Interesting info from Lutz

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'd drive this thing if it was legal

At this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I know I'm not changing opinions here. The cars that would be imported are safe enough, but the argument has gone beyond that:

It has come down to a debate between safety and efficiency. This is an efficiency forum, so guess which wins?

I'm defending the populace. Car companies CAN produce the product, and make it safe and efficient, but instead, choose to shed a tear in their beer that they didn't adapt soon enough. Boo-hoo.

Profits, people! That's why we don't have small cars from GM. The Cobalt is a cheap facsimile, IMO. It makes them very little money per unit too, so don't expect tons to be cranked out of Lordstown, Ohio. In fact, they're shifting the bulk of production to exported vehicles like the Chevy Cruze.

Franklin, I'd drive that contraption too, but on a 6-lane Interstate (which is my typical commute), but I'd get sucked under a Wal-Mart semi-trailer sooner than you can say "cheap Chinese import".

If I wanted to spend $14,000 on a vehicle, I would instead modify an existing vehicle to attain the mileage that so-called "new-cars" would get. It would have airbags, ABS and ESC too.

So, in conclusion, we could have these cars, but the laws don't allow it (and won't likely change). Thanks for playing!

RH77

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Whether the Euro-cars are more or less safe than US cars is completely beside the point. The lightweight Euro-cars simply will not pass the safety tests demanded by US regulatory agencies. Whether those tests have anything to do with real safty can be intensely debated.

It's not beside the point: it is the WHOLE point. US regulations are preventing the import of cars that are more fuel efficient and no less safe in real world experience, therefore the @#$! US regulations should be changed. Simple: even the US Congress and the moron-in-chief ought to be able to do it in a week at the outside. And if it means firing a bunch of obstructionist bureaucrats, or even abolishing their agencies, then that's an unintended fringe benefit.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

It's not beside the point: it is the WHOLE point. US regulations are preventing the import of cars that are more fuel efficient and no less safe in real world experience, therefore the @#$! US regulations should be changed. Simple: even the US Congress and the moron-in-chief ought to be able to do it in a week at the outside. And if it means firing a bunch of obstructionist bureaucrats, or even abolishing their agencies, then that's an unintended fringe benefit.

Dare I say to vote your beliefs in November...

RH77

[Big Dave]

US safety regs are not necessarily consistent with safety.

US environmental regs are not necessarily consistent with public health.

I am in complete agreement that both sets of regs need a drastic overhaul.

Profits are important. If GM sells enough cars at a loss they go the way of Packard, Studebaker, American Motors and Enron.

[cfg83]

Big Dave -

Originally Posted by Big Dave

US safety regs are not necessarily consistent with safety.

US environmental regs are not necessarily consistent with public health.

I am in complete agreement that both sets of regs need a drastic overhaul.

Profits are important. If GM sells enough cars at a loss they go the way of Packard, Studebaker, American Motors and Enron.

I wouldn't put Enron in your list. They got what they wanted, deregulated energy markets, and used that to cook the books. They are the posterchild for stronger regulatory agencies, not the weaker ones that you want.

That is one reason why I am in conflict with your POV. I can understand a nuanced argument that says let's do more testing and try to come up with a compromise. But I keep getting the impression that the gist of your argument is the regulatory agencies are evil and need to be stopped.

Regardless of the safety standards, the (not so) big three had plenty of examples of high MPG cars from Japan (for 30+ years!!!!) that they could have been reverse-engineering all this time, but they mostly ignored them and paid the price. Imagine the difference today if GM had spent 10 years creating "eco-package" options like the Cobalt XFE.

It could be argued that if GM was thinking beyond the quarterly profits statement, they would have designed *all* their car lines across the world to match the country with the most stringent safety standards (maybe the SUV profits would have been a good thing to roll into this R&D). As markets expanded and contracted, Lutz could maneuver his cars across borders like chess pieces (Example: the new Saturn/Opel Astra was designed for EU/USA markets). More Volvo than Volvo could have been a GM motto, which would have appealed to families that want the safest car then can get.

Question: If Lutz got what he wanted, couldn't Toyota and Honda do the same and maybe even import Kei-cars? Whatever Lutz got, his competition could *still* outclass GM products in the fuel efficiency class.

CarloSW2

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Question: If Lutz got what he wanted, couldn't Toyota and Honda do the same and maybe even import Kei-cars? Whatever Lutz got, his competition could *still* outclass GM products in the fuel efficiency class.

We'd all have more fuel-efficient choices, and wouldn't we all be better off for it? I'd love to be able to buy one of the Kei-class sports cars, or even a Smart Roadster.

[SuperTrooper]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Question: If Lutz got what he wanted, couldn't Toyota and Honda do the same and maybe even import Kei-cars? Whatever Lutz got, his competition could *still* outclass GM products in the fuel efficiency class.

CarloSW2

If you look at GM products like the Opels and Vauxhalls you'd be surprized at what GM is capable of.

[Big Dave]

Enron was totally legal until they became unprofitable.

[Frank Lee]

[whitevette]

Originally Posted by Daox

There are few gems of info and even a good point or two amongst his usually whining.

GM’s Lutz Calls for Break on Crash-Testing in U.S.

Interesting! Herr Lutz is quoted as saying "We are victims of the Federal Government." ...hmmm.... This is beginning to sound like "We have met the enemy...".