Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (225705)	3/5/2003 3:08:24 PM
From: ild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

From WSJ General Motors Corp. stated in a lengthy document submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is "considerable evidence…that auto consumers rationally respond to rising fuel prices so long, that is, that they believe the price hikes will be permanent." GM said that surveys show more than 60% of the people who say they are considering buying an SUV also say they would buy a smaller SUV or switch to a car if gasoline permanently jumped to $2 a gallon. Under a $2-a-gallon scenario, GM said, SUV market share would fall to 17% from 23% and nearly half of all SUV buyers would switch to a smaller SUV. GM's larger point was that with gasoline at the relatively low prices we got used to in the 1990s, the vast bulk of American consumers didn't place much value on fuel economy, ranking it 25th on a list of 26 reasons for purchasing a particular vehicle, behind such attributes as reliability (No. 1) and exterior styling (No. 18), according to Maritz Marketing Research data cited in GM's statement. The purpose of GM's statement to NHTSA was to oppose the agency's proposal to increase the standard for the average fuel economy of an auto maker's light truck fleet (which includes SUVs) to 22.2 miles per gallon by 2007 from 20.7 miles per gallon today. A key piece of GM's argument against a higher government fuel-economy standard is that American consumers don't care about fuel efficiency, and when offered fuel-saving technology they either prefer to have that technology used to enhance performance, or take advantage of the fuel-cost savings to drive more. GM isn't alone in taking this view. Honda Motor Co. told NHTSA that it doesn't oppose a fuel-economy target increase provided it is technologically feasible and phased in to allow for orderly re-engineering. But Honda also noted that between 1987 and 2000, the weight of new vehicles has increased by 12% and 0-60 times have improved by 22% as consumers have demanded vehicles with more luxury amenities and more horsepower. Honda has obliged -- offering, for instance, a 240-horsepower six-cylinder engine in its Odyssey minivan. (Chrysler's Voyager comes with a 180-horsepower six-cylinder.) The Odyssey is one of the hottest-selling vehicles on the market; the Voyager, while a solid performer in every way, comes with big rebates to induce customers not to wait for an Odyssey. Americans like having their cake and eating it too. We want cheap energy, we want cars that can go twice the legal speed limit and bog through four feet of mud, and we want those cars sold to us at invoice with 0% financing. online.wsj.com