[peeb]

BBC NEWS | Business | GM axes four SUV and truck plants
"General Motors is closing four truck and sports utility vehicle (SUV) plants in the US, Canada and Mexico as it looks to environmentally-friendly cars."
Looks like the US auto industry is showing up a little late to the party... They are trying to off-load the Hummer brand too - a little late for that one I think.

[Randman]

I'm sure the car folks knew about this in advance but tried to milk it for as much as possible. Then announce the bad news on the biggest political day to date this year so the story (and outrage) is pushed off the front page.

F u ck 'em, imo.

[subego]

effing hampstor.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Looks like the US auto industry is showing up a little late to the party...

Has this ever not been the case?

And by ever I guess I mean the last 40 years.

[peeb]

True.

[BadKosh]

It will be interesting to see what ugly, inefficient, unsafe and stupidly named replacements will be offered. Maybe thye'll call it "The Speck"???
Haul 3 people and 50 pounds of groceries etc. Runs on McDonalds fry grease! Windshield wipers optional.

[sek929]

Actually one of the smallest cars available, the SMART car, earned top ratings from the IIHS.

Not to mention since SUVs are under more lax safety regulations than cars they end up being far more unsafe in just about every type of crash.

Good riddance, leave the big vehicles for the people who use them.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Not really a surprise. Though this should abuse the already weak american-made car market further.

[smacintush]

I certainly am glad of this. Now maybe you people will STFU about the GODDAMNED SUV'S!

[Eug]

GM workers set up roadblock

This is in response not just to the closure announcement, but also to the fact that they just finished negotiating a contract a few weeks ago, and one that supposedly protected jobs in Oshawa.

CAW reaches tentative contracts with GM, Chrysler

Anyways, I've always been saying that GM was way behind the curve (as has everyone else), and it would take rising gas prices to finally get the North American auto makers on board. I guess it finally happened.

[osiris]

Not surprised at all.

[RAILhead]

Yes, because it's not my right to drive whateverthehell I want. Thanks, pinkos!

[Dakar the Fourth]

Hello non-sequitur.

[peeb]

This issue here is that people are exercising their rights to drive whateverthehell they want- they don't want these shitty SUVs.

[scottiB]

Next step: start killing all the high HP V6 Accords, Altimas, Fusions, Camrys, etc. Who needs a family sedan that can break 7 seconds in 0-60?

Also, I'd like to have a tax break when purchasing a hatch back or small wagon.

Well, at least it'll be easier for Ford/GM to hit the CAFE standards.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by scottiB 

Next step: start killing all the high HP V6 Accords, Altimas, Fusions, Camrys, etc. Who needs a family sedan that can break 7 seconds in 0-60?

Someone who doesn't see a car as merely a vehicle for getting from Point A to Point B.

I sincerely hope you were joking, though. Your post came off like they should be outlawed or something.

[peeb]

There seems to be a misconception that this thread is about legislating against stupid cars. To be clear, it's not - it's about there being very little demand for them any more.

[IonCable]

SUVs and MiniVans are far from dead. I have a dang Town & Country, gets crap gas mileage. I can't get rid of it...why? Well, like all families I have to cart around my 2 Kids and sometimes their friends. Try getting 3 car seats or booster (required by law) into anything smaller than a mid-sized sedan. Air bags make the front seat a non option for kids under 12. That basically gives me 2 seats. Now child safety laws are good, but they do make it hard for a family to have good MPG car.

I know a heck of a lot parents that would love to have smaller cars, but can't.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I don't think anyone has been hating on minivans.

People really are misinterpreting the hell out of this thread.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by IonCable 

Air bags make the front seat a non option for kids under 12. That basically gives me 2 seats.

You can switch off the airbag on many cars for just that reason (at least here in Europe), newer cars even have sensors that shut them off automatically.

In any case, GM closes these plants not because some crazy environmentalists are telling it to, but because they're losing money, a lot. `The market has spoken …'

[Eug]

Interesting. Yesterday as I was putting stuff in my trunk in my hybrid, a guy stopped me and started asking about it. He specifically said he was thinking about getting rid of his minivan and getting the hybrid. I told him that although my hatchback can hold a lot of stuff, it can't hold anywhere near as much as a minivan. He said that it didn't really matter, since he doesn't make use of the space anyway despite his multiple kids. Everyone has different needs and wants, but it is refreshing to see people finally realizing they don't "need" that massive vehicle, even though common surburban "wisdom" often tells them they do. Now if they realize this and still want the bigger vehicle, so be it.

The clincher was the fact that I usually only pay around $40ish to fill up my gas tank, despite the fact it's $5 per gallon up here in Canada.

When I bought my hybrid back in 2004, I used to say that for most people the up front cost premium didn't really make sense, unless you had very long commutes. (I bought the car because I liked it, and the idea of it, not to save money.) In 2008, all that has changed, considering gas costs twice as much.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by IonCable 

SUVs and MiniVans are far from dead. I have a dang Town & Country, gets crap gas mileage. I can't get rid of it...why? Well, like all families I have to cart around my 2 Kids and sometimes their friends. Try getting 3 car seats or booster (required by law) into anything smaller than a mid-sized sedan. Air bags make the front seat a non option for kids under 12. That basically gives me 2 seats. Now child safety laws are good, but they do make it hard for a family to have good MPG car.

I know a heck of a lot parents that would love to have smaller cars, but can't.

Eh, I've got two kids and a Honda Civic. Of course you can get rid of it if you want to.

Anyway, I don't think the era of huge SUVs is over, not by a long shot. They're all I see everywhere, at least where I live.

[olePigeon]

People should be able to drive whatever they want, however big, and however sh*tty the gas mileage is. I just think they should pay more because they're contributing more to a problem.

I lust for a 2008 Dodge Challenger and I'd pay extra money to drive it if it were required, man that is one freakin' sweet car.

Anyone remember the 6000 SUX from Robocop?

Edit: Hehe. 8.2 mpg

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Someone who doesn't see a car as merely a vehicle for getting from Point A to Point B.

I sincerely hope you were joking, though. Your post came off like they should be outlawed or something.

Sorry, I can't post at work anymore--can't get things to come out right.

Over the past 20 years, EPA ratings have been falling, because of cheap fuel, the size and weight of vehicles increasing, etc. Since SUV sales are dropping, will the high HP V6 sedans be next (the Accord V6 gets an observed 21 MPG according to Edmonds). Has the tipping point occurred where new cars will begin to be offered with smaller engines?

Jalopnik has a topic announcing the Golden Era of modern motoring is over:

Second Malaise Era: The Second Malaise Era IS Upon Us!

The first malaise, was around 1972-80 when cars had MPG in their names, the Mustang II was developed, and the speed limit was 55.

Obviously, no one needs a family car for sub 7 second 0-60s (just as very few need an SUV), I'm curious if cars will begin to be less fun (obviously in the eye of the beholder), and the Pinto will be reborn.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by IonCable 

SUVs and MiniVans are far from dead.

Whoa! Hold up there! The car companies have explicitly stated (and bribed/lobbied for in the Congress) that the SUV is a light pickup and its uses are completely different than that of a mini van. That's why there're huge subsidies available for it, because people don't use it to cart their children to football practice and haul groceries in it. Just ask everyone in agriculture and construction, they drive SUVs. You just flip down those extra seats, and SUVs are great for hauling loads of dirt, fertilizer & cow sh*t, spools of razor wire, and portable toilets.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by scottiB 

Sorry, I can't post at work anymore--can't get things to come out right.

Over the past 20 years, EPA ratings have been falling, because of cheap fuel, the size and weight of vehicles increasing, etc. Since SUV sales are dropping, will the high HP V6 sedans be next (the Accord V6 gets an observed 21 MPG according to Edmonds). Has the tipping point occurred where new cars will begin to be offered with smaller engines?

Absolutely. We saw a steady decrease from the 80s fuel economy when we enjoyed both a strong economy and low gas prices in the mid-to-late 90s.

I'd love to see a history of the Accord's mpg over the years.

[Eug]

Personally, I want a four-cylinder low-displacement luxury hybrid.

They don't quite exist, but at least in Europe they have been more willing to put luxury type features in vehicles with smaller engine displacements. One of the reasons I bought my hybrid was because it was a relatively affordable mid-size hatchback but with advanced features like a built-in LCD touchscreen and touch-sensitive Smart Keyless Entry and ignition. (This feature, which allows you to allows you to open the door and start the car without taking the keys out of your pocket, was previously only on luxury cars.)

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I'd love to see a history of the Accord's mpg over the years.

Gas Mileage of 2008 Honda Accord
In a fit of interest, I started to do this from the fueleconomy.gov site. Figures are for the Honda Accord Coupe 4 cyl, 2.4 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular. city, highway. I ran out of steam - perhaps others can add more.

2008 21,30
2007 21,31
2006 21,31
2005 21,31
2004 21,31
2003 21,31
2002 20,28
2001 20,27
2000 20,28
1999 20,27

[Dakar the Fourth]

Over the years as in since its inception. What happened the past 4 years has no bearing on what scotti and I were discussing.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Over the years as in since its inception. What happened the past 4 years has no bearing on what scotti and I were discussing.

Current Accords are 2.4 L.

Older ones have smaller displacements. The Accord began life in 1978 with 1.6 L engine. It hit 2.0 L in the late 80s.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Current Accords are 2.4 L.

Older ones have smaller displacements. The Accord began life in 1978 with 1.6 L engine. It hit 2.0 L in the late 80s.

Thus, it's kinda hard to do fuel efficiency comparisons.

No, that actually works towards my point/theory. That as Americans continued to enjoy cheap gas, Honda kept putting larger/less economic engines because people would buy them.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Ugg, I appreciate you guys helping, but displacement isn't what I mentioned either.

Well, my point was that it's kinda hard to do fuel efficiency comparisons directly because you're not comparing apples to apples. One could argue that Honda shouldn't have been increasing the engine size of the Accord over the years so much, but that's a bit of a different argument.

[slpdLoad]

Aren't the car companies just rebadging SUVs as "crossovers" to avoid the name association?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Over the years as in since its inception. What happened the past 4 years has no bearing on what scotti and I were discussing.

I understand that - I said it's a start, maybe others can add to it.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I think it's up to me to hammer it out. I just need to find the time and motivation. Thanks though.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by slpdLoad 

Aren't the car companies just rebadging SUVs as "crossovers" to avoid the name association?

Maybe, maybe not. Crossovers supposedly have a feel closer to cars than traditional SUVs, and have better gas mileage.

They're often pretty useless off-road, unlike true truck-based SUVs which can be used very well off-road. Furthermore, crossovers may not be able to haul much.

P.S. Despite the closure of the Oshawa GM plant:

Ford adds 500 jobs in Oakville

The automaker says it needs the staff to keep up with demand for its Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX crossover utility vehicles.

Those products will be joined in July by the new Ford Flex, a full-size crossover utility vehicle.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Check my edit, Eug.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

No, that actually works towards my point/theory. That as Americans continued to enjoy cheap gas, Honda kept putting larger/less economic engines because people would buy them.

Perhaps, but it should also be noted that smaller cars were also introduced.

The Honda Civic of 2008 is nothing like Honda Civic of the 1970s, and the Civic was Honda's smallest North American car in the 70s. However, in 2008 it is not. That title belongs to the Honda Fit, which has a 1.5 L engine.

Furthermore, both the Civic and Accord have had hybrid versions in recent years.

BTW, my Prius has a 1.5 L gas engine, which is the same size as the Yaris, but gets significantly better gas mileage. The Yaris is smaller than the Corolla, and the Prius is much bigger. However, back in the 70s the Corolla was Toyota's smallest most fuel efficient North American car.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Perhaps, but it should also be noted that smaller cars were also introduced.

The Honda Civic of 2008 is nothing like Honda Civic of the 1970s, and the Civic was Honda's smallest North American car in the 70s. However, in 2008 it is not. That title belongs to the Honda Fit, which has a 1.5 L engine, which is actually smaller than many of the 70s Civics' engines.

So maybe a good study would be Civic mpg for the entire life-time that it was Honda's smallest car?

Originally Posted by Eug 

Furthermore, both the Civic and Accord have had hybrid versions in recent years.

True, but since their popularity was negligible until fairly recently, I consider them a bit of a non-factor.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

So maybe a good study would be Civic mpg for the entire life-time that it was Honda's smallest car?

IIRC, the measure that some use is the average gas mileage of the entire fleet.

True, but since their popularity was negligible until fairly recently, I consider them a bit of a non-factor.

Well, the Prius and Camry hybrid are becoming fairly popular. Honda has killed the Accord hybrid though.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

IIRC, the measure that some use is the average gas mileage of the entire fleet.

That sounds wise as well. But It needs to take into account when certain types of models (SUVs and Trucks) are added that weren't there before. That sort of skews things.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Honda has killed the Accord hybrid.

That's interesting.

Edit: You and I are killing each other with these quick replies during quick edits.

[Eug]

P.S. Honda said it was because Americans didn't want bigger hybrids. However, that isn't necessarily true, since as I said the Camry hybrid is pretty popular.

It's just that Honda's implementation of hybrids wasn't as good to increase fuel efficency IMO.

---

P.P.S. I think they "average out" the gas mileage over the fleet for legal reasons, so the smaller cars compensate for the gas guzzlers.

EDIT:

Heh. An article from exactly a year ago.

Honda halts production of hybrid Accord

The Accord hybrid's U.S. sales totalled just 439 last month, while Toyota sold 24,000 Prius cars during the same period.

The good news though is Honda will be trying for another hybrid model in 2009.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Well, I think it's obvious my simple looking idea wasn't the simple.

[Eug]

Corporate Average Fuel Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations in the United States, first enacted by Congress in 1975,[1] are federal regulations intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the US in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. Historically, it is the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the United States. This system would have changed with the introduction of "Footprint" regulations for light trucks binding in 2011, except that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has returned that rule to NHTSA for reconsideration for, among other things, being "arbitrary and capricious"[2]. Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lb GVWR do not have to comply with CAFE standards; SUVs and passenger vans are exempt up to 10,000 lb. In 1999, over half a million vehicles exceeded the GVWR and the CAFE standard did not apply to them.[3] In 2011, the standard will change to include many larger vehicles. [4] The United States has the lowest average fuel economy among first world nations; the European Union and Japan have fuel economy standards about twice as high as the United States.

SUVs and minivans created due to original mandate

The definitions for cars and trucks are not the same for fuel economy and emission standards. For example, a Chrysler PT Cruiser is defined as a car for emissions purposes and a truck for fuel economy purposes.[7] Under the current light truck fuel economy rules, the PT Cruiser will have a higher fuel economy target (28.05 mpg beginning in 2011) than it would if it were classified as a passenger car.[58] CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but Chrysler's Lee Iacocca developed the idea of the minivan, which would fit into the separate truck category and allow automakers to comply with emissions standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the development of the SUV.[59][60]

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California disagreed with the NHTSA statement in the 2008-2011 Light Truck standard which claimed preemption of the state greenhouse gas regulations, on the basis that fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions are one and the same. The EPA[61] claims, contrary to NHTSA, that the use of alternative fuels allows greenhouse gas emissions to be controlled somewhat independently of fuel efficiency.

In other words, US laws on this are exceedingly idiotic.

[design219]

Agreed that the SUV era is over. The more important thing than mpg is mpgpp (miles per gallon per person).

We have a Toyota Seinna mini-van and only two kids, but we carpool a lot with our neighbors (very good friends) and their kids (school, events, etc.), and often with our children's cousins. If we don't have more than 4 people traveling, we take the Camery.

Mini-vans are not a bad thing at all if used wisely. An SUV with one person in town is just lame.

[Eug]

Around here, you can't use the HOV lanes unless you have 3 people in the car or more. I wish it were 2, but 3 is reasonable I suppose.

Ironically though, our "bigger" car has noticeably better mileage than our smaller car, because as I mentioned before our bigger Prius (midsize) is a hybrid and our smaller Yaris (subcompact) is not.

Yes, an SUV with one person in town is lame, but then again that person may need it for some usage, and not everyone can afford having two cars like we do. Then again, not everyone can afford the gas for an SUV either.

Personally, I think they should just clean up those stupid loopholes in the gas mileage laws. If the North American manufacturers can't adapt then fsck 'em. (And I say this as someone who lives in area with lots of US auto manufacturers.) Meanwhile, the foreign auto makers are building efficient plants in North America, and to a large extent are employing people that the North American makers can't.

[tie]

People cry about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US. One reason is that companies like GM are complete dinosaurs. Where have their executives been for the last ten years? We could have helped them out, and kept manufacturing jobs here, by enforcing higher mileage standards instead of giving in to the industry lobbyists. Then US car companies would have a chance to be leaders in this time of high gas prices and global warming.

Bush and other Republicans argue that environmental standards cost the US jobs. But this is a case where a lack of environmental standards has cost the US jobs because other countries have higher standards and therefore more competitive companies.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by design219 

Mini-vans are not a bad thing at all if used wisely. An SUV with one person in town is just lame.

Good point - a bus gets about five miles to the gallon, but transports a lot of people.

[el chupacabra]

this isnt that significant to me. GM and Ford have SUVs coming out their ears. and very few cars in comparison. Discontinuing a few models isn't signifying an end to suvism. They should have been more like honda and toyota al along; that is having fewer models of higher quality rather than a plethora of crap to manage.

[Atomic Rooster]

Bigger burgers, bigger houses, bigger freakin' cars. Americans are just plain fat. Let the rapture come and may he wear scrubs.