The Big Three make high-quality, fuel-efficient cars. No, really, they do. They just sell them in Europe -- Ford Ka, anyone?
And now that $15 billion of the the $25 billion designated in the 2007 energy bill to provide funds for fuel-efficiency retooling will likely serve as loan guarantees to keep GM and Chrysler solvent, where will domestic fuel-efficient cars come from?
Christian Edstrom at the New York Times blog Wheels suggests the Big Three bring some of those fuel-sipping European models to the U.S., and that the feds make it easy for the auto industry by temporarily green-lighting models that have met European standards:
The automakers' reluctance to sell those cars in the United States is not as simple as the cars' inability to meet United States standards for equipment, safety and exhaust emissions; there's also the cost involved in the certification process. Changing the law to allow the United States sale of cars compliant with European emissions and crash standards, even for just a few years, would allow G.M. and Ford to quickly add some of their popular, high-mileage European models to their lineups here in America.
Main differences [PDF] between U.S. and E.U. standards? Variations on crash-test procedures, airbags, emissions standards -- different cycles to measure nitrogen-oxides and particulate matter, English-unit meters, and headlights amongst a few others.
Build European cars in the U.S.? Sounds crazy, but it just might temper an auto-wary public, plus adds Edstrom, "allowing the sale of cars compliant with European standards, at least for a few years, would reduce the enormous costs of emissions testing and crash testing new models for the United States market."
But I would agree with CBG in the comments: If the Big Three were to actually import these cars from Europe, the feds should go one step further and ease import tariffs in order to make this venture affordable for consumers and industry alike.
Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 7:42 am
11 Dec 2008
"What a great idea to boost the U.S. economy. Allow GM to sell cars made abroad."
Our safety standards are in part the result of an escalating arms race between bigger and bigger cars hitting each other. At some point we have to relax the armor plate requirements to get lighter cars. Maybe we need to sign waver forms to buy a car that can't survive an impact with an SUV until the word gets spread that SUVs are for guys with gold chains and wide lapel open shirts.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 8:34 am
11 Dec 2008
Christian Edstrom at the New York Time should learn how to use it.
Notice that the first citation is from his own paper.
Jun 22, 2008
"And as part of the huge bet it is placing on the future direction of the troubled American auto industry, Ford will realign factories to manufacture more fuel-efficient engines and produce six of its next European car models for the United States market."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/business/22ford.html?_r ...
------
October 3, 2008
"As gasoline prices hit record highs this summer, Ford unveiled an unprecedented plan to retool truck and SUV factories in North America to produce these fuel-efficient cars for the domestic market. Ford's new Fiesta, which just debuted to rave reviews in Europe, will lead the charge.
By this time next year, workers who are today building F-150s will be training to build this sporty subcompact."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/motoring/2008223484 ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:04 pm
11 Dec 2008
On crash safety. Carbon fiber vehicles are the safest and the lightest. Safety is a flimsy excuse indeed, witness the battle by the big three to every single safety invention introduced.
The real reason imported cars aren't sold here, like the Audi A-1 plugin hybrid? "Darth" Cheney.
Detroit lobbyists and bribed regulators just won't let these cars into the US and they use every regulation to stop it. Just like they won't allow any new auto companies to start up here. This has been the norm in the auto business for decades.
But then along came Cheney to organize and refine it to keep any substitute for gas guzzling from coming in. Someday proof will come out about this.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
liberalnun Posted 2:04 am
12 Dec 2008
(The only problem is, their emissions controls need to be improved for the American market, and that would push up the expense. But the Polo is cheap enough that the cost of this might not be prohibitive.)
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:13 am
12 Dec 2008
That has to be a big reason why diesels haven't made inroads here.
Plus there's a problem with creating larger amounts of diesel from oil. Our refineries are designed for particular percentages of gas and diesel and it's not that easy to convert them to a larger diesel:gas ratio.
(At least that's what I've gathered from here and there. Feel free to set me straight.... ;o)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:22 am
12 Dec 2008
You can bet that engineers working for the auto makers know exactly how to plugin transportation acrossthe board, cars, trucks, trains, and make it all more efficient over the years it will take to get mass production of plugin hybrid drive systems going.
The gift of human inventiveness needs to be used to benefit the earth and all her residents.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
liberalnun Posted 2:28 am
12 Dec 2008
I guess that's an added argument for easing import restrictions on foreign cars and letting the market figure things out, rather than making auto companies spend billions of dollars engineering cars for the US market that may or may not pan out.
Permalink
KenG Posted 3:27 am
12 Dec 2008
Labor costs have a higher impact on profit margin on smaller cars. It is impractical to build small cars with $70/hour UAW labor and complete against cars built in foreign owned non-union US factories.
As I understand it, Ford's plans to produce more Euro design small cars is directly related to it's expectation that it will reduce labor costs faster than GM.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:48 pm
12 Dec 2008
Hadn't you heard yet, that is a dirty southern GOP, Toyota/VW bribe swilling, corporate welfare dispensing lie, by union busting traitors. From "right to work" states. Even Cheney is telling them they will doom the GOP like Hoover did in the 30s by using this BS, to destroy the US auto industry.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:37 am
13 Dec 2008
"Non-union autoworkers in the South earn less than union autoworkers, averaging an hourly wage of $25.65 to $36.34 for union autoworkers, the newspaper said. However, so-called legacy costs for the Big Three bring United Auto Workers compensation costs up to around $70 per hour."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/04/Dixie_welcomes_non ...
In fact, non-union workers who make cars for foreign car companies sometimes make more per hour than Detroit union workers. In 2006 non-union Toyota workers averaged $30 per hour. Detroit union workers averaged $27 per hour.
http://www.aftermarketnews.com/Item/28594/uaw_losing_pay_ ...
Note: Use $27 per hour as a Detroit wage until you find something more accurate. $70 per hour is very incorrect.
-----
Don't forget that if we start using a lot of diesel for personal transportation in the US and suffer an increase in the price of diesel it will start increasing the price of large truck shipping. Everything that you buy is going to get more expensive.
(Yes, we should be shipping more by rail. But we don't yet....)
------
Imported cars - fleet averages.
Hard to believe that only US manufacturers are controlled by mileage standards. You mean BMW, Mercedes, Kia, and all those other manufactures who do not make cars in the US get a free ride?
I really doubt that. Please back up your claim, I've done enough googling for one post...
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:44 am
13 Dec 2008
Not $25 as in the first quote.
The union gave back a lot of benefits some time back. They've agreed to a future further giveback. The argument with the Republicans is how soon that reduction in pay should occur - "now" vs. when the current contract runs out in 2011.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:36 am
13 Dec 2008
2)Diesel without proper pollution control emits black carbon which is a much more intense greenhouse gas than CO2. I think, but am not sure, that EU regs for new diesels require a level of pollution control that takes care of this. Does anyone know how much black and particulate carbon modern EU diesels emit compared to gasoline cars?
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:59 am
13 Dec 2008
Gas 19%
Diesel 9%
Jet Fuel/kerosene 4%
LPG (propane) 2%
Heavy fuel (heating fuel) 2%
Anyone know if we can change the cracking proportions? Can we make more jet fuel and less gasoline, for example? Or are we roughly locked into that distribution....
Permalink