The Return Of Govt. Motors Corp. (GMC) - Cash for Clunkers 2

[Guest]

General Motors is looking to replace it's own buying incentives with tax money. We're about to subsidize GMC again. (Djplong; It looks like you touted the success of the government's "success" in saving the car industry and then backing off a mite too early)

The U.S. taxpayer is going to be turned into automatic rebate provider. The Obama Administration is looking to turn the $7500 tax credit for the purchase of those unpopular "green vehicles" into an instant "point of sale" tax rebate immediately payable to the buyer by YOU.

There's more in the complete story linked, including the fact that Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat who represent the state where GM's headquarters are, is sponsoring this bill, that is also supported by the "Eaton Corp." which is the sole American producer of car recharge systems, and "Battery Electric Vehicle Coalition", a lobbying group for the electric car industry.

Oh, if it makes you feel better about this, you should also know that V.P. Joe Biden loves this idea. He gushingly declares it will be as great as the "cash for clunkers" program.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/29/cash-clunkers-2-dumped-capitol-hill/

[Guest]

...The U.S. taxpayer is going to be turned into automatic rebate provider. The Obama Administration is looking to turn the $7500 tax credit for the purchase of those unpopular "green vehicles" into an instant "point of sale" tax rebate immediately payable to the buyer by YOU....

While I'd like this idea to be a part of a more comprehensive energy policy, and have the rebate idea be a somewhat more permanent one, overall, I think the approach is a good one.

I'm not at all certain that $7,500 is the right number. It could be too high or too low. But if such an incentive will drive the car companies to produce more fulel efficient and/or electric cars, and have a long term influence on the public to buy them--then I'm all for such a program.

All I'd ask is that if this is such a lousy idea, what's a better one to drive the public towards buying cars which consume less gasoline and reduce the requirement that we import more and more foreign oil?

[Guest]

Richie: I'm going to say this respectfully. Which way would you want it? There are many here who decrie the fact that we don't have an energy policy to get us off of imported oil. IMO, this is a VERY justifiable criticism of EVERY administration back to Nixon.

So here we have a policy of a tax rebate encouraging purchase of a vehicle that consumes FAR less gas than most - and in the "average" daily situation consumes *NO* gasoline. (The "average" is that the overwhelming majority of Americans drive less than 30 miles per day).

So now the proposal is to "speed up" the tax rebate from your Form 1040 to the actual point of sale. I believe this is A Good Thing. Why? Because now the buyer has to come up with the $35K bottom line for the car instead of financing $42K and getting the tax rebate. [This also makes it more affordable for people who might not have that much in taxes due but are saving up for such a car] As far as the government is concerned, it's a wash. Just a matter of timing for the $7500.

In my case, I drive 60 miles r/t for my commute 9 workdays out of 10. From what I'm reading, 35 miles seems to be the 'real world' all-electric range of the Volt. So I can be using less than one gallon of gas per commute. Right now, I use 2-2.5 gallons per commute. Buying this car could cut my gas consumption IN HALF. (I already cut it by a third when I went from my old Intrepid to my Camry in '06)

Mind you, this doesn't do much for GM's bottom line because they sell FAR more numbers of OTHER vehicles. The Volt is (I hope) the wave of the future but it has to start somewhere. Like lots of other electronics, early adopters pay a premium and this seems to be no exception. Advances in ultra-capacitors and other technologies will hopefully combine with scaled manufacturing to cut the cost of these vehicles.

So here's a policy that helps cut foreign oil dependence AND promotes domestic manufacturing. That SHOULD be a Good Thing, yes?

[Guest]

Richie: I'm going to say this respectfully. Which way would you want it? There are many here who decrie the fact that we don't have an energy policy to get us off of imported oil. IMO, this is a VERY justifiable criticism of EVERY administration back to Nixon.

So here we have a policy of a tax rebate encouraging purchase of a vehicle that consumes FAR less gas than most - and in the "average" daily situation consumes *NO* gasoline. (The "average" is that the overwhelming majority of Americans drive less than 30 miles per day).

So now the proposal is to "speed up" the tax rebate from your Form 1040 to the actual point of sale. I believe this is A Good Thing. Why? Because now the buyer has to come up with the $35K bottom line for the car instead of financing $42K and getting the tax rebate. [This also makes it more affordable for people who might not have that much in taxes due but are saving up for such a car] As far as the government is concerned, it's a wash. Just a matter of timing for the $7500.

In my case, I drive 60 miles r/t for my commute 9 workdays out of 10. From what I'm reading, 35 miles seems to be the 'real world' all-electric range of the Volt. So I can be using less than one gallon of gas per commute. Right now, I use 2-2.5 gallons per commute. Buying this car could cut my gas consumption IN HALF. (I already cut it by a third when I went from my old Intrepid to my Camry in '06)

Mind you, this doesn't do much for GM's bottom line because they sell FAR more numbers of OTHER vehicles. The Volt is (I hope) the wave of the future but it has to start somewhere. Like lots of other electronics, early adopters pay a premium and this seems to be no exception. Advances in ultra-capacitors and other technologies will hopefully combine with scaled manufacturing to cut the cost of these vehicles.

So here's a policy that helps cut foreign oil dependence AND promotes domestic manufacturing. That SHOULD be a Good Thing, yes?

I don't like the idea of helping you pay for your car. The Federal Government is going to give $7500 to present to GMC for every person that buys these cars that the people have shown they have little interest in in order to get them to buy them. It doesn't sit well with me. If they were attractive products, this would't be necessary.

I don't like the idea of the taxpayer being used to prop up an expensive product people didn't want, and the company that manufactured it due to government's original duress.

I don't like the idea of these electric car charging systems companies lobbyists filling the pockets of politicians to get this law, you like, passed.

These cars now become one more drain on our already overtaxed energy grid that the same people who love these cars refuse to allow to expand.

This is all about Corporate money now. The government forced the hand of the auto companies and now the government is trying to ease their burden on the back of the taxpayer as usual.

This doesn't pass the smell test with me.

[Guest]

Consumer Reports gave the Chevy Volt, the Govt. Motors car this bill is mainly being written for, a very poor review. We are being used to save GM's investment cost at taxpayer's expense. A good product should sell itself.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/02/28/chevy-volt-gets-lackluster-reviews-consumer-reports/

[Guest]

This doesn't pass the smell test with me.

My guess is not much does.

[Guest]

needs to become foreign oil independent. It is a short term incentive with "some" energy use impact. The future based on oil consumption is as precarious and potentially debilitating as ever.
And these guys know we will not do anything to intereupt their cash flow:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7fa28b96-5a2f-11e0-86d3-00144feab49a.html#axzz1I5zW1YxL

btk

[Guest]

My guess is not much does.

Please add to the conversation. Your comment directed at me, and not the topic, does not.

[Guest]

Richielion, I happen to agree with your position regarding the cash rebates. I take umbrage at the thought that my tax dollars are going to ventures such as this one. Worse yet we have a double whammy because the government subsidies production of electric and hybrids vehicles. Yet experts will tell you that electrics are actually are less efficient ( e.g. batteries inefficient in cold weather not to forget their weight) and create more carbon dioxide (coal to generate the electricity). Electric cars also require replacement of batteries in 7 years or so ($20,000) Essentially what we have is an environmentalists moral victory over the science of thermodynamics.

In my view we have all the natural resources available domestically to fuel our economy for the next two hundred years. All we need is a sensible energy policy and the will and courage of our politicians to let the oil industry free to explore both oil and gas. It will never happen because we have made this issue too political.

[Guest]

"All we need is a sensible energy policy and the will and courage of our politicians to let the oil industry free to explore both oil and gas."

Unfortunately our politicians are ALL under the thumbs of the oil producing nations for one reason or another. I am afraid their concern of the impact of our independence on them INSTEAD on the needs of our country. How very unfortunately.

Even the Russians were smart enough to begin drilling and are now exporting to participate in the growing export revenues.

If we are not addressing the obvious how there be any HOPE for anything that might be more complex?

It is past time for a regime change in America.

btk

[Guest]

...In my view we have all the natural resources available domestically to fuel our economy for the next two hundred years. All we need is a sensible energy policy and the will and courage of our politicians to let the oil industry free to explore both oil and gas...

I won't opine on whether we have enough oil reserves to last 200 years. I don't know one way or the other about that. But I do agree with you that this country needs our elected leaders to formulate a long-term, overarching energy policy designed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and over time reduce our consumption of oil, period.

What our government is doing is encouraging the absolutely wrong behavior by both consumers as well as the U.S. oil companies. In another post here, I explained how the money we're spending on military actions to protect the flow of oil from the Middle East costs U.S. taxpayers about $2.00 a gallon. Said another way, our government is subsidizing the continued use of gasoline by essentially interfering with the free market's ability to properly price oil.

Through thru military force we've been able to keep the oil from the Middle East flowing. As the result, there is little economic incentive on the part of the U.S. oil companies to extend the effort and spend the money to actually explore and drill and pump it from U.S. reserves. It's a whole lot easier and more profitable for them to simply buy oil from Saudi Arabia, have it refined offshore in places like Aruba, then bring it here and sell it in gas stations. Why should they incur the additional cost to actually drill and pump it from our own reserves, when as much oil as they need is available from tankers coming from the Middle East? And our government is making sure that continues to happen.

So going back to Richie's original criticism of the electric car rebate program, I still think the idea of using government money to influence the behavior of consumers and private sector companies is a good thing. The problem is they way we have been spending U.S. taxpayer's money--hundreds of billions for the military to run around the Middle East with little recognizable purpose other than to "maintain regional stability" to assure that the oil keeps flowing thru the Suez Canal and ultimately into our gas tanks--is government intervention in the free market that is a whole lot more offensive than a piddly rebate program.

Like a lot of things, our government has this all bass-ackwards, just like a lot of things they do.

[Guest]

I won't opine on whether we have enough oil reserves to last 200 years. I don't know one way or the other about that. But I do agree with you that this country needs our elected leaders to formulate a long-term, overarching energy policy designed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and over time reduce our consumption of oil, period.

What our government is doing is encouraging the absolutely wrong behavior by both consumers as well as the U.S. oil companies. In another post here, I explained how the money we're spending on military actions to protect the flow of oil from the Middle East costs U.S. taxpayers about $2.00 a gallon. Said another way, our government is subsidizing the continued use of gasoline by essentially interfering with the free market's ability to properly price oil.

Through thru military force we've been able to keep the oil from the Middle East flowing. As the result, there is little economic incentive on the part of the U.S. oil companies to extend the effort and spend the money to actually explore and drill and pump it from U.S. reserves. It's a whole lot easier and more profitable for them to simply buy oil from Saudi Arabia, have it refined offshore in places like Aruba, then bring it here and sell it in gas stations. Why should they incur the additional cost to actually drill and pump it from our own reserves, when as much oil as they need is available from tankers coming from the Middle East? And our government is making sure that continues to happen.

So going back to Richie's original criticism of the electric car rebate program, I still think the idea of using government money to influence the behavior of consumers and private sector companies is a good thing. The problem is they way we have been spending U.S. taxpayer's money--hundreds of billions for the military to run around the Middle East with little recognizable purpose other than to "maintain regional stability" to assure that the oil keeps flowing thru the Suez Canal and ultimately into our gas tanks--is government intervention in the free market that is a whole lot more offensive than a piddly rebate program.

Like a lot of things, our government has this all bass-ackwards, just like a lot of things they do.

Our military actions adds $2.00 a gallon to the price of gas? You've got to stop devouring all the propaganda from the anti-oil activist web-sites which are the only sites I could find that state this subjective and unsubstantiated statistic. I'd like a provable direct link from one to the other before I buy that conclusion.

The "piddly rebate program", as you call it, is coming from the same over-bloated government that spending funds my great-great grandchildren will still be paying for.

The Government has NO MONEY. It only has what it forcibly takes out of our pockets. Now it wants to give people that money to buy cars they forced the automaker to produce for a populace that does not really want them. All to prop up a private business and a friendly Union which it has already given preference to over the stockholders in that now Government subsidized (read taxpayer subsidized) corporation.

All U.S. Refineries are working above capacity, so of course we're importing refined product into this country. What other choice do they have when the same Devolutionist Activists (formerly known as Environmentalists) and their lawyers working with an activist judiciary in conjunction with like minded anti-capitalist politicians block any plan to build and upgrade the current refineries and derail plans to drill for domestic oil. They're going to fill the wants and needs of the consumer any way they can.

If the "Free Market" is going to run efficiently, all the government has to do is GET OUT OF THE WAY.

[Guest]

Richie: The bill was not written specifically for the Volt. The Nissan Leaf qualifies for rebate money. In the past, MANY cars qualified for tax credits and some of those have been phased out because so many cars have been sold. The list goes on and on - the Prius being the most popular but we also have the Fusion and Escape hybrids from Ford (with the C-Max and Edge hybrids coming). Some of the technology from GM's older "mild hybrid" cars is ending up in many more cars (like 'start stop' technology). Toyota also has the Camry and Highlander hybrids. Honda has had theirs. Chrysler DID have a good development program but that was trashed in bankruptcy and is being retooled. Never mind the fact that we also have Teslas on the road with Fiskers on the way.

The public DOES now want these cars. That's why there is a waiting list for them.

[Guest]

4 cylinder gas models and diesels that get every bit as good mileage using an existing infrastructure. The incentives, if there has to be any in the first place, should include all technologies that provide less need for oil based fuels.

As gasoline prices increase above $4 we Americans get very pro active for something to be done. And when it goes back to $2 we go catatonic, fat and happy and satisfied with nothing being accomplished other than a price reduction. Consumption continues and will continue to grow. Just look at what we accomplished in the last forty years...we doubled the amount of foreign oil needed.

Incent the development of the new technology and at the same time exploit the technology we know so well.

btk

[Guest]

ay.The public DOES now want these cars. That's why there is a waiting list for them.

If you're right about that, we don't need this rebate program. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

It they're good products that people want, they'll sell themselves.

[Guest]

...Our military actions adds $2.00 a gallon to the price of gas? You've got to stop devouring all the propaganda from the anti-oil activist web-sites which are the only sites I could find that state this subjective and unsubstantiated statistic....

Richie, I haven't visited or read even one "anti-oil activist website". Not one!

As far as the substantiation of the numbers are concerned, all I did was take the actual expenditures for the wars in the Middle East, as published by the Government Accounting Office. No propaganda there whatever. The $2.00 per gallon estimate was mine, no one elses! Go read my other post here ("Should We Permit The Free Market To Work?") and see how I calculated the $2.00 per gallon government subsidy. Please note that the government's subsidy of the price of gas we pay at the pump isn't even being paid for indirectly by the American public. We borrow all that money, mostly from China! (Do you want me to get into the discussion of how China benefits from the blood and treasure we spend to protect the flow of oil at no cost to them whatsoever!)

It seems to me that if you are so honked off about the electric car rebate program, you ought to be really mad about the amount of our money our government spends to support the foreign countries who want to continue to sell us oil and the oil companies who want to buy it instead of drilling for it.

The amount of the electric car rebate program is less than piddly by comparison. As an example, the entire electric car rebate program will cost less than what our government has spent in the last six days supporting the anti-Khaddafi insurgents in Libya!

Do you have an answer perchance why, after thirty years of Khaddafi brutally and dictatorily ruling Libya, that we suddenly decided to attack the Libyan government? If you come up with any other reason other than oil, I'll be surprised.

[Guest]

If you're right about that, we don't need this rebate program. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

It they're good products that people want, they'll sell themselves.

So if oil companies are making billions, why give them tax breaks?

Why did GE pay no taxes on $14.2B in profits?

Seriously, you *must* be able to see a "chicken / egg" situation when it comes to electric and extended-range electric cars. Batteries cost a metric buttload of money - though far less than in the past.

Now, I make a decent living. I'm paying $250/mo on the loan on my Camry and that goes away later this year. I pay between $175-$225/mo in gas at current prices (depending on how much non-commuting I do). I *want* to put my money where my mouth is. But, quite frankly, it's going to take an amount of "ignoring the bottom line" to take on a $400/mo car payment to save $100+/mo - to say nothing of the fact that I have other obligations that could use being paid down faster to the tune of $250/mo.

Anything that reduces our reliance on foreign oil is A Good Thing since it's good for jobs, good for the trade imbalance, good for our strategic interests and good for security. That's not to say to do things at ALL costs but there's more to be concerned about here than just the Almighty Dollar Bottom Line.

[Guest]

So if oil companies are making billions, why give them tax breaks?

Why did GE pay no taxes on $14.2B in profits?

Seriously, you *must* be able to see a "chicken / egg" situation when it comes to electric and extended-range electric cars. Batteries cost a metric buttload of money - though far less than in the past.

Now, I make a decent living. I'm paying $250/mo on the loan on my Camry and that goes away later this year. I pay between $175-$225/mo in gas at current prices (depending on how much non-commuting I do). I *want* to put my money where my mouth is. But, quite frankly, it's going to take an amount of "ignoring the bottom line" to take on a $400/mo car payment to save $100+/mo - to say nothing of the fact that I have other obligations that could use being paid down faster to the tune of $250/mo.

Anything that reduces our reliance on foreign oil is A Good Thing since it's good for jobs, good for the trade imbalance, good for our strategic interests and good for security. That's not to say to do things at ALL costs but there's more to be concerned about here than just the Almighty Dollar Bottom Line.

My post was really just my humor in kind of catching you in a "gotcha" moment and I couldn't resist. We're not going to agree on this, I know.

[Guest]

Richie, I haven't visited or read even one "anti-oil activist website". Not one!

As far as the substantiation of the numbers are concerned, all I did was take the actual expenditures for the wars in the Middle East, as published by the Government Accounting Office. No propaganda there whatever. The $2.00 per gallon estimate was mine, no one elses! Go read my other post here ("Should We Permit The Free Market To Work?") and see how I calculated the $2.00 per gallon government subsidy. Please note that the government's subsidy of the price of gas we pay at the pump isn't even being paid for indirectly by the American public. We borrow all that money, mostly from China! (Do you want me to get into the discussion of how China benefits from the blood and treasure we spend to protect the flow of oil at no cost to them whatsoever!)

It seems to me that if you are so honked off about the electric car rebate program, you ought to be really mad about the amount of our money our government spends to support the foreign countries who want to continue to sell us oil and the oil companies who want to buy it instead of drilling for it.

The amount of the electric car rebate program is less than piddly by comparison. As an example, the entire electric car rebate program will cost less than what our government has spent in the last six days supporting the anti-Khaddafi insurgents in Libya!

Do you have an answer perchance why, after thirty years of Khaddafi brutally and dictatorily ruling Libya, that we suddenly decided to attack the Libyan government? If you come up with any other reason other than oil, I'll be surprised.


Here is the only site I could find that had your numbers. I'll probably regret sending this to you (only kidding), but here it is.

http://www.endoil.org/site/c.ddJGKNNnFmG/b.4090051/k.98FE/The_Real_Price.htm

We import almost no oil from Libya and so I'm not sure why Obama decided to misuse our military capacity there. Libya supply's only about 2% of the world's oil, and that mainly goes to Europe (which is probably why Obama now says he handing off control to NATO, which we fund, of course, and are the predominant player) We get our N.Africa oil from Algeria mainly.

So, I would have to say that since we virtually buy no oil from Libya, the cost of that conflict has little bearing on the price of the oil. (just thinking logically)

I find nothing piddly in all of this crazy federal spending and this taxpayer funded "green car" rebate scam is just one more example of this ludicrous spending in my opinion.

[Guest]

Here is the only site I could find that had your numbers. I'll probably regret sending this to you (only kidding), but here it is.

http://www.endoil.org/site/c.ddJGKNNnFmG/b.4090051/k.98FE/The_Real_Price.htm
...

That article makes exactly the point I was making, although I'm not sure I'd buy into all of their numbers. I think they included all expenditures on defense where I assumed that we'd still spend about half of what we do now, even if we weren't fighting wars in the Middle East. But the principle of the article is the point I was making. Our government is subsidizing the tue price of the gasoline we consume in a very big way. The spending is very real, but it is "hidden" in a way most people--even the most fiscally conservative--don't associate the spending with the subsidization of an industry or a product. The end result is that the manipulation of the supply-demand curve to continue to make gasoline the most desired fuel for consumers and very, very profitable for the big oil companies. If consumers were to pay the actual cost of gas, the law of supply and demand would quickly result in the development of alternative fuels. That would be a good thing, in my opinion.

[Guest]

That article makes exactly the point I was making, although I'm not sure I'd buy into all of their numbers. I think they included all expenditures on defense where I assumed that we'd still spend about half of what we do now, even if we weren't fighting wars in the Middle East. But the principle of the article is the point I was making. Our government is subsidizing the tue price of the gasoline we consume in a very big way. The spending is very real, but it is "hidden" in a way most people--even the most fiscally conservative--don't associate the spending with the subsidization of an industry or a product. The end result is that the manipulation of the supply-demand curve to continue to make gasoline the most desired fuel for consumers and very, very profitable for the big oil companies. If consumers were to pay the actual cost of gas, the law of supply and demand would quickly result in the development of alternative fuels. That would be a good thing, in my opinion.

Quickly, how quickly?; Right now there is no technology on the horizon that can replace oil and coal, and even nuclear, in the production of energy required to power humankind's needs in the quantity required or costs involved.

At present we would have to "devolve" our way of life to meet some utopian crackpot idea of a "greener life". I'm not fond of this idea.

I agree we should be looking at alternative sources of energy. I've often wondered why geo-thermal plants aren't looked at with more interest and investment, as it is a localized almost limitless source of energy. I can only surmise that the costs don't justify the expense for the amount of power attained, or someone would be trying to make a buck.

[Guest]

Geothermal DOES work. Heck, Iceland is practically RUNNING on it.

The basic problem is that every single "new" technology can be thwarted by a sudden dip in oil prices. They all, universally, take a lot of capital up front and depend on the price of oil styaing relatively higher in order to justify the investment in time and capital.

So, some Saudi sheik turns up the spigots a bit, the prices fall and investors scurry back, afraid to make long-term expensive energy commitments.

[Guest]

Or a graduated sur tax based on the average miles per gallon your vehicle gets?
15 mpg and below to pay hefty annual sur charge.....35 and above to pay little or nothing. That would severly change what the buying public would demand from the car makers.
There should be some kind of penalty for owning and driving a gas hog. To the rich it won't matter. To those who need to be in a gas hog for what ever reason...let them pay.

Just note what kinds of engines are in the cars of the buying public in Europe...mostly 4 cylinders...price of gas these days approaching the equivilent of $10 per gallon.

As long as it remains a political issue with no plan to do anything about it the only result will be even more dependence of foreign oil...we managed to double our usage from 40 years ago when then POTUS made a speech just like Obama's last week. Rah-Rah we gotta stop doin' this and get better....no commitment...no plan...no action...no follow up...the usual no results...

but just wait for the day the foreign oil supply is really interrupted....then America goes to it's knees and then to a stop. Because we all know the fix requires a long term commitment.

Just another simple problem to solve held at bay by business as usual in Washington...

btk

[Guest]

Quickly, how quickly?...

It wouldn't be fast and it wouldn't be easy. But one thing is for sure...until we start trying to make changes, nothing is going to happen. Haven't we proven that by the almost complete inaction by our elected leaders over all the years since President Carter said we needed a comprehensive energy policy? No one argued with that at the time, nor has anyone since. We needed one then and we desperately need one now.

We do need a completely different way we use energy, particularly fossil fuels, and until we start, we'll just keep on driving the big gas guzzlers, borrowing more and more and more from China, then turning around and shipping those dollars by the boatload to Saudi Arabia.

What did T. Boone Pickens call our current situation..."the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind"...that was it wasn't it? That's what happens when we all sit back and let our government continue to kick the can down the road. If there's one thing that can begin the turnaround of our economy over the long term, it's to reduce that transfer of wealth. It won't be quick and it won't be easy.

[Guest]

...The basic problem is that every single "new" technology can be thwarted by a sudden dip in oil prices. They all, universally, take a lot of capital up front and depend on the price of oil styaing relatively higher in order to justify the investment in time and capital.

So, some Saudi sheik turns up the spigots a bit, the prices fall and investors scurry back, afraid to make long-term expensive energy commitments.

Yep, that's likely to happen. But again, our government can take action to incent people and companies to reduce their reliance on imported oil and invest in alternative technologies. A gas tax designed to keep the price of gasoline at a high level would largely neuter OPEC's expected manipulation of oil prices when their gravy train is threatened. Maybe we should use the additional tax receipts to fund the cost of the Defense Department's defending the flow of oil from those Middle Eastern countries.

[Guest]

Some of it is 'perception' as well. I mean, look at how popular the new generations of diesel cars are in Europe. Lord knows I saw a LOT of them when I was there last year. They get far better mileage than gas ('petrol'). In addition, there's less maintenance AND - and I think is is very important - you can make BIODIESEL with today's technology. So there's a bit of "future-proofing" in there.

The last time I was looking at a new car, I kinda liked what I saw in the new Jeep Compass. Not too big, not too small. Could handle some hauling (had a kid in college) and had optional 4WD. Mileage wasn't the greatest, but it was better than my Intrepid.

In my research, I discovered there was to be a DIESEL option! ..but only IN SOUTH AMERICA...

WHY?????

Ford made great, efficient cars.. ...in EUROPE. Only NOW are they starting to come over here.

[Guest]

or in the spring. Same as they are using in their Opel in Europe.
It is dumb there are not more offered.

It no doubt has to do with the oil lobbyists in this country that do not want us to use too many products that reduce overall consumption.

btk

[Guest]

Wind, solar energy still face huge challenges (i.e cost, electric grid and have not had the technology needed. Ethanol is sending food prices sky high and environmentalist/greens have Obama's ear and pocketbook.

Brazil invested heavily in oil production in 1980 when importing 77% of oil and today they do not import oil. Their domestic oil production is up 876%. It is clear that we have ample oil and natural gas both on land and offshore. so what does Obama want to do tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Why? Obvious he want gas to rise because it makes his green agenda appear better. If Brazil can go import free so can we:MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

with OPEC as ours do, hence, the nation is destined to suffer a future disaster.

btk

[Guest]

The 'official' response of Chrysler concerning why the Compass would only have the diesel option in South America was basically that Americans "didn't like" diesels and they had a "negative market opinion".