistically accurate sample of registered SUV owners that has even a faint chance of supporting your description? You keep characterizing SUV drivers but have never presented a single demographic fact to back up one of your assertions as to their psychological makeup or actual need for the vehicle they have paid for.

Gary Dikkers said: “Wouldn't a 1500 or 2000 lb basic people-mover do the job just as well?” Does your TDI Jetta or your GMC truck weigh more or less than the weight you are advocating for others Gary? By the way, can you give me a list of the vehicles on sale in country in that weight class so we can see how they would fit in with the typical lifestyle of an active family of four? I think your list will prove particularly instructive on your grasp of the facts of most anything you talk about here and, as such, am really looking forward to seeing it.

I’m curious Gary, if you are so concerned about resource use why do you even have a car? Really do your part for the environment. Sell them and take the bus or walk everywhere. Rent a car when you really, really need it.

I am the proud owner of a 2007 New Body Sierra. The reason I purshased it? A 1996 Sierra that had 375,000 miles on the original drive train. My 1996 had the 4.3L V-6 and got 21 mpg until the day I TRADED it in on my new truck. We raise Quarter Horses, so I had to go with the 5.3L in the new truck. Now get this, even with trailering 3 days a week my overall gas mileage is 18.4 mpg after 21,000 miles. GM has a lot of work to do to convince the "young urbanites" to give them a chance due to image being everything. But if you really used your truck you already know that GM does full size trucks better than the competition.

BWright asked: "I’m curious Gary, if you are so concerned about resource use why do you even have a car? ...take the bus or walk everywhere."

Fair question. I have a car and a truck because they are useful tools. When I need them, I really need them, BUT I don't use them much.

I do walk to work. Last year I walked 1600 miles to and from work. I drove ten times. So that was 1600 miles walking, and 60 miles driving to commute to work.

I put about 2,000 miles on my GMC pickup truck in the last 12 months, and 800 of that was on one camping trip to northern Wisconsin. The rest was bopping around town on weekends making trips to Home Depot, hauling yard waste, etc.

My wife and I use the Jetta TDI when we need to make long trips. We made two roundtrips last year to New York City taking our daughter to and from college, and sometimes use it to visit relatives out-of-state. It takes about 20 gallons of diesel fuel to go the 980 miles from where I live to NYC.

I've never said people shouldn't have SUVs. I did say that only people who really need them to do their jobs should have them.

An SUV is not a good choice for commuters, or for the vast majority of people that live in cities or the suburbs. If you're a farmer, cowboy, contractor, forest ranger, surveyor, or whatever who needs a professional truck to make a living, be my guest. I want those people to have SUVs and the trucks they need.

BWright asked: "Do you have anything remotely resembling a statistically accurate sample of registered SUV owners that has even a faint chance of supporting your description?"

Anecdotal evidence based on the powers of my observation. I walk the same route every day, and see the same people going to and from work in their SUVs. I know many of them and know where they live and work. I know they don't need SUVs.

BWright asked: "Does your TDI Jetta or your GMC truck weigh more or less than the weight you are advocating for others Gary? By the way, can you give me a list of the vehicles on sale in country in that weight class so we can see how they would fit in with the typical lifestyle of an active family of four?"

My TDI weighs 3200 lbs.
My GMC weighs 3600 lbs.
My daughter's Ford Focus weighs 2600 lbs.

That is exactly why GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, VW, et al. should be working on lightweight people movers. I'm being as conscientious as I can, and you're right, I don't have a car of less than 2,000 lbs. The best choice for me when I last bought a new car was the VW TDI with which I routinely get 45-48 mpg.

Chrysler plans to introduce the Smart city car in the first quarter of 2008. That car will weigh about 1700 lbs. That will be an ideal choice for practically all of the commuters I see each day who really don't need their SUVs.

As I told Tyler though, this is America and we are all entitled to buy the biggest, heaviest cars our checkbooks and sense of social conscience will allow -- even when it doesn't make sense.

Please tell me, have you ever heard of a study called The Tragedy of the Commons?

There is a short summary here: Tragedy of the Commons

The situation will eventually solve itself, however the results won't be pretty."

Best,

Gary

The fact that Mr. Frediman demonizes GM one day and praises Toyota, then in true spastic press fashion turns on Toyota the next, speaks volumes about how utterly ill-informed the "mainstream" press is when it comes to matters of all things automotive. CAFE doesn't work. It has been tried and failed. The whole thing should again remind us of how less and less relevant newspapers are becoming. My bet is newspapers will become extinct before GM. And the sooner the better for all of us.

YBlood said: "CAFE doesn't work."

Y,

Since CAFE was first enacted, the number of miles driven each year in the US has doubled while fuel consumption has increased only 60%.

Are you saying CAFE had nothing to do with that? I'm guessing that w/o CAFE, the increase in miles driven and fuel consumed would be nearly proportional.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

Gary,

If as you say you don’t use your cars that much then you really don’t actually need them. You should really do your part for the environment and sell them (especially your old TDI, more on that later) and only rent a car for those times when you really need them. Like going camping pretending you are some sort of, what’s the term you used, ah yes, a suburban cowboy.
Gary Dikkers said: “Anecdotal evidence based on the powers of my observation. I walk the same route every day, and see the same people going to and from work in their SUVs. I know many of them and know where they live and work. I know they don't need SUVs.”
Anecdotal evidence is utterly irrelevant when, as you are, labeling an entire group of people? I note that you can, STILL, neither justify this stereotyping with anything approaching a statistically accurate or relevant reference. Worse still, you dimly admit that you see the SAME people every day which makes the statistical inference even more worthless since your unrepresentative sample apparently doesn’t even change. You say you know many of them. Sure you do. Of the literally tens of millions of trucks and SUVs on our roads today do you have even a faint idea how many owners you would have to know well to gain an accurate picture of what they do with their vehicles?
Gary Dikkers said:
“My TDI weighs 3200 lbs.
My GMC weighs 3600 lbs.
My daughter's Ford Focus weighs 2600 lbs.”
So by your own admission, and EXACTLY as I expected, no vehicle in your family comes close to the weight you are advocating for others. You mention the Smart (a car company that has not been profitable in its nearly 10 year history) in a feeble attempt to obscure the fact that you apparently hadn’t a clue that no U.S. legal vehicle now or in the near future can seat or cater to the needs of a family of FOUR (reread the question in my last post) at anything reasonably close to the weight you so cavalierly threw out.
Gary Dikkers said: “I've never said people shouldn't have SUVs. I did say that only people who really need them to do their jobs should have them.”
And who do you propose should decide this choice for Americans and using what criteria exactly? Why stop there Gary? Let’s limit all houses to no more than 1,500 square feet and since humans consume energy let’s limit the number of children families can have to a maximum of two. After all, since we’re on the slippery slope of deciding what’s best for Americans why not slalom all the way to the bottom?
You say the Smart would be an “ideal” choice for the commuters you see. This incredibly myopic view necessarily assumes that the only thing required to achieve “ideal” status is a tiny car with very limited fuel use. Did it ever occur to you that there are more and equally if not more legitimate criteria than fuel use used in the decision process of the nations car buyers? Of course not, that would require being able to see beyond yourself which is something you have made it abundantly clear you cannot.
Case in point, you drive an older TDI VW. There is a reason this thing was banned from California AND the other states which share strict standards on vehicle emissions. Mind you, gasoline powered cars were OK by California’s standards of the time but diesels such as your TDI were not. Do you know why? Perhaps this piece from the current issue of Automobile Magazine will help:
“Particulates are important. In California, state officials estimate, they constitute about 70 percent of the statewide risk from air pollution, and most of it comes from diesel. Of the more than forty chemicals identified as toxic air contaminants found in diesel particulate matter, fifteen are classified as carcinogens. Young children are most susceptible to cancer and other diseases, as well as to the losses of function that can be caused by microscopic diesel-exhaust specs lodging in lung tissue. Diesel particulates irritate eyes and throats, aggravate allergies and intensify asthma attacks…Diesel, its supporters sometimes say, gets a bad rap. They forget that it deserved to have a bad rap; it was bad.”
It turns out that in your case, despite your alleged mileage, your choice was not “ideal” from an emissions standpoint. Way to look out for your fellow man Gary. Thanks for doing your part to pollute the place to a standard that could be bettered by ANY gasoline powered car AND truck on sale today and from the date your car was offered for sale.
You rant tiresomely against GM and their status with diesels but never bother to go after the real problem with diesel emissions because it apparently doesn’t give you quite the opportunity to hear yourself grandstand. What’s the real problem? As Car and Driver notes, “Despite tough emissions laws for cars, heavy diesel trucks roar down the interstates trailing charcoal-black. Nearly all the 3.51 million trucks on our highways defined by the U.S. Department of Energy as Class 8 (above 33,000 pounds gross vehicle weight) spew untreated diesel exhaust. Gasoline engines burn cleaner, but they can’t match the efficiency or durability of a diesel when cruising the highway, so all big rigs run oil burners. The heavy-truck fleet generates more than TWICE (my emphasis) as many carcinogenic soot particulates as the roughly 200 million light vehicles on the road COMBINED (again, my emphasis), according to a 1998 Environmental Protection Agency study. Until this year, heavy trucks were not even required to recycle or filter crankcase blow-by, a requirement on U.S.-sold passenger cars since 1963.”
Don’t you think your time would be best spent going after an issue that’s spewing more than double the levels of carcinogens as all light vehicles combined? Wait, no, that would be telling the honest if painful truth so I imagine you would scratch that in favor of an easier target. Look forward to your next intellectually dishonest anti-GM, pro-diesel rant.

BWright,

When I was a kid, my dad ran an independent garage and worked on all models of cars. I grew up working alongside him and one of the first things he taught me was, "Always use the right tool for the task at hand."

My point all along has been that people who use SUVs and heavy pickup trucks to do nothing more than commute are using the wrong tools.

Actually, whatever tool they use is their own business, and I wouldn't care, except for one huge reason: When they use more than their share of what's left of the world's resources, they are selfishly depriving others of their share. Everytime I see a 120 lb woman tooling to her office job in a 6,000 lb SUV, I mutter under my breath, "You're one of the reasons I have to pay so much for gas."

By the way, did you have a chance to read the Wikipedia entry about the Tragedy of the Commons

BWright said: "Anecdotal evidence is utterly irrelevant when, as you are, labeling an entire group of people? I note that you can, STILL, neither justify this stereotyping with anything approaching a statistically accurate or relevant reference."

Yup, all anecdotal. My personal guess is that about 75-80% of the people who drive SUVs don't really have a need for them -- except of course for some emotional need they are trying to fill. What's your guess?

BWright said: "So by your own admission, and EXACTLY as I expected, no vehicle in your family comes close to the weight you are advocating for others."

That's right, none of the vehicles in my family are 1500 - 2000 lb people movers. Of course the reason for that is the lack of them in the US market. I will note though that our three vehicles together weigh less than two SUVs.

That doesn't mean though that having more people commute in small commuter specific cars isn't a desireable goal.

I've seen several small city cars in Germany and Japan that I wish were available here. If they were, we'd have one for commuting and bopping around town. (Remember, use the right tool for the task at hand.)

Here's a new one from Audi that looks like it will be competition for the Volt:

Audi A1 "Metroproject"

Eventually the US will come around too, don't you think?

Best regards,

Out

Gary Dikkers said: Everytime I see a 120 lb woman tooling to her office job in a 6,000 lb SUV, I mutter under my breath, "You're one of the reasons I have to pay so much for gas."

Well, Gary, the reason you are paying more for gas has much less to do with your stereotyping of the nation’s drivers and more to do with the fact that the U.S. has an artificial dependency on the Middle-East for oil. No new refineries have been set up in the U.S. since 1976 as environmentalists have strongly opposed them. Oil? Despite a considerable amount potentially available in Alaska we have chosen not to retrieve any of it. As a result, when the recent human tragedy befell Louisiana it had a less well publicized effect of wiping out 25 percent of U.S. crude oil production and 10-15 percent of U.S. refinery capacity. The immediate supply shortage was acutely felt in the near term in 2005. Had you bothered to look up the readily available facts instead of presupposing them based on your preference to rely on stereotypes to support your factually invalid thesis you might have seen this: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/petbro.html

Gary Dikkers said: “Yup, all anecdotal. My personal guess is that about 75-80% of the people who drive SUVs don't really have a need for them -- except of course for some emotional need they are trying to fill. What's your guess?”

That’s the key difference between us Gary, absent facts I know better than to hazard a guess based on ugly social stereotypes. In my corner of the world I see a lot of SUVs with four or more people compared to cars with one or two people. On a people miles-per-gallon comparison those SUVs are using less gas than the cars I see. Do you think it is logical to extrapolate this observation to global SUV use like you do?

Gary Dikkers said: “I've seen several small city cars in Germany and Japan that I wish were available here. If they were, we'd have one for commuting and bopping around town. (Remember, use the right tool for the task at hand.)”

So move. You’re muttering under your breath about the cost of gas here? Wait till you get there.

Otherwise, did it ever occur to you that there are perfectly valid reasons (emissions and safety compliance not to mention sheer lack of demand) why those manufacturers don’t sell those cars here?

BWright,

We will just have to agree to disagree.

You see no problem with using energy to move 6,000 lbs of steel, glass, and rubber to move one body.

For your consideration:

A 120 lb woman using a 6,000 lb SUV to commute, means that her body weight is only 1.96% of the entire load being pushed.

Burning energy to propel 6,120 lbs when the payload is only 1.96% of that total weight is grossly inefficient. Most of the energy is pushing the other 98.04% of deadweight.

You have no problem with that. I do.

Four PAX in an SUV

To the best of my memory I can never recall seeing four adults traveling in the same SUV, while you say you see lots. I don't know if you are being disingenuous, or pulling my chain.

I'll keep my eye open the next few times I walk to work and report back whether I see any SUVs w/ four people in them.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

BWright said: "In my corner of the world I see a lot of SUVs with four or more people compared to cars with one or two people."

Where exactly is your corner of the world?

This morning while walking to work, I counted the number of SUVs that passed me and noted how many people were inside each.

Results

I'll let you know when/if I ever see an SUV with four people inside.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

Gary Dikkers said:

“You see no problem with using energy to move 6,000 lbs of steel, glass, and rubber to move one body. For your consideration: A 120 lb woman using a 6,000 lb SUV to commute, means that her body weight is only 1.96% of the entire load being pushed.
Burning energy to propel 6,120 lbs when the payload is only 1.96% of that total weight is grossly inefficient. Most of the energy is pushing the other 98.04% of deadweight.
You have no problem with that. I do.”

You still don’t get it. My issue is not with your analysis above but a simple observation that given the size of the universe of SUV drivers and the varying circumstances under which they can be driving at any given time it is illogical in the extreme to take the observations of one person in one corner of one state out of 50 and extrapolate in any way shape or form to the rest of the known universe of SUV drivers. In addition, you constantly couch your statistically useless observations in ugly gender stereotypes.

Can you tell me with anything approaching certainty whether that stereotypical 120 lb. woman is going to drop off or coming from picking up a small group of people? Can you tell me precisely how her vehicle has been used over the past three years? Is it even hers? Can you tell me how she uses it when you have not deigned to observe her? Can you tell anyone with any degree of certainty what percentage of SUV drivers are one car households because they don’t have the luxury of having two vehicles so they have one to cover every possible need they can think of which includes and is not limited to hauling people and possibly medium-large objects periodically? How many SUVs are purchased for both personal and business use? Are your personal observations the same in the Midwest and/or on the coasts?

If I saw your truck not towing a camper can I make the conclusion that you don’t go camping?

There are about 93 million trucks and SUVs on the road today. So your observation of 167 of them is approximately 2/10,000ths of 1 percent. If only you understood the utter uselessness of such an almost immeasurably small sample.

Honestly, I am astonished that the considerable and painfully obvious limitations of personal observation have to be explained to a supposed adult.

Gary Dikkers said:

“Four PAX in an SUV
To the best of my memory I can never recall seeing four adults traveling in the same SUV, while you say you see lots. I don't know if you are being disingenuous, or pulling my chain. I'll keep my eye open the next few times I walk to work and report back whether I see any SUVs w/ four people in them.”

Incredible. What an ego. So if you don’t observe it it must not be true. That you are unable to grasp the logical fallacy inherent to your statement above speaks volumes. Hey Gary, anything you’ve never actually seen doesn’t exist. The corollary, whatever you observe must be a valid and accurate representation of any and all such circumstances globally also applies. Sadly, I bet you believe that too. Amazing.

I can only report what I observe.

167 SUVs, and only six carried more than one person.

You'll be interested to know that yesterday I did finally see a car carrying four people. However, it wasn't an SUV, it was a Ford Focus four-door sedan.

I heard on NPR yesterday that 80% of the SUVs in this country never go offroad. I'm not sure where they got that data, but it is certainly consistent with my sense that the majority of people who own SUVs in this country don't really need them and misuse them.

Of course it is their right to misuse resources, and I wouldn't care, except as I've said before, they aren't only consuming their resources, they're consuming a share of mine.

By the way, did you ever read "The Tragedy of the Commons"?

Wright said: "My issue is not with your analysis above but a simple observation that given the size of the universe of SUV drivers and the varying circumstances under which they can be driving at any given time it is illogical in the extreme to take the observations of one person in one corner of one state out of 50 and extrapolate in any way shape or form to the rest of the known universe of SUV drivers."

Actually, I do know quite a bit about statistics and sampling. I know what I observed is just a snapshot of one point in time, but my sample was large enough to know that it is not outside the three-sigma range. I'd bet there is a correlation between what I found and the results I'd get in Seattle, Denver, Albuquerque, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Memphis, or a similar city.

My sample was not an outlier.

Tell you what: Why don't you stand on the corner in whatever corner of the States you live in and count the SUVs that roll by in 45 minutes and then report back how many people they carried?

Then we'll have two snapshots. If you're honest, I bet your results wouldn't be significantly different than what I observed.

Regards,

Gary

P.S. Today was the opening of the gun deer season where I live. I'll will allow that there may have been a few REAL SUVs out in the woods today carrying four or more schnapps-chugging, gun-toting outdoorsmen. I've got no problem with that -- that is one of the reason SUVs exist.

Gary Dikkers said:

“Actually, I do know quite a bit about statistics and sampling. I know what I observed is just a snapshot of one point in time, but my sample was large enough to know that it is not outside the three-sigma range. I'd bet there is a correlation between what I found and the results I'd get in Seattle, Denver, Albuquerque, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Memphis, or a similar city.

My sample was not an outlier.”

Is that right?

I took the liberty of running your assertion by Dr. Aaron Tenenbein, a professor at NYU’s Stern School of business. For your reference, Dr. Tenenbein’s credentials (fully checkable and I use his name only because he was gracious enough to allow it) are as follows:

Professor of Statistics and Actuarial Science. Professor Tenenbein is the former chairman of the Statistics and Operations Research Department. He has a B.S. in Mathematics and Actuarial Science from the University of Manitoba and an A.M. and Ph.D. in Statistics from Harvard University . He came to Stern in 1969. His research interests include sampling, simulation, regression analysis, and applications of statistics to actuarial problems in mortality estimation and risk theory.

Professor Tenenbein is a teaching excellence fellow and has won many teaching awards, including the New York University Distinguished Teaching Medal, the Stern Excellence in Teaching Award, the Stern Executive MBA Award for Excellence in Teaching, and the Stern Undergraduate Professor of the Year. He was elected a Fellow of the American Statistical Association for his lifelong contributions to the Statistics profession. He is also an Associate of the Society of Actuaries and a member of the American Academy of Actuaries.

I would be curious as to how your statistics background compares.

In any event, after he stopped laughing, to say that Dr. Tenenbein found your three-sigma assertion completely and emphatically invalid is putting it both mildly and kindly. The key problem (out of many) with your assertion is that there is no randomization. None. As Dr. Tenenbein pointed out to me, you cannot know what Sigma even is unless you have taken a truly random representative sample of the known subject UNIVERSE and then determined a weighted average. Dr. Tenenbein added that there are approximately 250 demographic regions in the U.S. So you would have to take a sample in ALL of them. Otherwise it would be like Gallup trying to determine who will be the next President by polling only voters in Portland, Oregon. As there are 250 demographic regions you would have to multiply your 167 observations by 250. And that’s just for starters. Since there are 24 hours in the day you would have to use more than one time frame for reference which adds yet another significant multiplier. Bottom line, your 167 observations are not even REMOTELY close to what it would take to approach being able to extrapolate to the universe of SUV buyers dispersed across the vastness of the U.S. driving landscape.

Incidentally, I double-checked all this with a senior executive and statistician at JD Power who confirmed EVERYTHING Dr. Tenenbein said. If it makes you feel any better he didn’t laugh quite as long.

Honestly Gary this is pathetic, desperate and embarrassing even for you. This is when you “know quite a bit” about the subject and methodology at hand? I would hate to see what happens when you haven’t a clue though I think I already know what to expect now.

I’ll leave you to your ugly gender stereotypes and factually unsupported biases now. It seems those are all you ever had.

BWright,

Please give my regards to Professor Tenenbein. Perhaps I'll stop by and discuss this with him the next time I'm at NYU. (I get there about twice a year.) His reputation is even greater than you present: Aaron Tenenbein

Perhaps a complete statistical analysis of why Americans buy SUVs and how they use them would be a good subject for on of his graduate students to explore.

Were I him, I'd laugh too at the thought of drawing conclusions about the entire SUV universe from a sample size of 167.

However, the sample size was much larger. That was 167 SUVs out of about 1700 total vehicles.

I also told you this was a snapshot of a specific point in time. It wasn't an attempt to paint the entire SUV population with a broad brush. (Did you tell Dr Tenenbein that?)

The objective

The first thing to do in any statistical sample is to define the objective.

In this case, the objective was to show you how suburban commuters misuse SUVs.

With respect to suburban commuting, there aren't nearly 250 demographic regions in the U.S. Certainly New York City and Boston are different than Chicago or Los Angeles, but the commuting patterns in many of the mid-size and smaller cities in the Heartland are nearly identical.

It's also not necessary to sample all 24 hours since the maximum time of suburban commuting is confined to narrow time periods in the morning and afternoon.

I continue to maintain what I observed is not a statistical outlier with respect to automobile and SUV commuting patterns in mid-size American cities.

I never have said that SUVs don't have their uses, only that the majority of people who own SUVs never use them for what they were intended, and instead buy those SUVs to make a statement or to fulfill an emotional need.

I also stated that GM and other carmakers take advantage of that to enhance their bottom line.

As I've said many times, but will repeat once more for your benefit, if you're a cowboy, rancher, farmer, logger, contractor, forest ranger, game warden, or work in one of the many other professions where an SUV is an essential tool, please be my guest.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Gary Dikkers

Gary,

The professor reviewed your entire post and said your sample was, in his professional opinion, clearly an outlier with no statistical validity beyond your immediate surroundings.

Gary Dikkers said:

"I also told you this was a snapshot of a specific point in time. It wasn't an attempt to paint the entire SUV population with a broad brush. (Did you tell Dr Tenenbein that?)"

In light of your earlier post that, " I'd bet there is a correlation between what I found and the results I'd get in Seattle, Denver, Albuquerque, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Memphis, or a similar city," your assertion now is disingenuous at best. This is especially true when you add in your above post that, "I continue to maintain what I observed is not a statistical outlier with respect to automobile and SUV commuting patterns in mid-size American cities."

You claim the professor is mistaken in his assertion of how many demographic regions there are in the US. Very well, please provide clarification and a citation for us and we will see how far off he is.

Gary Dikkers said:

"It's also not necessary to sample all 24 hours since the maximum time of suburban commuting is confined to narrow time periods in the morning and afternoon."

Who said you needed to sample all 24 hours? I said, "Since there are 24 hours in the day you would have to use MORE THAN ONE time frame for reference which adds yet another significant multiplier." Reading is fundamental. Do you think there is a difference between more than one and 24? Do you think an observation of, by your own admission, a "narrow" commute time window can cover how SUV drivers use their vehicles on the weekends? If I observed vehicle use around a children's gathering like soccer, football or baseball practice do you think I would get different passenger usage from yours?

The problem with your attempt at lending some scientific veneer to your observations is that they are simply unscientific in principle to begin with. As such that never had any chance of meeting even a rudimentary scientific test.

Case in point your assertion, (with its clear bias in intent) above that, "In this case, the objective was to show you how suburban commuters MISUSE SUVs." Well, if you start out trying to prove misuse then you will gloss over anything that proves the contrary. The proper approach would be to see how people USE vehicles period. Then see what you can see.

But this would require far more resources than you have and I don't think you would like the results.

So back to your stereotypes and factually unsupported generalizations.

Thanks for not putting up with these Toyota loving Lunnies in the media. Compare real mileage and GM and Ford looks pretty good! Compare real safety and they look GREAT!

Consumer Reports ranks 2008 Highlander No. 1
But 'recommended' tag is withheld under new policy

Ryan Beene
Automotive News
December 5, 2007 - 4:49 pm ET

DETROIT -- The redesigned 2008 Toyota Highlander scores No. 1 on the Consumer Reports list of top mid-size, three-row SUVs, but it doesn't get an automatic “Recommended” designation by the magazine in its latest issue.

The Highlander is the first vehicle to be hit by the magazine’s Oct. 16 decision to not automatically award the “Recommended” designation to Toyota vehicles.

The 2008 Highlander scored better than 13 competing mid-size, three-row SUVs to take the segment’s top spot in the magazine’s January ratings, but it was not officially recommended because “we recommend only models with sufficient data to predict average or better reliability,” David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports Auto Test Center, said in a statement.

The Highlander received high marks for its ride comfort, quiet interior, refinement, power, fuel economy and second-row seat. It was criticized for a light steering feel, a lack of versatility in the third-row seat and for not being very agile.

In the past, Consumer Reports said it automatically gave the “Recommended” moniker to new and redesigned Toyotas based on the company’s excellent reliability history. If reliability of Toyota vehicles returns to “excellent” levels for a sustained period, Consumer Reports said it will resume automatic recommendations, according to a press release.The redesigned Highlander, nonetheless, finished at the top the list with a rating of 81.

Other vehicles tested in the January issue were the Buick Enclave, Ford Taurus X and Subaru Tribeca, whose ratings along with the Highlander were added to the magazine’s existing rankings of 10 other midsize, three-row SUVs.

The Tribeca and Taurus X got the “Recommended” nod, even though scores came in at 70 for the Tribeca and 75 for the Taurus X. The Buick Enclave also scored 75 in the latest round of testing.

Below the top-ranked Highlander, the Enclave placed sixth, the Taurus X took seventh and the Tribeca came in eleventh in the updated tests.

Other existing top ratings included the Acura MDX at No. 2 with a score of 80. The Honda Pilot was No. 3 with a 79 rating.

BWright said: "You claim the professor is mistaken in his assertion of how many demographic regions there are in the US."

BWright,

Not at all, If Doctor Tenenbein says there are 250 demographic regions in the United States, I will defer to him. In fact I think he should encourage one of his graduate students to do a full-blown PhD dissertation on the use of SUVs in all 250 of those demographic regions.

And in fact, if I was planning a campaign to market a new brand of shampoo; a political scientist preparing a political campaign for a presidential candidate; or even marketing a new brand of mustache wax, I would indeed worry about all 250 of those demographic regions.

But we're not talking about marketing a presidential candidate, we're talking about commuting. And in the demographic of commuting, Omaha is Des Moines is Kansas City is Dayton is Springfield is Pittsburgh is Fort Wayne is Terre Haute Jefferson City is Lansing, etc. (I once lived in Cheyenne, WY and agree a place like Cheyenne, Caspar, or Billings, MT is different. There almost everyone will be in a four-wheel drive pick-em up truck -- and with good reason.)

Statistical Outlier

I've decided I agree with you. What I observed that day was nothing more than a statistical outlier. I've checked back through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration logs for that day and guess what?

There was a high-intensity, short-duration gamma ray burst causing a temporary divergence in the earth's tachyon field, and that divergence caused a warp in the z-coordinate of the local space-time continuum over southern Wisconsin.

If I went out and made the observation this week with the space-time continuum restored to its normal orthogonal co-linearity, I would no doubt see all the SUVs here carrying three or perhaps even four happy commuters.

By the way: I did finally see an SUV carrying four people over Thanksgiving. It looked like a family on their way to Grandmother's house. Not over the hills and through the woods though -- it was just a standard two-lane highway.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

BWright,

An update for you of my informal, admittedly non-scientific study of SUV use by the commuters in my city. During the 45 minutes it takes me to walk three miles to work (same distance, same route, same time of day as last November), I observed the following yesterday:

Even with motor fuel costing significantly more than last November, the vast majority of SUVs carry only one person -- the driver. One can only conclude we burn (waste?) a tremendous amount of energy pushing tons and tons of steel, glass, rubber, and plastic back and forth between home and workplace to carry what is actually a very small payload.

It will be interesting to see how high the price of fuel must get before more people start doubling up.

By the way: I did see 20 bicyclists go by. I didn't count them last November, but there weren't that many. So, perhaps there is hope.

Best regards,

Gary

P.S. Still haven't seen one of those SUVs carrying four or more people which you report as common in your corner of the world.

Mr Barger,

Appears it doesn't matter whether you think Mr Friedman is right or not. The market is sorting itself out in response to skyrocketing fuel prices: Owners try to unload gas-guzzling SUVs

The day of people commuting in gas-guzzling, inefficient SUVs is just about over. As I read on another blog, if one thinks of SUVs as dinosaurs, the meteorite has landed. (They are referring to the meteorite that smacked into the earth 65 million years ago creating the Chicxulub crater and killing off the dinosaurs.)

Of course GM couldn't have been prescient enough to predict that their SUVs would become too expensive to drive, could they?

Someday, someone in the future will look back and wonder how we could have been so dumb to waste the limited supply of fossil fuels Mother Nature gave us pushing around tons of steel, glass, rubber, and glass in order to carry only a couple of hundred pounds (or so) of human flesh.

The actual payload of most SUVs is a pitifully small percentage of the entire load for which an SUV owner must burn energy to propel. (A 120 lb woman driving a 6,000 lb SUV, is just one good bad example. 120 lbs is only 2% of the entire mass for which energy must be burned to push.)

V/R

Gary Dikkers

Everyone likes to dump on GM, Ford and Chrysler and
and big oil but it's really the fickle buying public that sets the tone. During the oil crises of the late 70's, Ford couldn't produce enough V8's to meet demand but after a few gas lineups in California a year later they couldn't sell them. a A company that employs thousands of people can't change on a dime every time consumers have a brain-fart.

People like to dump on the Big Three because they improve efficiency to cram in more horsepower. While Toyota and Honda might have begun the hybrid trend, if they don't step up with PHEVs and EVs, the buying public is going to bail out on the large car companies and go with offerings from ZAP, ZENN, Think, Tesla, Phoenix, and a myriad of others.