Need something? Download free app.Would you pay more for a greener car?
Consumers won't pay more for cars that would meet new, stricter emissions standards.
That was the message sent last week by Susan Docherty, Western Region general manager of General Motors, as a handful of automotive journalists (including yours truly) sat scattered at a very large table in a private room in the back of one of Santa Monica's poshest hotel restaurants during a GM-sponsored holiday dinner.
The proclamation erupted out of a somewhat heated debate with one of the print journalists at the table, sparked in part by news that a U.S. District Judge had dismissed a lawsuit filed by automakers over a California law that would require car manufacturers to reduce new car emissions over the next several years.
The statement was especially curious coming from someone who had worked for one of the most expensive automotive brands in the U.S. Prior to her previous position, Docherty worked as head of marketing and sales for Hummer. According to her biography, her launch of the H3 increased Hummer's sales by more than 70 percent. If there are obviously plenty of people who will pay more than $30,000 for SUVs that get 13 miles per gallon in the city, why wouldn't there be a market for a $30,000 midsize car that gets 40 miles per gallon (or better)?
Some of us aren't so quick to underestimate the increasing savvy of the American consumer. While there are still people who will buy the biggest vehicles they can afford without regard to long-term consequences, the average car buyer is getting smarter. Even putting questions of social responsibility aside, basic economics tell us that the financial implication of buying a car goes far beyond the sticker price; it's about the overall cost of ownership. And we think you get that.
What do you think?
Laura Burstein is a freelance automotive and technology journalist, covering news and events ranging from auto shows to Formula One races. She is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
- Topics:
-
Energy efficiency,
-
Gossip,
-
Alternative fuel
- Tags:
-
fuel economy,
-
emissions,
-
gas prices,
-
automakers
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
I've attended funerals of friends who would likely be alive today, if they had had not been driving an "economy car". (My opinion, and that of the investigating police officer)
If the auto industry can produce a car of the same size, weight, and performance of todays mid sized cars, AND get better milage, that might be worth a few more dollars.
But if they have to downsize the vehicles, and reduce weight (& therefore safety) to achieve these goals forget it. I won't put my family in one.
How about we charge a "SAFETY" tax to heavy vehicles that takes a disproportionate amount of wear and tear on the freeway and a very unfair advantage when it comes to safety, to make it fair. Something like a SAFETY SURCHARGE tax depending on gross weight of the vehicle. That SAFETY Surcharge tax should be equal to average lost expenses of those who die in the lighter cars.
If not, then let the world burn to fuel the heaviest vehicle that I can use and better watch out not to collide with mine. There are no more civilized humans anymore.
If everyone drove a smaller car, we would decrease our dependence on foreign oil AND make our roads safer.
Less translates to smaller, smaller, smallest in vehicles. How many cars do you see on the commute to work with only a single person in it? 95% or is the ratio higher?
If we are solo in our vehicle why do we need a boat?
Could we switch over to veggie powered diesel? Oh the horror to have more power in only a 4 banger.
The fact is that one of the most effective ways of improving fuel economy is reducing the weight of vehicles. With a lighter vehicle the engine isn't being asked to move as much mass, therefore it doesn't need to consume as much gas. This helps to explain why 2+ ton SUVs get 12 miles per gallon; that and their brick-like shape.
Another important point is that a light car does not necessarily mean an unsafe car. There are standards that all cars have to pass, but safety can always be improved. This might require some of that extra money discussed in the article. Formula 1 cars barely crack 1000 pounds, yet drivers walk away from 200 mph impacts.
If we could get some of the tanks off the road, small cars would be even safer since they wouldn't have to compete against gargantuan vehicles piloted by oblivious soccer moms. Instead of making the problem worse by purchasing a huge vehicle to stay "safe" why not help the issue and buy a small car that will be safe for everyone around you, and in almost every case, perfectly safe for the occupants as well.
I once saw an accident between a Mini and a Suburban, the biggest mismatch possible. The Mini had some front end damage. The rollover prone Suburban was on its side. Which vehicle is really safer?
Isn't the idea of "green" and taxing unapproved activities and technology the same thing?
"Me! Me! My list next!" "Just wait your turn."
ill-inforrmed. would-be environmentalists to be grossly misinformed on quite a number of issues. Which is greener, an SUV that is driven 10 miles a week, or a small 4 cylinder car, with a "save the earth" bumper sticker on the back, that is driven all around.
I've always driven a 4 cylinder car. But instead of considering myself to be "greener" - I don't drink that kool aid - I like the fact that I am simply saving money. Better my money in my pocket than going to a foreign, possibly hostile country and or the ever wasteful US government, in the form of taxes.
Its an old car, too, a 1991, so for those really interested in saving the Earth, I didn't waste unnecessary energy to manufacture something new. (Just tweaking the easily influenced here.)
As an aside, I'm sure the hyper-hip computer savvy readers of these columns whom belong to the Save the Earth crowd, will all boycott and refuse ownership of the new power hungry flat screen TVs.
My understanding is that the TV that uses the least energy is a small, old style black and white unit. Limiting usage also reduces electricity consumption. Just driving an old car, and otherwise staying with the old unhip technology will put you into the environmental category you so desperately covet yet are unable to achieve.
I didn't really think you were interested in being "green" anyway.
Recommended movie: "The Lives of Others."
Also, being green friendly really isn't all that green friendly anyway. Has anyone looked into all the EXTRA not-so-environmentally-friendly processes that go into making these new environmentally friendly cars. It all evens out in the end. I think discovery science did a special on it a while ago. Pretty interesting.
Oh...by the way...the carbon dioxide glaciers on Mars are receding. (Think it through.)
In fact the link below says about hybrids, "...As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions. But many of those choices aren't actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck."
Furthermore, they say:
The Top 10 most energy efficient vehicles over their lifetime:
1. Scion xB ($0.48 per mile)
2. Ford Escort (0.57 per mile)
3. Jeep Wrangler ($0.60 per mile)
4. Chevrolet Tracker ($0.69 per mile)
5. Toyota Echo ($0.70 per mile)
6. Saturn Ion ($0.71 per mile)
7. Hyundai Elantra ($0.72 per mile)
8. Dodge Neon ($0.73 per mile)
9. Toyota Corolla ($0.73 per mile)
10. Scion xA ($0.74 per mile)
Hybrid energy efficiency over their lifetime:
1. Honda Insight ($2.94 per mile)
2. Ford Escape Hybrid ($3.18 per mile)
3. Honda Civic Hybrid ($3.24 per mile)
4. Toyota Prius ($3.25 per mile)
5. Honda Accord Hybrid ($3.30 per mile)
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automoti...%20VERSION.pdf
Sue =^..^=
http://tinyurl.com/yv8937
-
by jon_dutch
February 26, 2008 11:45 PM PST
- well personally I would love it if VW would bring there Diesel powered Polo over here. The car gets real-world mileage numbers of 60+mpg. Since it doesn't look like that will happen though, there is an alternative, go electric. It doesn't even have to represent a premium as GM would leave you to believe. Think about it, most of our daily driving is withing a relatively small bubble. We go to work, the grocery, the gym, the movies and the house, right? So why do we need to accomplish this commute in a 4-wheeled tank? Buy yourself a Xebra from Zap (www.zapworld.com) and remove a great deal of the headaches from the problem. Heck, some businesses are even providing incentives to their employees for making environmentally conscious decisions like this!
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 24 Comments >>