Karl on Cars

Mr215:
you are are hilarious, thats for sure. All companies are in the business of making money, this may come as a shock but that applies to automakers as well. No industry wants to have regulations thrust upon it that will force production costs to increase without any sense that customers want to pay for those regulations. This is why automakers have fought various changes over the years but you need to remember that hybrids and diesels are FAR more expensive and complex than seatbelts or even driver airbags which were mandated by the government in the past.
 
Agreed until you reach the last part. Emissions rules did alter engines. The auto industry fought it tooth and nail - as expected as they're a business and don't care about their customers - but in the end common sense won, car prices didn't sky rocket and we have much better air today to thank for it.
 
The government and people like you naively believe that there are no costs to increasing mileage and that people will gladly pay $3k premiums for better efficiency.
 
Auto industry always lies about the cost of implementing new features. They claimed catalytic converters would jack up prices. In the end there's barely a hit. If they it'll cost 3k per car, they're really saying they don't know but the idea changing what they do makes them want to scare people with silly numbers. Remember back in the day when AC cost $600? A $7000 car but to get AC you needed to bump the price by 12%. Now it's near impossible to get a car without AC. Huh, what happened to the cost of AC? Economies of scale? The tech's become common and engineers have figured out how to cheaply produce it?
 
  
You are also totally contradictory in your demand for diesels AND tougher CA emissions laws. There are less than a handful of diesel cars sold in the US and as Chevy keeps telling you tougher emissions laws will make it even tougher to sell diesels here.
 
Will make = hyperbole. The auto industry does not want to make the effort. Hybrid cars and diesels are niche vehicles right now because of US marketing. The average American still thinks a diesel runs rough and belches black junk out the tailpipe. They think of diesel and recall cruddy GMs with no power and poor engine performance. Likewise Hybrids are still confined to the environmentalists. The typical american wants bigger, faster and heavier.
 
(not counting the changes proposed by naive politicians in CA)
 
Wake up! 10 states, 2 of them the most populous in the union want these standards. NY and CA want tougher standards. That's nearly the majority of car buyers right there. Add in the NE and other states looking to adopt CA's laws and it becomes a smattering of lightly populated states behind the weak-will of the EPA.
 
This idea that people are too stupid to decide to buy smaller vehicles is laughable and an insult to the intelligence of the American car shopper. Ads cannot convince you to skip over a Focus and get an expedition. People buy what they want to buy
 
They buy what they're told is cool and "safe" and important. From McMansions to Sequoia's to a president devoid of any goals or agenda, the nation's jam packed full of sheep that gladly follow one another. Marketing - from patriotic bilge "Like a Rock" campaigns to Swift Boats, we live in a nation that wouldn't know how to think critically if an advertisement didn't lay it out. So, yeah, I do think the population is easily persuaded by the media. I don't think it; I see it daily. The media determines your talking points (hello, this blog right now), the choices you make for dinner and what clothes your wife buys this Saturday.
 
and that seems to upset some people who insist on a vast Big 3 led conspiracy to trick people into buying SUvs.
 
Big 3? No, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, VW, Nissan, Lexus, Infiniti and Acura push the hell out of their gas hogs too. They're all working on the same idea: what's cheap to produce and easy to sell. Faster and bigger is an easy message and it's extremely cheap to produce over lighter and more efficient. Auto manufacturers can go for the tough sell (spend more, have a less sexy message) or easy sell (bigger, faster, more powerful and barely do any engineering R&D). There's no conspiracy. It's business. The auto manus want to make the most bang for their buck...bigger, faster, more powerful is a cheap, silly message any 4th grader can grasp.

bdc,
 
cars are far more expensive than they used to be for various reasons. Even accounting for inflation cars 30+ years ago are cheaper than today. The idea that automakers only do things mandated by the government is baseless. The government didnt mandate DI engines, 6 speed automatics, knee airbags, side airbags, HID lights, leather, nav systems, DOHC valvetrains, 4 wheel disc brakes, stability control, etc. and yet we have all these things today. Most manufacturers will have ESC standards before the government deadline because they know that to some degree safety sells.
 
"Now it's near impossible to get a car without AC. Huh, what happened to the cost of AC? Economies of scale? The tech's become common and engineers have figured out how to cheaply produce it? "
 
The cost of AC is built into a car because automakers know that most customers wont buy a car without AC. AC wasnt optional just because it was expensive, it was optional because there was a time when some people thought it was worth the savings to skip the AC. Now its expected and its standard on most cars. There are always economies of scale when production increases but there is a big difference between the costs of seatbelts or even AC systems and hybrids. Just saying the cost will drop overnight because the government mandates higher CAFE ratings is incredibly unrealistic. I do not know the real cost of a hybrid system but I do know its not a few hundred dollars. To say its really cheap and the automakers are lying (as you are) is to ignore the compexity of a hybrid powertrain. GM isnt even passing on the production cost of the new two mode system in the SUVs, let alone making a profit. Some have estimated the system costs GM $10k per vehicle. That aint cheap my friend.
 
"Hybrid cars and diesels are niche vehicles right now because of US marketing. The average American still thinks a diesel runs rough and belches black junk out the tailpipe. "
 
Please review the facts: the diesels sold in Europe will NOT pass US emissions standards. That is a simple fact. You are making statements about automotive company conspiracies that are not based in reality. There are ways to make SOME diesels meet US standards but they add cost to the vehicle but there is no way around this since the US wont use European like air quality standards. In addition, you are leaving out the fact that diesels are more expensive AND diesel fuel costs more. People generally do not like the idea of shelling out a lot of money upfront and hoping for a gradual payback over 3-4 years. This is the problem with diesels and without tax breaks its likely to remain a problem. Remember, in Europe diesels are popular and yet they still cost more than ga sonly engines. So much for the notion that economies of scale will wipe out any price premium on a given technology.
 
"Wake up! 10 states, 2 of them the most populous in the union want these standards. NY and CA want tougher standards. That's nearly the majority of car buyers right there."
 
NY and CA combined have about 55-60 million people. The US has 300 million people and thus the majority of car buyers do not live in those two states. Furthermore 8 million of NY's residents live in NYC and most people there do not have a car. The high standards are OK as long as you dont mind having a reduced stable of vehicles to chose from and dont want diesels. I thought you wanted diesels so I'm confused. BTW, politicians, not citizens are demanding these laws. My state has joined the chorus in demanding tougher standards but no politician here has addressed how this will affect vehicle choice or the possibility of diesels. Politicans know nothing about cars or how they work and thats how we get stupid ideas like the one being proposed by CA and other states. How can you advocate fuel efficiency and then make it harder to sell diesels in the US? Please explain that one to me since you feel automotive policies should be determined by legislative bodies.
 
"They buy what they're told is cool and "safe" and important. "
 
I have never seen ONE large SUV ad that claims you should buy the vehicle if you want to be safe. Give me a break. Gas prices went up and large SUV sales are falling, its that simple. No amount of adverstising can reverse that trend because the price of gas has changed priorities for many buyers. Again, stop insulting consumers. There are PLENTY of fuel efficient options on the market for those who want them. Anyone who can read can easily determine that a Fit gets better mileage than a Tahoe and can go buy the fit. The PEOPLE determine what is cool, not the marketers. When average people started flocking to SUVS many of the automakers were caught off guard and later responded with more and better SUV models. The first Prius came and went and no one gave a damn. The new comes out when gas prices are a little higher and it acheives cult like status in a year or two. Toyota barely advertised for the Prius and they have sold 180k in a year just like that. Again, the PEOPLE made the car a hit. Even Toyota said they didnt anticipate the car being such a hit.
 
"They're all working on the same idea: what's cheap to produce and easy to sell. Faster and bigger is an easy message and it's extremely cheap to produce over lighter and more efficient. "
 
A few corrections: no SUV is going to be cheaper to produce than a small car. Honda spends more to produce an MDX than a civic. Thats just common sense and I can't see how anyone could claim otherwise. Secondly, this idea that automakers dont advertise for cars is a joke. If you turn on your TV for two hours you probably will be unable to escape the barrage of ads for the 2008 Malibu, CTS and Accord. Millions are spent on advertising new cars just as they are spent on new SUVs. Thirdly, SUVs are more profitable than cars because they cost so much and thus it cant be surprising that automakers still want SUVs/crossovers to sell. I for one, hope they do sell because their profits will lead to better cars in the future. If you want to see a Chevy Volt you better hope GM keeps selling Silverados and Escalades because they surely arent making any money off Cobalts and Aveos.

mr215,
Politicans know nothing about cars or how they work and thats how we get stupid ideas like the one being proposed by CA and other states.
Well Said!!!!
The average local politician doesn't possess the information or intellegence to be making those dicisions.

cars are far more expensive than they used to be for various reasons. Even accounting for inflation cars 30+ years ago are cheaper than today.
 
Wrong:
 
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/wellspent/archives/2005/04/car_prices_on_t_1.html
"His research shows that 10 years ago it took the average worker 30 weeks to pay for a car, but it takes just 20 weeks today."
 
The government didnt mandate DI engines, 6 speed automatics, knee airbags, side airbags, HID lights, leather, nav systems, DOHC valvetrains, 4 wheel disc brakes, stability control, etc. and yet we have all these things today.
 
Actually, 6 speeds come from a desire to meet even the crappy old CAFE standards. HIDs, leather and navi are not standard. And the government is looking to make stability control mandatory.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=2432032&page=1
"The government plans to require automakers to include electronic stability control devices on all new vehicles in the coming years."
 
Some have estimated the system costs GM $10k per vehicle. That aint cheap my friend.
 
I have a bridge to sell you.
  
 
NY and CA combined have about 55-60 million people. The US has 300 million people and thus the majority of car buyers do not live in those two states.
 
Check into the car sales of those two states. In the US we only move 16 million new cars annually. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22420332/
 
CA accounts for over 10% of that number. Here's a list of states that currently use CA's air laws or plan to: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/21/tech/main3639921.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3639921
 
No other state accounts for 10% of all new vehicle sales. Adding in those 16 other states it's clear the impact is far reaching.
 
I have never seen ONE large SUV ad that claims you should buy the vehicle if you want to be safe. Give me a break. Gas prices went up and large SUV sales are falling, its that simple. No amount of adverstising can reverse that trend because the price of gas has changed priorities for many buyers.
 
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/dec2007/bw20071227_325615.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
SUV sales aren't declining.
 
Also, the states sued the automakers and got a settlement expressly related to SUV advertising and the false claims of safety:
 
"Money for the $27 million campaign is part of a $51.5 million settlement attorneys general from all 50 states reached with Ford after suing the automaker in December 2002 for ads depicting its SUVs as safe."
 
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-01-30-suv-ads-usat_x.htm
 
The PEOPLE determine what is cool, not the marketers.
 
Muhahahah. Take a look at a JD Power survey and you'll see styling and performance at the top of influencing buying trends. Why do ads for cars tend to show all the cars on open roads, with the top of the line features and with tinted windows? Hmmm. Image. Perception. Why do ads bring up power ("Got a Hemi?" "The Ultimate Driving Machine")? Seriously, watch some ads critically.
 
  
A few corrections: no SUV is going to be cheaper to produce than a small car. Honda spends more to produce an MDX than a civic. Thats just common sense and I can't see how anyone could claim otherwise.
 
ROFL Yeah that body-on-frame Explorer sure was expensive to produce. Man, toyota's taking it in the ear for using a CAMRY chassis for the Highlander and then pricing it 27k base, compared to 23k base for the Camry V6. Let's not even get into the laugh that is the RX350's 37k starting MSRP. It's a Camry that starts 14k higher (although nobody has ever seen a base RX350 in the wild).
 
 Thirdly, SUVs are more profitable than cars because they cost so much and thus it cant be surprising that automakers still want SUVs/crossovers to sell. See above. SUVs originally were trucks with little more than a shell added (S-10, Bronco), then Ford spent a bit more to make it look like a purposeful design. Toyota really through things around by slapping a station wagon body on a Toyota Camry chassis and demanding a 10k premium. Now ever manu offers SUVs with cheap car-based chassis and big price tags.

We all know the EPA's ruling will be over turned by the liberal court in San Francisco, but don't be suprised when the courts above them agree with the EPA. No where in the law does it say that the EPA has to grant CA's requests every time they make one. That's why they have to ask. If it was automatic approval why would CA even have to ask?
 
44mpg average for passenger cars is reason enough to reject the law. 44mpg is a BS number. Congress just had this debate and most experts said even 40mpg fleet average was a far reach. It's not responsible politics to pass a standard no company can reach, and then just change it to whatever the actual mileage ends up being.

"Firstwagon: The expense of diesel fuel in the US is overstated I believe. Here in PA diesel is cheaper than regular unleaded in the summer, though around the price of premium or more during the winter months, because of home heating oil demand. PA is one of the harsher states for diesel fuel taxes (and fuel taxes in general). I think the diesel pricing situation is slightly rosier in most states other than PA. This may be a changed trend though with ULSD shaking things up a bit?"
 
In December diesel was selling for $3.299/gallon vs. $2.699/gallon for regular unleaded at RaceTrac at Independence & Plano Pkwy, Plano, TX. 60 cents per gallon price premium! Its not miles per gallon that counts in the household budget, its dollars per mile plus fixed costs like insurance. I like the idea of diesel cars, but relatively high diesel fuel costs make them less desirable here.

""His research shows that 10 years ago it took the average worker 30 weeks to pay for a car, but it takes just 20 weeks today." "
 
when did 10 years equal 30 years? Besides, that link doesnt address what I said. its talking about car costs as a % of total income, not car costs alone. cars cost far more than they did 20 or 30 years back even when inflation is taken into account. The average car from the early 70s would cost about $15 or $16k in today's money.
 
"Actually, 6 speeds come from a desire to meet even the crappy old CAFE standards. HIDs, leather and navi are not standard. And the government is looking to make stability control mandatory. "
 
ESC will be mandatory in 2012 or so. As I said, most automakers will be ahead of that deadline. I didnt say EVERY innovation is standard but they are industry led nonetheless. Nothing you say can change this fact. The government didnt mandate AUX jacks, power windows, heated seats, CD changers, remote start, sunroofs, auto off headlights, bluetooth technology, XM radio, etc. and yet we have them. Your assertion that cars are not improved without intervention from the government is totally false.
 
"I have a bridge to sell you. "
 
a) thats not an answer so I suppose you dont have one.
b) Until you can tell me how much the 2 mode system costs you should refrain from telling me which figures are innaccurate.
 
"SUV sales aren't declining. "
 
sales of BOF V8 SUVs are declining. You know what type of SUV I was talking about. Was not referring to cute utes with I-4 engines.
 
"CA accounts for over 10% of that number. "
 
You told me earlier that CA and NY make up the majority of car buyers in the US. That statement is false. CA has over 10% of the US population so common sense would dictate that it makes up 10% of vehicle sales. I do not get your point. Again, show me one vote or referendum that shows citizens of these states have asked for these new standards. I live in PA and no one has asked us and yet our state is joining the CA lawsuit to get tougher standards.
 
"ROFL Yeah that body-on-frame Explorer sure was expensive to produce. Man, toyota's taking it in the ear for using a CAMRY chassis for the Highlander and then pricing it 27k base, compared to 23k base for the Camry V6. Let's not even get into the laugh that is the RX350's 37k starting MSRP. It's a Camry that starts 14k higher (although nobody has ever seen a base RX350 in the wild). "
 
An Suv uses more steel, more seats, more carpet/interior trim, more glass, larger engines, larger wheels/tires and sometimes an AWD system and you claim an SUV on average costs less to make than a car. That is simply absurd and illogical. YOu are arguing that the price difference isnt justified in many cases and that is true but that is NOT the same as saying a Camry costs more to build than an RX350. It would be beyond stupid to make such a claim considering the size and complexity of the RX when compared to the Camry.

You're right about everything. Sigh.
 
i admitted my 50% number was wrong. I never said all innovation, I said we'd still be driving polluting, crappy cars if not for government intervention and stand by that. Without the government we would not have the following in every new car sold today: crash standards, seatbelts, rated bumpers, airbags, emissions controls, EPA ratings, Monroney stickers, etc. These came about in every new car directly because of government intervention. I could not care less about aux ports or LCDs in headrests as they have nothing to do with the discussion. The RX350 is based on the Camry chassis and there is no way in hell the RX has 15k worth of extra materials vis-a-vis a Camry.
 
In the end, you think the manufacturers will police their own industry and do what is best for the consumer. You trust the consumer and believe only the federal government has a right to intervene. We do not see eye to eye on any of that. In my eyes, consumers are sheep, businesses will do whatever they can to make the most profit (if that means using subpar or cheap materials, or giving people a 5 cent aux input) and states have the right to demand businesses adhere to state-standards as I believe strongly in state's rights.

"The RX350 is based on the Camry chassis and there is no way in hell the RX has 15k worth of extra materials vis-a-vis a Camry. "
 
Please read before responding. I never said the price difference between the RX and camry was justified. All I said was that you were wrong in saying an SUV generally costs less to manufacture than a car. Its pretty simple.
 
The reason why automakers were against safety features in the 70s was that people were not concerned about safety and they werent convinced people would want to pay for such items. Automakers gladly ad features that they feel consumers want. Until recently safety wasnt a huge factor in why people chose a particular model. Now that safety sells you see automakers RUSHING to put in 8 airbags, stability control, standard ABS, rollover sensors, etc. at least half of the safety features on a modern luxury car are not mandated by the government and that alone shoots holes in your argument. I agree that SOME features would not have been incorporated as quickly without government mandates, but the idea that automakers don't add anything unless the government says so its silly. Automakers are in the business of staying competitive so when certain things catch on with the public they will gladly comply. This is why you have heard NO COMPLAINTS about the mandatory ESC rules. Automakers know that consumers are hip to ESC and have shown a willingness to pay for it, even if it's an option. ESC would've become standard without government intervention and most automakers will likely have it standard before the deadline. its already standard on 90% of the SUVs sold today even though that's not required by the government.
 
"businesses will do whatever they can to make the most profit "
 
Are you serious? thanks for clearing that up. So thats what this whole capitalism thing is about?

Please read before responding. I never said the price difference between the RX and camry was justified. All I said was that you were wrong in saying an SUV generally costs less to manufacture than a car. Its pretty simple.
 
I read it. It's not true. The truck-based SUVs were and are startlingly cheap to produce. And the current unibody car-based SUVs exist because platform sharing reduces unit costs even more. The jump in materials from a 4 cylinder Camry to a V6 Highlander is not that great. The jump in cost to the consumer is well over 10k. Larger profit margins. They can use an existing platform and for a marginal increase in manufacturing costs increase profit by several thousand dollars per unit. So while literally they are not cheaper to produce, their per-unit profit margin is so great that they're a sound business decision. I didn't realize I had to break it down to a granular level. Per unit, the car-based SUV delivers astounding profit v. cost to produce.
 
 Now that safety sells you see automakers RUSHING to put in 8 airbags, stability control, standard ABS, rollover sensors, etc. at least half of the safety features on a modern luxury car are not mandated by the government and that alone shoots holes in your argument.
 
I disagree. The fact that any of those features are on all cars is expressly because of the government. Without the mandate of law we would not see emissions controls. It's that simple. You would not see airbags on a Kia Spectra if not for the law.
 
I agree that SOME features would not have been incorporated as quickly without government mandates, but the idea that automakers don't add anything unless the government says so its silly.
 
Some features never would have appeared without government intervention. And some features never would have trickled down without government intervention. We disagree.
 
Automakers are in the business of staying competitive so when certain things catch on with the public they will gladly comply. This is why you have heard NO COMPLAINTS about the mandatory ESC rules.
 
Yeah, remember the way the automakers threw a fit over airbags in the 80s and 90s? The stop-gap was to allow automakers to have automatic seatbelts (like the Escort's seatbelts on rollers and the Beretta).
 
ESC would've become standard without government intervention and most automakers will likely have it standard before the deadline. its already standard on 90% of the SUVs sold today even though that's not required by the government.
 
You really believe a Kia or an Escort would have stability control without a mandate? You have far more faith in business than I do. I don't think there's a big market for it in the economy car market. The 99 VW Mark IV had ESP and that was and still is anomalous in the world of economy cars.
 
We're never going to agree. I don't believe the auto industry would have ever instituted any emissions controls without government intervention. Ever.

"The jump in materials from a 4 cylinder Camry to a V6 Highlander is not that great. "
 
Any proof? Of course not. Common sense dictates a vehicle with more raw materials costs more to make than a smaller one that needs less material. I cannot understand how anyone could argue otherwise. You are saying the smaller a vehicle the more it costs to make. Totally illogical. I didnt say the costs presented to the consumer represents manufacturing costs only, but I am saying it costs more to make a highlander than a camry.
 
"I disagree. The fact that any of those features are on all cars is expressly because of the government. Without the mandate of law we would not see emissions controls. It's that simple. You would not see airbags on a Kia Spectra if not for the law. "
 
Feds havent dictated use of curtain airbags and yet they are standard on virtually every car sold today. Enough said. You can disagree all you want but the proof is evident for those who chose to see it. Government mandates have their place, but automakers will add features when they feel its critical to their competitive position in the marketplace.
 
"Some features never would have appeared without government intervention."
 
Problem is you cant prove that we wouldnt have seatbelts and airbags without the government forcing us to have them. Once people got word of airbags and their benefits they would have flocked to cars with them. There was a time when only Volvo was concerned with advancing safety but now that its attractive to consumers you see everyone getting in the game.
 
"Yeah, remember the way the automakers threw a fit over airbags in the 80s and 90s? "
 
What does this have to do with anything? If you have some proof that automakers are against the ESC ruling let me know. if not, my point still stands.
 
"We're never going to agree. I don't believe the auto industry would have ever instituted any emissions controls without government intervention. Ever."
 
that is the only thing you have said that may be true. There was no reason for the automakers to be in favor of emissions controls because they added cost and sapped power. What would you expect them to say?

One standard is ideal, having multiple standards is wasteful and problematic and interferes with intersate commerce.
The solution for CA and other states that may want different standards is to use the governmental process to have standards changed.
States with greater population have more Representatives in the House. House and Senate are the venues to utilize to obtain a uniform environmental standard. Not the 9th District Court.
  
CA is attempting to mandate it's regulations on other states. Perhaps non-CA emissions states can sue CA for billions in damages for the costs added to vehicles for equipment to meet CA emissions. Hmmm..... time to contact the state Attorney General.
  
A patchwork of state regulations is certainly possible if CA ultimately prevails.
  
CA mandated electric cars. How did that turn out?
CA used MTBE in it's gasoline to clean the air and fouled it's water.
CA created emissions regulations which dissuaded energy compaines from investing in power plants in CA, increased energy prices and resulted in the famous California Energy Crisis.
  
California deserves to particpate in setting environmental regulation, California has no right to independently determine the environmental regulations for all states.
  
Volkswagen TDI has in some years been sold in all non-CARB states and not in CA. If you live in CA, ask yourself why one of the cleanest diesel vehicles available in the USA was banned in CA while the filthiest diesel vehicles in the USA were allowed in CA?

mopar,
 
Too much logic. Please stop. Thanks.