The New York Times wants everyone everywhere to drive fuel-efficient automobiles or, preferably, take the subway. The Gray Lady’s Op Ed staff view SUV and pickup drivers as intellectually, politically, environmentally and morally corrupt. At the moment, the Times has won the day; new federal regulations force automakers to sell fuel-sippers or die– at least until they can figure-out a way to queer the system. But don’t expect magnanimity from the Big Apple Boyz. They see Ford’s new F-150, one of America’s most popular vehicles, as recidivism of the worst sort. “We fear that a $1.50 drop in gas prices was all it took to blunt Detroit’s newfound fervor for energy efficiency. Just a few weeks ago, the Big Three American automakers convinced Congress to give them $25 billion in cheap loans to retool their plants to make fuel-efficient cars. Then, with nary a blush, the Ford Motor Company introduced the new star in its line: the 2009, 3-ton, 16-miles-per-gallon, F-150 pickup.” The nerve! The fact that the new F-150 is the most fuel-efficient full-size pickup truck on the market doesn’t seem to matter. Ford– and by extension Detroit– just aren’t trying hard enough…
“As for that commitment to fuel economy? The new trucks should be 8 percent more fuel efficient than the 2008 models, on average — which means that they still use about 50 percent more gas per mile than, say, a Honda Accord.” The NYT ends their tire-rade with the usual condescension. “They evidently haven’t learned enough from their mistakes. Perhaps Congress, from which the automakers are lobbying for more taxpayer money, can help correct their ways — at the very least — by attaching strict fuel-economy requirements to any future aid.” Uh, hello? The $25b Department of Energy no- to low-interest loans mandate that the subsidized vehciles are 25 percent more fuel-efficient than the ones they replace– at least until they can figure-out a way to queer the system.
I keep waiting for an NYT editorial position I agree with. So far, no luck.
“The New York Times wants everyone everywhere to drive highly fuel-efficient automobiles or, preferably, take the subway.”
Everyone. No. No. No.
Everyone they invite to cocktail parties is very important and has to go places and meet people — all over the world — so they absolutely must — I mean MUST — have cars with drivers and back seats big enough for them and their friends — who are also very important, and trunks that can hold all of their luggage, so they can get to the airport and get on their jets (no, I don’t mean American Airlines, how common), and go places and meet people.
You must have your taxes increased to pay for subways to bring the middle class to work so they can clean up the bathrooms and serve sushi at their cocktail parties with very important people. It simply would not do if they all drove cars, the streets would be so crowded that they could not get to the airport on time.
Welcome to Obamaworld — Schmuck.
Sometimes when you read things that are so out of touch with reality, you have to wonder if the author is joking, or if they really do live in such an insular world. Like people who say they believe the earth is really only 5000 years old; can someone be so isolated in their little realm that facts and logic cannot intrude. It appears that’s what happens when you live in Manhattan and work at the New York Times.
Where to begin? That full sized trucks are still needed in so many places? That trucks still sell in huge volumes and only a suicidal automaker would voluntarily leave the market. That the new F150 has been in the pipeline for five years?
Of course trying to explain the realities of the automobile industry to the New York Times editorial board would be like trying to tell a fundamentalist preacher about the science behind evolution: yelling at brick wall.
What does this have to do with OBama.
And NY Times is a newspaper. Its not Wall Street. Sounds a bit like a rant.
Anyway, NYTimes writer does seem clueless as to Detroit reaction time. Detroit needs years to react. They didn’t launch the F150 project in Autumn 2008.
What Ford also did not do is engineer the F150 for best fuel economy. No way. Its a pig.
“The Gray Lady’s Op Ed staff view SUV and pickup drivers as intellectually, politically, environmentally and morally corrupt.”
Well, yeah, they are. Not all though, I will concede to the people that have to use pick-up trucks for work.
“Welcome to Obamaworld — Schmuck.”
First, what does this have to do with President Obama? I am pretty sure that the column in question would have been written if McCain (McLame? McShame? McArrogantSonOfABitch.) would have won the election.
The best man won. Get over it.
Face it, people who use pick-up trucks as their day-to-day transportation are the real schmucks. I mean WOW(!) the brand new Ford F-150 gets 21 miles per gallon!! Where can I jump in on the circle jerk? So it got that kind of mileage under controlled conditions, what about real world? What about all the trash-cans on wheels sold by OEMs?
Think before you speak. Oh, and get used to saying President Obama, by the way. I don’t know about you; but I did not, and do not enjoy working for an idiot.
A truck is a tool. It is not Ford’s fault that people who don’t need them buy them. It used to be that only peope who needed them drove trucks, so GM and Ford came out with the El Camino/Ranchero so that working folks wouldn’t have to ride around in trucks. If they want to give any maker a ration of shit, why not BMW? They make the X3,X5, and the most amazingly useless of all, the X6. Or Porsche?
Ford– and by extension Detroit– just aren’t trying hard enough…
this, however, IS true.
they simply CANNOT develop torquey engines that get better than 16mpg highway??? REALLY?? can’t add a little electric motor on there to help? why not make the entire line diesel-only? REALLY?? if you NEED one of these for utility, diesel will do!
we got NOTHING better in the works? this is as far as we’ve come? Really? NOTHING???
REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!??
Face it, people who use pick-up trucks as their day-to-day transportation are the real schmucks.
Agreed. 99% of the people I know with full size pickups say they need them for events that happen at most 2-3 times/year.
I also think most CUV’s and SUV’s are even more asinie than pickup trucks and the drivers of those deserve more grief since there is zero utility in those vehicles.
The problem is that it isn’t common middle class folk in the media ranting about the waste of trucks/SUV’s. It’s the elite class (hollywood/politicians) who are for the most part hypocrits getting chauffered around in equally inefficient luxury cars and grossly wasteful private jets.
Singling out Obama may be a bit unfair to the president elect, but calling out Democrats in general is very well placed. Haven’t heard many Republicans saying bad things about SUV’s lately, have you?
From Detroit-Iron: “If they want to give any maker a ration of shit, why not BMW? They make the X3,X5, and the most amazingly useless of all, the X6. Or Porsche?”
That is a damned good question, why don’t they? The only thing worse than a pick-up, is an SUV. You are right, pick-ups are just tools. But once people started using them for different purposes, they became the tools.
A truck is a tool.
…and so are the drivers. Ba-doom-ching! Thanks, I’ll be here all week.
Ahem..
The NYT is guilty perhaps of making a blanket statement, but the general thrust is accurate: Detroit isn’t trying hard enough across the spectrum. Ford, if the Fiesta and Focus show up unmolested and on-schedule, is trying, but GM and Chrysler are just winding the clock out now that “business as usual” isn’t an option.
Put it this way: Ford, Chrysler or GM could have compromised truck development in favour of small cars as, realistically, their dominance of the truck market is strong and would suffer a few extended model cycles, while they have nothing to lose (except some margin dollars) by improving their small car performance. But while the F-150, Ram and GMT900s all benefit from R&D dollars, the current Focus, Caliber, Aveo and Cobalt suffer for being starved.
Al Gore spoke at a tree-hugger fest while his full-size SUV waited outside with the A/C running. The WWF sponsors a trip around the world in a chartered airliner.
It’s hypocrisy that people have a problem with, not efforts at conservation.
Maybe the NY Times employs a team of engineers that could explain to us how an F-150 could be both powerful enough for its duties, and yet efficient enough to get 25 mpg.
unregular-
If Ford, GM, Nissan, anyone had developed the technology to build a truck engine that satisfies everone’s desire for fuel efficiency, they would have sold it by now. Enough with the conspiracy stuff.
“If they want to give any maker a ration of shit, why not BMW? They make the X3,X5, and the most amazingly useless of all, the X6. Or Porsche?”
because we want to focus on AMERICAN companies. those are the ones in peril and those are the ones trying to squeeze bailout $ out of us.
they are NOT trying hard enough and they are NOT working smart enough. and it is hurting the American economy.
how am i being conspiratorial? I’m saying they are DUMB! not that they are hiding stuff… no conspiracy!
Al Gore spoke at a tree-hugger fest while his full-size SUV waited outside with the A/C running. source?
sorry, friend, but that TYPE of politics died this week. let’s work on answers, not “Al Gore once left a light on in his bathroom and Nancy Pelosi once was in a restaurant with a guy who looked like Castro!”
enough of that shite. let’s work on answers.
This is American for God’s sake and I will drive whatever I damn well please and can afford. If I only get 15mpg doing so, that is my choice and no one is going to tell me different. People have died for our freedoms and that includes driving whatever the hell I want.
I am so sick of everyone looking down on someone else because of what they drive. You don’t know their situation nor should you care. You should worry about yourself. Also, why is it that cars that get shitty gas mileage don’t draw the same attention as trucks/SUV’s do?
“This is American for God’s sake and I will drive whatever I damn well please and can afford. If I only get 15mpg doing so, that is my choice and no one is going to tell me different. People have died for our freedoms and that includes driving whatever the hell I want”
and that ladies and gentlemen is why GM Ford etc built trucks and SUVs for so long and got in this pickle. Why invest in small cars when the customer wants big thirsty profitable behemoths….
As a household with an SUV, and a truck, not an F-150, why do you all care if the cars that are in my driveway are fuel efficient enough?! You are not paying for my gas, and I am not asking you to –
Yes, I would LIKE for fuel efficiency to be better, and YES, I think Detroit is behind the 8-ball on this, and sinking their own ship – but the choice lies with the buyer!! Show me a compact gas sipper that I can fit my 2 children in car seats, and 2 dogs in for a family trip!! Show me a reasonable alternative (which I have looked at ALL of the current offerings from ALL automakers) I’ll consider it! But even trying to consider something more fuel efficient is not good enough for those of you who call CUV and SUV owners “schmucks” and “tools!!” We can NOT all drive Civics or even the supposedly-coming-Fiesta! Give people a break!!!
People have died for our freedoms and that includes driving whatever the hell I want.
ew. and ugh.
and yikes, dude, that’s is not only wrong, but it’s just wrong.
edit – your FREEDOMS do NOT include “driving whatever the hell you want” – and NO ONE DIED for that cause. don’t disparage those who died for your ACTUAL freedoms in such a manner.
Yes, I would LIKE for fuel efficiency to be better, and YES, I think Detroit is behind the 8-ball on this, and sinking their own ship
looks like you agree with the Times’ article!
the rest of what you said is just your kneejerk SUV arguement. but you seem to get the point of the article….
Is it any wonder that the NYT’s circulation numbers are heading in the same direction as Ford’s sales, and almost at the same rate?
why do you all care if the cars that are in my driveway are fuel efficient enough?!
dependence
on
foreign
oil
and what that means for the security and economy of America.
why do you have such a hard time grasping that concept?
and before you say OMG BUT WHAT ABOUT SPORTS CARS WTF?!?!? – you are only allowed to cite cars that are on the list of top-20 cars/trucks sold in the US as examples, ok?
because see, yes a Ferrari DOES get shitty economy. but there are a SMALL FRACTION of those on the road. less than 1%. F150’s and Expicursions, however, are crawling all over it. There are more H2s on the road than Ferraris, Vipers, and Lambos combined (that’s an educated guess).
Thank you franknham. I am so sick and tired of people railing against the Big3’s trucks and SUVs and people who drive them. Besides the fact that I cycle to work 3 months out of the year, own a “right sized” and energy efficient home, and own a car that gets decent mileage, my Jeep still gets demonized by those that think they have some moral high ground from which to preach from.
Just a few weeks ago, the Big Three American automakers convinced Congress to give them $25 billion in cheap loans to retool their plants to make fuel-efficient cars. Then, with nary a blush, the Ford Motor Company introduced the new star in its line: the 2009, 3-ton, 16-miles-per-gallon, F-150 pickup.
Wow that makes it look like it only took them a week to design, engineer, test and build a new truck now that they have their bailout bucks(which they don’t even really have yet). If Ford could do that it would be amazing, I would consider them saved if they could turn on a dime that fast.
Makes me think of the Jetsons when Coswell Cogs built a new multistory HQ building right next to Spacely Sprokets in about 15 minutes. Strange future that needs two big companies that make cogs and sprokets when they have flying cars that never seem to require fuel.
So, “Un…” am I to take it that because I own a 2 year-old American made SUV, and my husband drives a 4 year-old American made truck (NEITHER of which are the vehicles that you singled out), that we are somehow contributing to the breakdown in our Nation’s security or that we, at the time of these purchases, and even now when these vehicles require service, that we are contributing to the downfall of our economy?!!?!?! I REFUSE to take that responsibility solely on my shoulders! I do not dispute that we need more fuel efficient vehicles that are AMERICAN made to reduce our independence on foreign oil – I merely pointed out that people drive what they drive & it is not your job to judge them when they are paying for that car and filling that tank!
I do not dispute that we need more fuel efficient vehicles that are AMERICAN made to reduce our independence on foreign oil – I merely pointed out that people drive what they drive & it is not your job to judge them when they are paying for that car and filling that tank!
that’s some two-sided stuff right there!
how can you say we need to reduce our DEPENDENCE (not “independence”) on foreign oil – BUT can’t judge people when they fill their tank in their inefficient and unnecessary SUV?
so you’re saying: we need to do that (reduce dependence), but YOU, franknham, YOU don’t need to do that…. and no, don’t judge YOU, franknham, for INCREASING that dependence by filling the tank in YOUR inefficient vehicle? do i have that right?
There should be no problem with Ford making trucks, SUVs or any other type of car if they can make money selling them. That’s Ford’s argument (and every other car company’s argument) for producing these types of vehicles.
OK, no problem. We are a capitalistic society – that’s the way supply and demand works.
I do have a problem with the hypocrisy of this position. It’s OK to manufacture low-cost, high-margin trucks and SUVs, but when the market quickly turns, and the automakers are caught flat-footed, they run to the government for help.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you live and die by capitalism, or you take the public money and the (socialistic) regulation that goes with protecting the public money. Unfortunately, automakers and our elected representatives don’t understand this.
Privatize gains, socialize losses. It sucks and the taxpayers are taking it in the shorts.
-ted
What I don’t get at all, is why people need full-sized trucks. Please note that I’m speaking from ignorance and a genuine desire to learn.
From what I understand, trucks the size of Ford’s F-150 and larger are uniquely American. I keep reading that the new Toyota and Nissan truck plants were big mistakes as the Tundra and Titan can’t be exported outside of North America. This sounds to me like the rest of the world make do with smaller trucks.
So… what makes the American market unique? What sorts of needs do Americans have that the rest of the world don’t?
Obama = NYT = Unregular = Marxist
I frequently agree with the NYT, I favor stricter efficiency standards, and I agree the domestic automakers’ shortsighted over-reliance on large pickups and SUV’s has contributed to their collective decline. (Let’s not call it demise…yet.) Despite all this, the NYT’s rant about the new F-150 is absurd, and displays a profound lack of understanding about the auto industry and market.
Many people and businesses in this country rely on full-sized pickups. Regardless of fuel costs, this segment will remain significant. Ford, therefore, needs to retain a strong presence in the segment to be successful. And of course the model has already been in development for years, so it makes no sense to delay or forego the return on that investment.
Yes, many folks who purchase these vehicles don’t need them. But that has nothing to do with whether full-sized pickups should exist, and they should as long as consumers want them.
golf4me = Bush = Rove = Cheney = Rumsfeld = Economic Collapse = Endless Wars = Bailouts = Spending = Fail = Fail = Palin = Fail = Fail = Fail = Fail
So… what makes the American market unique? What sorts of needs do Americans have that the rest of the world don’t?
big, fat asses.
franknham –
..am I to take it…that we are somehow contributing to the breakdown in our Nation’s security or that we, at the time of these purchases, and even now when these vehicles require service, that we are contributing to the downfall of our economy?!!?!?!
Yes.
I do not dispute that we need more fuel efficient vehicles that are AMERICAN made to reduce our independence on foreign oil – I merely pointed out that people drive what they drive & it is not your job to judge them when they are paying for that car and filling that tank!
This is hypocrisy. If one recognizes the need for more fuel efficient vehicles, and the relationship between oil consumption and national security, but chooses to drive a 16 MPG truck for one’s daily commute anyway, then that person is a hypocrite.
Again, nobody’s disputing that trucks have their place (for WORK), but way too many people drive them just for style or masculine insecurity.
NYT is doing in this article what TTAC does every day, point out how the big 2.8 aren’t trying hard enough in the car division, and spending too much effort/money on trucks and SUVs.
Far be it for me to get in the way of a good NYT bashing (damn tree-hugging socialists!), but how about looking at the real issue: Ford’s inability to adapt to the times.
Ford had some choices when it redesigned the F-150. It could have more aggressively reduced its truck’s size and weight by reverting to the body shell of the previous generation. Instead, Ford heavily borrowed from the F-350’s parts bin. Undoubtedly this increased economies of scale. After all, no one else offered completely different sheetmetal and cab shells for its light and medium-duty trucks. However, one could also argue that the F-150 is now so close to the F-350 that it will cannibalize sales. Meanwhile, the buyer who does want a more efficient pickup will have to go elsewhere.
One does not have to agree with the NYT’s views to appreciate that American trucks need to go on a diet, much like the bloated full-sized American cars of the mid-70s. There’s plenty of small and not so small ways to reduce unnecessary heft without compromising the basic mission of a large truck.
Ford was in the best position of the Big Three to downsize its pickups because it already had two basic bodies in play. Alas, Ford assumed that pick buyers were immune to rising gas prices and would continue to insist on bigness.
I suspect that Ford bet wrong. But so far GM and Chrysler have too, so at least misery loves company. That probably leaves it to Toyota to be the first to downsize its big trucks.
+1 what franknham said.
As for criticism of Ford releasing an updated F-150, give me a break. The F-150 has been insanely popular since forever, and the redesign was in the works for years. Just because the pickup market contracted at the 11th hour, that’s no reason for them to walk away from the R&D money already spent in a segment where they’re the leader.
I have to agree though that the ever increasing size and load capacity of “half-ton” pickups is getting silly. The new trucks are larger and taller than my 1994 Dodge 2500.
unregular-
I don’t see any better efforts from the non-Detroit automakers in having more efficient trucks.
How do you engineer a truck that will get high MPG while still being able to do the tasks that are asked of it such as towing, hauling, or getting off-road? Oh, and keeping it affordable to those that will still need the truck for work and utility purposes? I do agree that it may not be neccessary for everyone to use a truck…but we don’t know the needs of everyone either. I don’t know about where you live, but where I live and where I often travel for work…trucks are used on a daily basis. They’re not status symbols of any means, well maybe getting a Lariat or a GMC over a base F150 or Chevy is a means of somewhat higher wealth.
We live in a democratic country where you can choose what vehicle you want. You pay the price for that, or recoup the savings you seek. It’s the same in pretty much every other country.
If you want to decrease dependence on oil, turn off your computer and your lights…that consumes energy which is most likely powered by a form of fossil fuel (we’ll leave coal out of this since it’s a domestic source). See, we all use energy that makes us dependent on fuels…it’s up to you to decide your energy consumption. Not tell someone what they should do, while you’re still consuming energy that may be dependent on a foreign source.
I have no use for a truck, that’s why I have a Mazda3 wagon (and an old Volvo sedan which usually sits in the garage because I’ll often bike to work) for my family of 3. It’s all we need.
TEXN3 – but do you see the non-Detroit automakers laying off Americans by the thousands and receiving billions in American taxpayer bailout money?
let’s keep our focus on American automakers here. that’s what I care about. we want AMERICAN business to be revitalized in this country.
and for what it’s worth… i get a large % of my electricity from wind. i live in the city where i work. i take the subway to my office. i DO what i CAN. I can ask the same of others.
edit: sorry, i was mistaken, i get 100% of my electricity from wind power.
The New York Times needs to stick with what it knows – which, judging by this editorial, does not include the automobile industry.
Ford is very smart for redoing this truck. There will still be a market for full-size trucks, and Ford is keeping its entry up-to-date.
I don’t see Toyota abandoning this segment.
Ford will have a redone Fusion and Mustang next spring, and the Fiesta and all-new Focus in 2010. So it isn’t as though it is putting all of its eggs in one basket.
Ford will have a full line-up of up-to-date products that appeal to a vareity of buyers – some who want fuel economy with style; some who want solid family sedans; some who want trucks for work or towing.
Just like…Toyota.
How do you engineer a truck that will get high MPG while still being able to do the tasks that are asked of it such as towing, hauling, or getting off-road?
diesel? hydrogen? squirrels-and-pigeons? cow manure? algae? thousands of horses running on treadmills? snickers bars? i don’t fucking know! I AM NOT AN AUTO ENGINEER.
i am asking our Brilliant, Ingenuitive, American Auto Engineers to FIGURE IT OUT!!!! HELP!!!!
They don’t employ as many American workers as the US automakers. However, they are asking for portions of the bailout…corporations will do anything they can to pad their profits a little more.
your FREEDOMS do NOT include “driving whatever the hell you want” – and NO ONE DIED for that cause.
#1 – the constitution says nothing about what vehicles you have a right to drive.
#2 – many people have died for the cause of “cheap energy.” The huge US military presence in the middle east isn’t by accident.
We got big vehicles because at one point in time the USA was awash in oil. It was cheap and plentiful and conservation wasn’t necessary. That ended decades ago, however gov’t needed to support big business (cough GM cough) and started indirect intervetion to keep up business as usual.
Now I don’t support direct gov’t intervention into what people drive…but lets not forget all that indirect gov’t intervention. Look at the network of roads and highways almost all taxpayer funded. Look at the meager gasoline taxes compared to other western nations. Look at the billions spent on military presence in oil exporting zones. We pay a very dear price for cheap gasoline, and why I don’t feel guilty calling someone out for wasteful use of resources. People did die so you could drive your suburban.
All other western nations get by just fine with vehicle much smaller than the US counterparts. Nobody there complains about needing room for their kids & dogs and kitchen sink. Nobody there needs a truck that can haul enough cargo to fill a swimming pool. They make do and oddly enough surveys say they are happier and more satisified than Americans. Go figure.
TEXN3 – let’s focus on making American Car Companies the best in the world.
the “oh but what about them!?!?” is loser talk. let’s focus on what WE can do.
corporations will do anything they can to pad their profits a little more. yeah… that’s why we need oversight and regulation. Alan Greenspan killed Ayn Rand!
The F-150 is a core product, and core products need to be updated periodically. No matter what happens, Ford needs to have a product to serve this segment.
The issue isn’t one of whether the truck should be updated, but of how the company can make a profit with it, at least over the long run.
It’s not an either-or situation. Ford’s mistake was not in updating this, but in failing to have competitive compact and mid-sized sedans that it could sell alongside the F-150. These are basic segments and all of them must receive appropriate attention.
(Ford also needs a competitive luxury sedan that can generate profits once the recession had ended, but they are obviously ill prepared for that eventuality, too. Those profits will be flowing to the usual imported suspects, not to Detroit.)
Saying American automakers are the best in the world is a rather subjective opinion…do you think that? I bought a Ford product, albeit made in Japan. I guess it’s a wash.
Oversight on foreign companies? Good luck.
You won’t be too smug when the government starts regulating your life and your decisions, will you?
Oh, and 100% from wind power…where exactly do you live? I’m curious as to what urban area recieves 100% wind energy in the US.
I’m curious because my profession is being a civil engineer (and land planner) for a firm that does alot of planning/design/engineering/construction on energy projects (T&D, generation, facilities) in North America.
seriously though, don’t ever say this again. ever.
I do not dispute that we need more fuel efficient vehicles that are AMERICAN made to reduce our independence on foreign oil – I merely pointed out that people drive what they drive & it is not your job to judge them when they are paying for that car and filling that tank!
here you go, champ: nstar.com
I said “let’s focus on making American Car Companies the best in the world.”
since you clearly didn’t read what I wrote, I’m not going to answer any more of your questions.
edit: ok, one more: You won’t be too smug when the government starts regulating your life and your decisions, will you?
are you under the impression that we live our lives freemarket-syle? free of regulation of our decisions? i don’t get it. the government regulates MANY of our decisions and MUCH of our lives. do they not? didn’t they “start” that back in 1776?
Robert Schwartz, excellent post. You put so many panties in knots!
Why not? American automakers should offer a wide array of vehicles for the market. It is not hypocritical to think that even if your needs require a larger vehicle. The person that posted the comment did not say that people (except for themselves) should buy the more efficient American vehicles…she said that it is up to them how much money they want to spend on fuel.
I read what you wrote, but am allowed to bring up other points in the process…as that is how a conversation works. Plus, you said “the best in the world” so that pretty much makes your point moot.
How do you know that someone who feels there should be more efficient vehicles doesn’t have more than 2 children? Even 2 car seats will take up an entire mid-size sedan/SUV backseat…no room for anyone else, there goes the carpool.
Should we regulate how many children people have?
EDIT: Finally, you should learn how an electric grid works (your New England grid uses alot of generation from various sources)…not all of your power comes from wind, even if you pay for it. You’re paying a premium for the company to buy more of it’s generation from wind than from a coal-fire, natural gas, even a nuclear plant, as well as other forms of renewable sources. This doesn’t even take into account that wind is not constantly generated.
Look, I enjoy working on wind farms…I actually think the structures are quite fascinating to look at! And there are several being developed in the western US.
Oh, and my energy is 98% hydro, 2% wind from Idaho Power.
But, now we’re getting a bit off-topic.
I am a schmuck!
I drive an ’05 F150 STX 2WD 5-sp V6 and love it. I routinely achieve 20 mpg in all conditions and use it to commute to work everyday.
I cannot afford to buy, insure and maintain a separate vehicle to just commute with and the F150 is always there when I need it, whether it be trash, furniture or whatever. It is a tool, AND NO, I am not a tool.
It works for me, and my 2007 Focus PZEV-driving spouse.
“The new trucks should be 8 percent more fuel efficient than the 2008 models”
Proof that there is a terrible shortage of engineers contributing to ‘facts’ the NYT likes to spout off in their editorials.
If the NYT’s circulation was busting at the seams, I’d say they might be worth listening to. As it stands, they have their own problems with running their business profitably.
Will their be a bailout of the newspaper industry?
Typical NYT short sighted ignorance. In mere months Ford will be launching…
2010 Festiva
2010 Fusion
– 4 cyl, 33 hwy MPG
– Hybrid, 38 city MPG
They also fail to mention the best-in-class 21mpg SFE model or that the F-150 actually lost 100 lbs compared to the previous model. That’s not huge but it’s an aberration in the full size truck market.
“…which means that they still use about 50 percent more gas per mile than, say, a Honda Accord.”
So they’re comparing the 16mpg 5.4 liter F-150 with an accord? Why don’t they rip the bloated accord for not being a Prius … or for that matter, a bicycle?
sure, whatever. my point is this: i TRY to walk the talk and i talk the walk.
i don’t say “we need to decrease our independence on foreign oil – but don’t judge me and my inefficient and unnecessary SUV!!!” (seriously, they’re unnecessary.)
i actually DECREASE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL! me!!!! by living in the city, by driving (somewhat) fuel efficient vehicles a bare minimum of miles a year (my turbo’d outback gets 25mpg highway, my mazda3 hatch does better), by not driving to work, by conserving energy, by buying into alternative energy through my electric company… i AM doing what I CAN. and so can you, and so can the person filling up their expecurstionalade. they can too. they CAN DO better.
and BECAUSE i’m doing what i can, i can ASK others to do the same.
that IS my right. at least, i like to think it’s my right… (unlike “driving whatever the hell i want”).
let’s TRY to do BETTER. it is GOOD for the ecomomy to do better! am i taking crazy pills? why would people fight that? let’s try to improve.
and that includes the American car manufacturers. that’s the point of the NYT article – they aren’t TRYING hard enough. and it’s true.
(and really, all newspaper circulation is in decline, every single one of them. so you can stop saying that now.)
Good to see you drive a Mazda3 hatch/wagon as well, and using your own power to commute (I bike).
I agree that we all should do what we can to not only decrease any dependency but just being less consuming overall.
You can ask someone to do something, but you cannot regulate or tell them what they do. However, walking the walk and not talking is a much better example and great practice in humility.
That is merely my point (and a few others here).
unregular :
November 6th, 2008 at 11:00 am
why do you all care if the cars that are in my driveway are fuel efficient enough?!
dependence
on
foreign
oil
and what that means for the security and economy of America.
There is no significant security issue about foreign oil, provided our leaders aren’t morons. That is, Saddam was perfectly willing to sell us oil, and Bin Laden doesn’t have any oil to sell.
Now, there is an economic issue here, in that it’s better for us to not send money overseas. But oil imports are no different than, say, car imports (or flat screen TV imports or plastic toy imports).
I agree that we all should do what we can to not only decrease any dependency but just being less consuming overall.
and MY point is that somehow people believe it’s “American” do consciously and purposefully do the exact opposite.
indeed, you may be called a “communist” for even suggesting it.
unregular/TEXN3 –
I work from home so I probably only drive about 5k miles per year. But when I do, I sure do enjoy the often unused space of my V8 Mountaineer and the unnecessary power of my Mustang GT.
I honestly couldn’t care less what you drive, but if I were looking to be a greenie I certainly wouldn’t have a turbo that gets less hwy mpg that a Corvette.
WOW unregular! Does it get tiring being SO very angry at such a large percentage of the population?! And newsflash – 2, 4, 10 years ago, not everyone was as clued-in to energy independence as you obviously were. And we can not all afford to go buy a new car just to make those who judge us feel better! That in NO WAY means that we are unaware of the issues. Don’t fall off you high horse…
unregular:
Two cars that you don’t drive, that take up precious, dwindling space, that could be recycled to make windmills, etc, etc
unregular has been banned from posting on TTAC. Our posting policy is clearly stated, and there is no coming back.
Once again, as always, I urge all commentators to address each other with mutual respect, even if you hold wildly different opinions. Attack the argument, not the poster.
Should we regulate how many children people have?
No, but we may want to consider taxing people who choose a lifestyle that’s otherwise unsustainable. Want a big truck? Pay a carbon tax to offset it’s use or buy something smaller. Want more kids? Pay a head tax or keep it in your pants. Want a bigger house? Pay a property tax. Want to buy a non-essential good? Pay a sales tax.
Americans are singularly terrified of a uniform, federal taxation, which is why we get into patchwork, local-level taxation, tolls, regulations and exemptions that create artificial market conditions and, frankly, cost more the administer. Most other first-world countries have a fair gas tax. Many have value-added or sales taxes. Some are implementing carbon taxes. And these are simple, fair across-the-board measures.
There’s this idea, typified in the post above, that freedom implies a lack of responsibility. No one is going to take your F-350 Super Duty away, or legislate Ford into not building them, but the time where you can live a certain way and not have to deal with the overall cost to society is gone. And it’s time for the American political establishment and it’s citizenry (not to mention, oh, everyone else) to grow a spine, figuratively speaking, and realize that the free ride we’ve had since the end of World War II is going to come to an end.
unregular has been banned from posting on TTAC.
Thanx Farago.
jfsvo- please don’t group me with the former member, unregular. Thank you.
I believe that you can drive, own, do what you like and what you do is based on what you can comfortably afford.
No copious amount of power is ever unneccessary…nor is space. It gets used, I’m quite sure of that.
To be fair, what seemed to set off Unregular in that now-deleted post was this comment that was addressed to him: Better yet, quit breathing. I wouldn’t consider that statement to be particularly civil, either.
TEXN3 –
My mistake, I read your previous post too quickly and lumped you in with unregular. Sorry about that.
@ Unregular
Owning 2 cars is a waste of natural resources and oil it took to produce and ship to your urban dwelling (as well as maintain). And a turbo Outback?? For someone as environmentally aware as you, 25 mpg is pitiful. That’s very wasteful for the times you do drive. You’re clearly not doing all you can.
I appreciate your passion, and agree we should try to do all we can, but to use your words, you do drive whatever the hell you want, and it gets less than stellar mileage. Only difference is that some of the truck buyers you’ve castigated rely on said truck to earn a living. Do you rely on your turbo to scoot your urban self from mall to mall as part of earning a living? If not, you’re not doing all you can.
This is the problem with absolutes… there will always be exceptions. Doesn’t make us hypocrites, at least not most of us. Now, those that throw stones from glass houses….
Edit: Whoops, I missed Unregular’s demise!
No problem at all…I was just trying to find a point to end the conversation as it was leading to nowhere.
Pch101 :
I missed that. Wolven has been warned. Another crack like that and he will be banned.
I’ve also rescinded the ban on Unregular, as he was deliberately provoked. He has also been warned.
Meanwhile, please report all abusive remarks to me, rather than respond.
The F-150 is a core product, and core products need to be updated periodically. No matter what happens, Ford needs to have a product to serve this segment.
I don’t think that’s in dispute, it’s that Ford already has a very competitive product in this space and can allow it to slack slightly to the benefit of it’s small and midsize cars. Currently, the domestics treat their trucks’ development cycle the same way Honda treats everything it makes.
Take the new Ram for instance. It’s a very good truck, and a lot of good engineering went into it. Putting aside questions of Chrysler’s viability as a whole, the money spent on making the Ram a good truck could have gone into making the Sebring or Caliber a non-excretable product and the Ram probably would have sold at the same level. And yes, there’s an issue of reduced margin here, but I think margin ought to come second to putting all your eggs into many baskets.
How much did Ford put into the F-150? How much did they put into the Focus or the upcoming Fiesta? If they hadn’t refreshed the F-150, would it have made a difference in sales and quality versus putting that money into it’s other products.
Detroit, even Ford, are still hedging their bets on high-margin products, and that’s not a strategically sound move, not when Toyota is maybe a model cycle away from producing a better Tundra.
It’s a shame to see TTAC reader commentary descending into political rants. I appreciate the rhetorical temperance demonstrated by such as TEXN3 who said “I agree that we all should do what we can to not only decrease any dependency but just being less consuming overall.
You can ask someone to do something, but you cannot [presumably meant “should not”] regulate or tell them what they do. However, walking the walk and not talking is a much better example and great practice in humility.”
In contrast, the NYT (as does their favorite son, President-elect Obama, which is why he was mentioned above) consistently favor statist measures that restrict individual freedom. (Well, there is one freedom of choice they insist upon, even after a live birth.) I prefer measures such as higher fuel taxes, which leave people to buy F-150s, Maybachs or Sherman Tanks if they are willing to pay the price.
If bankruptcy does not intervene, I suppose the NYT will next advocate laws to move the residents of flyover country into energy-efficient housing units the same size as the average Manhattan apartment.
It’s upsetting you all tried to tie this into Obama. Shows how much you all have going on in your lives that you need to take a subjective editorial on an automotive blogging website into a place to display your personal prejudices, misconceptions, inaccuracies, and weak, it’s-too-late election complaints. Give it up. Don’t generalize Democrats, or even the NYT staff. So one guy wrote an auto editorial you don’t agree with…that’s his right to do as a journalist, Robert, the same as it’s YOUR right to critique what he’s saying on YOUR site.
NYT isn’t even an automotive publication, so you have to take all of their car articles with a grain of salt.
Everyone needs to open their eyes on all of this.
I don’t think that’s in dispute, it’s that Ford already has a very competitive product in this space and can allow it to slack slightly to the benefit of it’s small and midsize cars. Currently, the domestics treat their trucks’ development cycle the same way Honda treats everything it makes.
The NYT commentary seems to take issue with it, which suggests that the author is assuming a political role, rather than considering the business problem.
It’s fair to guess that Ford began developing the new F-150 at least 3-4 years ago. Cycles in the auto industry are long and the R&D costs are high, even for relatively crude products such as trucks.
There comes a point at which the development costs are high enough that a point of no return is reached and the new product needs to be launched, regardless, as most of the costs have already been incurred. Unless the product is launched, those costs will have been incurred without any of the benefit having been realized, and not launching it does more harm than good.
In any case, it’s this blowing-in-the-breeze mentality expressed by the article which is exactly the problem. A mainstream auto company should be redeveloping core products on regular cycles, no matter what, for the sake of maintaining their brand and market share.
Let’s consider the converse. During good times, a lot of people lose interest in compact cars. Yet the successful compact car makers keep making them anyway, because it is not possible to predict with any precision exactly when they’ll be in high demand.
The best strategy is to always make a great product and to have it ready for when it’s in demand, not to do nothing until it becomes obvious that it’s wanted, at which point it is already too late. If cars could be developed and launched in days or weeks, it might make sense to wait, but the fact that it takes years to put a car together and to develop its reputation requires that this be done consistently, no matter what.
It’s one thing to scrap the boutique niche stuff that goes in and out of fashion. It’s quite another to allow a bread-and-butter vehicle to go stale. Ford can’t pick and choose — the F-150 and the Fusion and the Fiesta and the Mustang all need to deliver.
And yes, what all of this supposedly has to do with Obama, I have no idea.
Robert, since you banned unregular for the tone of his posts, naturally you’ll be banning golf4me and Wolven for such posts as well, right?
golf4me: Obama = NYT = Unregular = Marxist
Wolven: @ unregular… the communist. Do us all a carbon reducing favor and quit hyperventilating. Better yet, quit breathing.
Edit: There’s been a lot of posts since I opened this blog page, read every post, then made this post, and I see that the ban on unregular was rescinded. Even so, the issue could have been cut off at the knees with golf4me’s remark IMO.
Pch101,
You ought to send that last post in to the Times as response to their editorial. It neatly sums up the problem with the paper’s editorial.
Full-size pickup trucks are an important market segment. They will continue to be an important segment, even with the recent run-up in gas prices.
Yes, Ford neglected its small and mid-sized cars. But that is water under the bridge. Ford is working very hard to address this oversight, and has some very promising products on the horizon. But even during the best of times, it can’t do everything at once.
helius:
What I don’t get at all, is why people need full-sized trucks.
I with Helius on this one. While pickups are generally useful, the only choice we have in N. America is between huge and gigantic. Instead of spending billions on just one model, why not expand their offering to include a downsized pickup? (G8 doesn’t count) The rest of the world seems to do just fine with small and mid-size pickups.
franknham :
My wife and I own an Odyssey. I highly recommend you test drive one if you are seriously in the market to replace a low mpg truck. It drives like an Accord and carries stuff (people, dogs, and schtuff) more comfortably and efficiently than anything else on the market.
And can tow 3,500 lbs, too. Bonus.
unregular: edit – your FREEDOMS do NOT include “driving whatever the hell you want” – and NO ONE DIED for that cause. don’t disparage those who died for your ACTUAL freedoms in such a manner.
Forgive me if someone else replied to this already, but I haven’t gotten through the whole comments section yet. I’m not coming down one way or another about the MPG issue here. Would I like better mileage? Sure. I appreciate the technology that goes into it. I appreciate the reduction of waste. However I take offense to your take on it.
As I sit over in Iraq in the service to my country, I think back on my oath of enlistment to defend the Constitution. And I reflect on our Declaration of Independence. And on that passage of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” If the vehicle contributes positively to his (or her) life, enables them to take advantages of the liberties my country has to offer and allows them to pursue their happiness, then please do not be so hasty to criticize. She (or he) has already admitted to wanting better efficiency, but people make do with what they have in most aspects of life.
It may be hard to wait for the new techniques to roll out to make those SUVs and trucks more fuel efficient, but someday it will come. It sucks to wait. I know, because I wait everyday. And yeah, I’m around HMMWVs, 2.5 ton and 5 ton trucks everyday, wishing our transportation were’t swilling down the JP-8 the way they do.
Cheers!
(My first post to TTAC also! Love this site.)
Instead of spending billions on just one model, why not expand their offering to include a downsized pickup?
Piaggio Ape, here I come!
As I sit over in Iraq in the service to my country, I think back on my oath of enlistment to defend the Constitution. And I reflect on our Declaration of Independence. And on that passage of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” If the vehicle contributes positively to his (or her) life, enables them to take advantages of the liberties my country has to offer and allows them to pursue their happiness, then please do not be so hasty to criticize. She (or he) has already admitted to wanting better efficiency, but people make do with what they have in most aspects of life.
I think the issue is that while people have the freedom to own a large truck if it’s within their means, they need to acknowledge the responsibility inherent in owning and upkeeping one. That responsibility includes balancing ones wants and needs against the footprint, economic, environmental and physical, of one’s choices and how that footprint affects others.
People equate freedom with privilege, which is a mistake. Trite as it sounds, freedom isn’t free.
unregular…nice try. Especially since the “economic failure” is traced directly back to the Democrats of the 70’s. Do some research.
While I’m not a fan of any of the people you listed, I’d rather be associated with them than Marxists like Obama and the NYT. I’m sure that by January we’ll all be banned from calling anybody names anyway, so I’m just getting my fill! :)
golf4me: Marxists like Obama and the NYT.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That responsibility includes balancing ones wants and needs against the footprint, economic, environmental and physical, of one’s choices and how that footprint affects others.
So do you mean a social responsibility?
I guess I just want to step through this, please correct me if I’m not reading you correctly. So if a person driving, for example a 2009 Ford F-150, knows just what they’re consuming and polluting and acknowledge this and can justify their choice of vehicle, is this better, worse or equal to the ignorant consumer who gets the exact same truck without considering the same consequences?
Perhaps I’m tired, but this sentence seems at odds with the rest of your post, which I agree with.
psharjinian: That responsibility includes balancing ones wants and needs against the footprint, economic, environmental and physical, of one’s choices and how that footprint affects others.
And that is for individuals to decide, not professional busybodies who think that they “know” what other people need.
And the government has enough to worry about without attempting to micromanage peoples’ lives. We tried this with Prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit; both failed miserably. And their failure was a good thing.
How exactly is Obama a Marxist? I’m not aware that he advocates state ownership of all property. Or that he wants to nationalize all industry. Increasing taxes on high-income earners and proposing some type of universal healthcare /= Marxism.
As for the NYT article, I think Pch101 has made a very cogent response. I can add little.
As for some of the comments in this post: every once a while I find a good old-fashioned flame fest entertaining as hell, but I’m sure glad that Robert keeps his iron fist on the comments section because it gets old fast.
So do you mean a social responsibility?
Yes, I do. People do not exist in unidirectional system where their choices affect no one but themselves. You have a responsibility to society and to the environment, and to varying degrees, most people live within those responsibilities.
If you didn’t, you’d be a sociopath.
I guess I just want to step through this, please correct me if I’m not reading you correctly. So if a person driving, for example a 2009 Ford F-150, knows just what they’re consuming and polluting and acknowledge this and can justify their choice of vehicle, is this better, worse or equal to the ignorant consumer who gets the exact same truck without considering the same consequences?
We’re on the tricky ground of moral relativism here, but if you “better’ as in more moral, then probably, yes, if for no other reason than you have acknowledged your responsibility.
But you raise a good question: is it more or less moral to know and acknowledge what degree you’ve compromised responsibility versus just acting without thinking. I’d say that tactically it’s a wash, but it puts you in a better mental place to make those kind of decisions in the future.
Which leads into Geeber’s point:
And that is for individuals to decide, not professional busybodies who think that they “know” what other people need.
A lot of people don’t know where, when or how to decide that, hence the point of regulation. I cannot to climate studies, I cannot do carcinogen/teratogen/toxicity testing and I cannot measure air quality. I can do power usage testing, but that’s because I own the tools to do it–most people don’t. So I depend on government to, at the least, test and enforce disclosure.
Many people aren’t aware of the impact of their choices, choose to ignore them and/or would actively make the wrong choice if it benefited them. You need some sort of shared social framework to enforce responsibility. Some of these are pretty basic (“Thou shalt not kill”, etc) but many are subtle and complex enough that it takes a government to decide and enforce them (“Thou, as the CEO of thee company, shalt not manipulate thy stock price to thine advantage, under the following circumstances…”). Others aren’t immediately and/or locally evident and must be addressed on a strategic timescale (“Thou shalt not catch every fish in the ocean and inadvertently poison those thou dost not catch”).
People, especially in large groups, are not able to do this, because people, on average, suck. This little fact has frustrated ideologues on both extremities of the political spectrum. Until people become perfect little godlets, we’re going to need government and regulation. It’s the degree and interpretation, not the existence, that we should be debating.
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” – Karl Marx
“We’re gonna spread the wealth around” – Barak Hussein Obama.
Pretty much the same thing.
And the whole thing about comments getting political was actually fueled by TTAC’s baiting headline and commentary, and the reason poor unregular got a little nuts is because he agreed with the article, and because he is seemingly in the minority view, got some good-natured ribbing for it. As much as I don’t agree with him, I didn’t read anything that was bad enough to ban him. Give the guy a break. I am also guilty of ribbing him, but it was all in good fun. Meant no harm! I’ve been on much nastier sites (LLN), and I’m glad that TTAC is keeping this one sane. But don’t take the fun out either!
Golf4me:
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” – Karl Marx
“We’re gonna spread the wealth around” – Barak Hussein Obama.
Pretty much the same thing.
You do realize that by equating the two, you’ve just said that the US has been Marxist state since the first tax dollar was collected?
To all the people who apparently think full size trucks to not even need to be produced:
There is a legitimate need for the full size truck in the rural Midwest (that’s where I live). For example, the hobbyist farmer who needs to drive to the back side of his property. He needs the ground clearance of a full size truck. Contractors and construction workers need a vehicle with large towing capacities and off road capabilities.
But I don’t really expect any of you to agree with me. Bottom line is unless you need a full size pickup (and believe me, there are lots of times you do) you’ll never understand the need for them. I spent many years driving compact trucks and they are absolutely useless when you try to do hard work with them.
So people that drive Pick up trucks are all arrogant morons huh?
What about people like me who live in areas where all of the roads are dirt…
When storms come through, roads get washed out, people can get stranded and your fuel efficient subaru outback doesn’t have the ground clearance to tackle roads that have been washed away.
My pickup truck has all the capabilities that I need, I still don’t need it for work, but i need it to haul my log splitter, and to tow a cord of firewood home from the neighbors.
People that live in cities don’t need pickup trucks, but that doesn’t mean people like me who live in central New Hampshire should suffer for their bad decision making!!
Thank you and goodnight, Peter.
The Times is free where I work. I’ll pick up a copy on Friday to see what’s going on back home.
I don’t pay much attention to their automotive columns. I drive what I want/need to drive.
MgoBLUE ~
I test drove an Odyssey just last weekend! It’s a great vehicle, and definitely on the list when the time comes. Thanks for the suggestion…Go Spartys! (Sorry, couldn’t resist!)
To all those that want to dictate everyone elses choice of transportation, (and size of home, number of kids, amount of food they eat, and on and on)…
When I see you people quit sucking up the fruits of our industrialized society, and start producing all of your own food, shelter, clothing and everything else you use… In short, start living like the Mennonites (whom I actually respect),
THEN I’ll be willing to look for some evidence of your baseless argument that my choice of transportation is somehow negatively impacting you.
The greatest evil in the world is one person trying to ENFORCE their will on another.
If you really want more fuel efficient cars, then raise the gas tax. Otherwise, keep your whining to yourselves. There is no other way that will work. None, nade, rien, zippo, etc…
Even people who can’t do the math eventually figure out that gas is so cheap (even at $4 a gallon) that fuel efficiency is just not a big deal for most of them.
Was it Lexus that recently put out the ad about the several different costs to owning a car? That was genius. That is what works.
That pick-up truck is still a piece of crap! :-)
In short, start living like the Mennonites (whom I actually respect),
THEN I’ll be willing to look for some evidence of your baseless argument that my choice of transportation is somehow negatively impacting you.
So, let me understand this: until everyone is perfect, you refuse to acknowledge your obligation and shared responsibility in society?
The greatest evil in the world is one person trying to ENFORCE their will on another.
Yes, and it really depends on perspective, doesn’t it? That is to say: “who is doing the enforcing”? Your (and this is the collective “you”, not you personally) willingness to conspicuously consume enforces certain requirements on others, from increased air pollution to economic roller-coaster to blood oil.
Let’s be clear: we’re talking about your freedom, here. Not someone else’s freedom, which you’re choosing to disrespect or ignore because every other person on the planet isn’t a perfect angel, and thusly have no right to an opinion on you.
That seems rather self-centred, if you’ll pardon my opinion.
If you really want more fuel efficient cars, then raise the gas tax. Otherwise, keep your whining to yourselves. There is no other way that will work. None, nade, rien, zippo, etc…
Heh…
Well, I’ll be darned if I don’t find myself in agreement with you. I must check the temperature in Hell.
Face it, to a large degree it’s no secret that government policies and regulations already dictate what we drive by mandating standards for safety, emissions and fuel efficiency.
Rather than legislate away large trucks (which some people and businesses actually DO need), how come no one is willing to go to bat to allow us to easily import the nicely appointed subcompacts that are sold in other countries?
Honestly, the only reason I drive a bigger car than I really need is because – unless you move way upmarket – the smaller ones are so damned chintzy and uncomfortable.
Hypothetical Argument between two TTAC posters:
LD: “I really can’t stand selfish jerk-offs that {unpopular act}. Don’t they know that their behavior is hurting the rest of us by {arguable negative consequence}? I wish that {unpopular act} was illegal — or at least taxed heavily — to stop them and help save the rest of us.”
CR: “Hey, it’s a free market . . . if I want to {unpopular act} I will. {unpopular act} makes me happy, and who are you to try and tell me I should compromise? I think you must be a socialist!
LD: “But what about {arguable negative consequence}? This is a negative externality and you’re skating without paying for it! Don’t you care?”
CR: “Sorry, but I don’t believe that {unpopular act} even causes {arguable negative consequence}!”
It seems that many or most posters here would support one side of this argument or the other on philosophical grounds. Which side are you on???
Back to the topic at hand (I think)…
Ford needs to be a full-line car and truck manufacturer. They may not sell 900k F-Series trucks like they used to (was it just 2-3 years ago?), but each F-150 still brings in roughly $10k profit per unit –real money that Alan Mulally can use to, say, bring over the Fiesta and Focus and not worry (too much) about the F-cars’ ultimate profitability.
If Ford is profitable, then they don’t need to go hat in hand to the feds, do they? So… they need the F-150’s profits.
Of course, everyone here wants the F-150 (and the Silverado and the Tundra and the Ram) to be more fuel-efficient, but unregular‘s problem is he doesn’t understand the balance between engineering and costs.
Ford could build an F-150 entirely out of aluminum tomorrow and it would get, say, 50% better mpg with existing powertrains –but would be so expensive (say, $40,000 at the most optimistic, assuming wonderful economies of scale) that no one would buy it –so all that wonderful fuel efficiency is tethered to the showroom floor.
I’m personally not a fan of trucks –but I’m even less of a fan of the NYT. The less we hear from them, the better.
Ford could build an F-150 entirely out of aluminum tomorrow and it would get, say, 50% better mpg with existing powertrains –but would be so expensive (say, $40,000 at the most optimistic, assuming wonderful economies of scale) that no one would buy it –so all that wonderful fuel efficiency is tethered to the showroom floor.
And therein lies the problem. For a lot of people, in my experience, they look at the lower up front purchase costs. That is, hypothetically speaking, say you have two nearly identical cars. One is a four door sedan and the other is the same model with a hybrid engine which costs $3000 more, but gets 10% better mpg. By now you should see where this is going.
In overly simplistic but quite realistic analysis, many if not most will choose the lower cost car, due to many things, among them the (in)ability to get a higher loan amount foremost for folks. Gas would have to go a lot higher before people will choose the more expensive hybrid, or hybrids will have to cost the same or less than the non-hybrid.
Or, suppose we create a situation where existing gas taxes remain in effect for people filling up at the pump, but waive the taxes for the consumer filling up a hybrid. Not in a tax credit but right there at the pump. Might this be difficult at first to set up? Likely. However, I think this could possibly be effective if a driver sees that he or she could have saved $10 at the pump just by having the foresight to get a hybrid.
Sgt Joe,
Your scheme is worthy of Congress, which I am sorry to say, means it is flawed.
The second you christen a “better solution” by law, you put a halt to innovation. The hybrid may be the best solution for even most missions, but that doesn’t make it best for all. Furthermore, what are the environmental effects of over subsidizing something so that the suppliers start getting sloppy? Personally, I don’t think we need to push the Lithium miners to take short cuts to meet demand.
The hybrid will be subsidized enough by it’s better efficiency. Watch out for the temptation to be too clever and think we have the solution. Today’s solution may be tomorrow’s problem, so there is no reason to write today’s science into law. If you want lower consumption, then tax overconsumption. If you want lower pollution, then mandate it or tax it. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER let a politician get away with mandating a solution. It’s always a BAD idea.
I’d like to be an arrogant bastard who drives a truck or SUV but I can’t afford it.
A bigger problem is people who buy cars more expensive than they can pay and default or just don’t pay the loans. Plus there’s the issue of leasing and assuming a car would be worth yay much in 3 years and the car was worth 50% of its estimated value at the actual time.
Given that the average “new” (under 2 years old) fullsize truck in North America is carrying truckbed cargo and/or towing something less than 1% of the time (proof: Go out and look in the parking lot…..any parking lot, or watch traffic for a bit), Ford is wasting precious time and energy on a market that really only exists in the mind. Real working men who require a “work truck” (i.e one to haul rusty scrap or cinderblocks or pipe fittings or drywall) don’t buy new $40,000 vehicles and then get paint/drywall/pipe dope on the leather seats and mud in the carpet. Not when a 3-5 year old model can be had for 1/2 that. Rather, pickup trucks (as some on here have aptly noted) have become the new Cadillac or Buick from 40 years ago, gone are the days of the hoseout interior and actual sweat and dirt. A bling ride for the macho man. In this respect the NYT may have a point.
Note that while Ford worked on the 2nd refresh of the F-150 this decade, a new vehicle that will barely fit into a parking space and with bedsides so high the average 6′ man cannot reach over them, the arguably more utilitarian and once more commonly seen Ranger languishes into obsolescence. Where is it’s replacement?
Those who think its their “god given right” to drive an truck have no sense of social responsibility and in the end not only screw others but screw themselves.
I am sure many of them are those same, keeping-up-with-the-Jones, irresponsible fools who bought homes in the last few years that they couldn’t afford with option arm loans with teaser rates. Or who took out huge home equity loans so they could finance their Escalade or put that 2 foot lift and monster truck tires on their F-250 4×4. And now that the teaser rate is gone or they just can’t pay because they spent the money on flat screens and tail gate parties they are simply walking away from the house with little repercussions. Just because its legal does not make it the right thing to do. Let the auto-makers fail. Bailouts whether homeowners or auto-maker are just rewarding bad behavoir.