The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 04-23-2005, 10:57 PM   #10
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
From the New York Times of 23 April 2005
Quote:
Bicoastal Blues for G.M. and Ford
Washington and Oregon plan to become the 9th and 10th states to adopt California's tough car emissions rules, forming an increasingly potent market for more fuel-efficient vehicles on the West Coast and in the Northeast.

The states that already follow California's stringent tailpipe emissions rules also happened to fall in the blue column of the 2004 presidential election: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. ...

Further pressure comes from Canada, which recently forced automakers to agree to substantial cuts in emissions of global warming gases; California has a similar plan that automakers are challenging in court. ...

... on the coasts the last two domestically owned automakers face their biggest challenges, with customers turning to competitors like Toyota faster than in the rest of the country. Together, Ford and G.M. controlled 49.1 percent of domestic sales last year, but according to Polk, their market share in the 10 states was 40.6 percent.

... G.M. is diverting engineering resources from passenger cars to rush a new generation of its largest S.U.V.'s into production, betting that new models will stimulate the market for big sport utility vehicles ...

"The reality is that both companies are heavily invested in large S.U.V.'s and both companies have more risk than they have opportunity with their current sales mix," said John Casesa, an auto analyst at Merrill Lynch. "There is a secular trend towards lower emissions and higher fuel economy, which can only be met with lots of technology investment and probably smaller vehicles. There's only so much you can do with a Suburban."
Since more consumption means higher gasoline prices, where is the logic in GM's planns. Those who lived through this kind of downturn in the 1970s can also appreciate what GM, Chrysler, and Ford's solutions were back then. They simply kept building more large vehicles with low performance, low mileage engines. History tends to repeat itself in 30 year cycles when we don't learn those lessons.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.