Yes I do know it. That is exactly my point. The rest of the point is, it is dis-ingenuous for people to swing both ways on this issue. Whenever Ford / GM / DCX launch a new truck product there is an outcry that they are being environmentally irresponsible. When Toyota does it, they are responding to consumer demand. Fact of the matter is, as you have stated, all of these companies are responding to consumer demand.

Yes, I do know this, too. The point of this and the other points I raised is that there seems to be a black and white perspective in "environmentally conscious" circles. The prevailing perceptions are that Toyota & Honda are walking the talk and the other companies are not.

The reason why this is a big deal is because if there truly is a concern to reduce this country's dependence on imported oil, the use of fuels that are 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline is a big step in the right direction. Replacing MTBE is a minor side benefit.

I probably could, but I won't take the time to do that. The point I am trying to make is not "my company does more for the ecology than your company", my point is that GM, Ford, DCX etc are doing things to promote the ecology and the environment and they are doing it voluntarily. So are Toyota and Honda. But the prevailing perception is that the domestics don't care. I'm simply pointing out that it's not hard to find evidence that all of these companies are multi-national mega-corporations who have progressed to a point where they recognize that they are stewards of the world that their employees and customers live in.

Again, I'm only comparing to point out that they are more similar than most people are willing to concede to. How much of what each of them achieve is not something I am going to spend a lot of time trying to prove or disprove. [points to disclaimer in signature]. I have a lot of respect for Toyota as a company and for a number of initiatives that they are undertaking. I just wish that a similar degree of respect could be granted for domestic companies that have undertaken similar initiatives.

Peace,

Martin

 

Hi Sirkut:

___Would there be cleaner air in our cities and states if the various governments did not introduce even the smallest of EPA and CARB based regulations way back in the 70’s? Was it the government or the auto manufacturers, you, and I that made ULEV’s, SULEV’s, or PZEV’s available?

___In regards to ROI’s, it is one thing to consider a house, land, infrastructure investment … It is another altogether to consider ROI on an asset that you may or may not own in 4 + years. Hybrid’s have proven themselves to have a great ROI if they are held on too and with fuel at $3.00 + per. At $2.00 per and < 4 years, there used to be a problem … In my own case, I had to weigh a loaded up $23,200 PZEV based Accord I4 EX-L w/ NAVI vs. a $29,900 (at the time of purchase) ULEV based AH w/ NAVI + the tax differential? Given my higher speed commute, I also had to weigh that purchase against a loaded up a $27,000 + Prius II and a not so loaded - $18,500 HCH as well! Considering the AH again, was their a positive ROI with its $6K worth of performance/2 - 3 mpg worth of FE premium? I do not yet know about the resale delta just yet but I do know the $6K premium + financing on that premium for those that cannot pay for their vehicles in cash did not add up for me at the time nor do they add up even today imho

___Martinjlm, you really do have to be careful about those GM pronouncements as all of those bulleted items can be sharp shot to death. If you want to see a real disservice from an auto manufacturer, look up the 03 MY Sequoia, Land Cruiser, and Lexus GX470 in terms of emissions. Here we had Toyota blasting the media with how green they were with the first gen (I know some may say 2nd gen) Prius as an SULEV yet pushed those spewing POS out the door at absolutely mind boggling profits in far greater numbers! Since then, Toyota has cleaned those POS up but the whole green push smelled awfully rotten considering only a particular Land Rover at the time was dirtier. Not including GM and Ford’s Diesel or Gas 1-Ton’s (and some ¾ Ton’s) which are so heavy that the EPA doesn’t requite GM or Ford to post what they emit by comparison or there FE per the FTP75 or HWFET!

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

Sorry Martin, but if you cannot provide data to back up your assertions, your arguments lack persuasion.

I am reminded of the person who who argues that that Prius and SUV drivers are one in the same in terms of 'greenness' (or the lack thereof), because they are much more similar to each other, than either one is to someone who does not drive at all. Disingenous argument, because it ignores the practical significance of the differences. Saying that both companies are better stewards of our environment than they were in the past, and therefore should be afforded equal respect and support is silly. I'll support the company that is the better steward; and the differences deserve to be aired publicly, acknowledged, and acted on by the consumer. If GM is a vastly inferior steward of the environment than Toyota, a policy of trying to brush it under the rug will only hinder change, not to mention erode public faith in the company.

Regarding Etoh: The argument supporting increased Etoh use as a domestic product is not supported by closer scrutiny, due to the requirements of natural gas feedstock to make the fertilizer, which is not a local resource if ramp-up in production is being argued. In addition, the larger majority of the current fleet are already capable of running E15, so there is a huge untapped capacity already in place to take advantage of whatever Etoh is produced. E85 engines will not be utilized soon if ever. As far as I know, GM cars that have this facility do so as a happenstance coincidence that is good for PR, but is acknoweledged to have no practical benefit, and was not done with any environmental forethought. I also think I remember that modification/validation of modern ICE to higher Etoh use is a trivial task, should it ever become useful. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Wayne

I didn't mean to suggest that our federal and state governments have never played any part in the improvements of the treatment of the environment. Certainly, it is state governments that are doing some of the pushing now. And yes, companies will to a certain extent have to respond to public demand, however I feel that the auto industry, and more generally the energy industry, can be considered to have a 'fixed demand' for both the obvious reasons and they fact that there are only a handful of companies that are in a position to provide these services. It's this situation, coupled with the 'concerned minority' and current resistance to regulation by the federal government, that I feel puts these companies in a much larger position of leverage to make changes than anyone else.

It is a complex problem and every party in it can be a wildcard. I guess what I meant to say is that if companies that are profitting from a situation chose to use a portion of their revenue to help clean up side-effects of their profiteering, then think of how much less in-fighting there'd be in both society and government to achieve these same improvements. I do understand that these ideas are 'hopelessly ideological;' maybe i shouldn't have brought them up.

As for ROI, I agree that there are different things to consider when calculating for an asset as opposed to a consumable. Appreciation and depreciation should always be a part of calculating ROI. The thing to remember is that when you sell something before you've received your return, then you are also selling the remainder of your expected return. How long you'll keep your car doesn't have much to do with my opinion that a 2-5 year return is a 'good thing'.

 

I listen to Phil and Brent on KMOD in Tulsa most mornings. The home of Roy D. Mercer. I would expect most here to not like Roy's down home trailer trash type of humor. They are by admission Bush haters and twister lib. dumb-o-crats. They do support womb to tomb politics. I thought it was a great leap forward on there part. Just trying to be fair.

But in the last week as gas prices have sored above the three dollar mark in the Tulsa area. They have started to talk nicer of the hybrids and smaller FE cars in general. This is a good thing over all. Just not for the green set.

As prices have risen it has taken Tulsan's by suprise so it would seem. Tulsa more times than not has very low fuel prices. As the old oil capital of the world its really shaken some of the older mind set Tulsan's to there roots.

With Tulsa over all being a very lib. city as far as redneck okies go. Its always been a point of intesrt to me why small cars here have always taken a beating. Im mean the town is as gay as SF. And they love to tax folks when they can catch peeps with there guard down.

Was just diff. to hear them lighten up and to see the press as hole lighten up around here. It wouldnt suprise me though if some of it is driven by the advertising dept's to get more dealers to place add contracts with them.

 

OT, but I am curious, psyshack --

Are your foreign born ? Or does local Oklahoma education actually generate semi-illiterates ?

 

True, but again the difference is in the details. Toyota is responding to demand; GM spent billions to *generate* the demand and to keep it politically viable. Examples include no repeal of the giant SUV tax loophole; lobbying to garner tax credits for SUVs, regardless of their MPG; inundation of the populace with advertising to convince them that 'bigger is safer' (remember the pictures of a hummer crushing a small car ?); more advertising equating motor power with virility, more advertising to equate off-road capability with personal independence, more advertising to equate car size with social success .. the list just goes on.

GM, by virtue of its corporate size and reliance on SUV/trucks for profit, is far and away the most active advocate and prime mover in the US for continuation of the gas guzzler/lets make things bigger circus. Heck, the only time I can remember GM *ever* doing anything remotely pro-environment was in the pursuit of government hand-outs.

 

Im LD. Im proud that I can post at all. 1961 was a hard year. lolol You see Im not perfect as your are. I was delt a hard blow at birth. Spelling and writing is very hard for me, and not very good to tell the truth. But I fig. your more intrested in the content as a jab. Look me up if your ever in Oklahoma and we can discuss things more at lenght. I do speak quite well I dont think you would look me up. But the Offer has been made.

 

In that case, I owe you an apology.

No doubt our paths will cross again, since we are .. ahem .. politically distanced, and I have low tolerance for racism. But I promise: no more criticism of your syntax or grammar.

 

Thanks for bringing this up EricGo. This is the reason I don't get involved in 'feasability discussions' of this vs. that energy solutions. It's a lot like politics, we can't know the truth because we're spoon fed a bunch of grey matter constantly.

If in the next generation the rest of the country wants to end up paying 5,10,$15 a gallon using up our reserves to show us all how cool they are, so be it. It seems that the states are handling the emissions issues, so those that cling to gas can pay the taxes for it.

Instead I'll just find a solution to my own energy crisis and teach others to do the same if they'd like.