A New CFC Problem

Look! It's One of the Smaller, More Fuel-Efficient Vehicles the Government Intended People to Purhcase
(Image Credits: General Motors)

Unintended consequences; history is full of them. One need look no further than chlorofluorocarbons to see how something that was hailed as a brilliant, world-changing discovery with the course of time threatened the very existence of humanity. CFCs were in everything from aerosols to air conditioners. By the late-1980s they were outlawed to try and stave off the growing hole in the ozone layer. Or take plastics, DDT, antibiotics, or any other invention that has had some effect or result that its inventor could not envision. Because science and engineering are practiced by imperfect, temporally-limited human beings, we will never be able to fully predict which successes are worthy of laud today, yet will be questioned mightily by future generations as if it should have been obvious to us.
There is a new CFC problem threatening the United States. This one is called the 'cash-for-clunkers' scheme. And, it too, so it would seem, has just as many problems as the original CFCs.
This AP story details how some people are taking advantage of the CFC rebate scheme to purchase luxury SUVs such as the Cadillac SRX, Lincoln MKX, and BMW X3. As the story details, these car dealers and interested buyers are merely taking advantage of a loophole in the agreement. It is not as if the money is being misappropriated; these vehicles actually qualify for government subsidy. It is a classic case of unforeseen consequences. The spirit of the program is that people will trade down from gas-guzzling SUVs to smaller, more efficient cars. The trouble is that if people wanted smaller, more-efficient cars they would have bought them in the first place. Instead--as is always the case with any law--the involved parties (the government included!) are doing the minimum possible.
The cars available for sale in the US have appallingly low fuel economy, so the MPG bar can only be set so high; otherwise the plan would be a catastrophic flop for the government since no one would take advantage of it. Consumers are not interested in buying smaller, more-efficient cars, otherwise they would have done so in the first place. Car dealers are interested in selling cars with the maximum amount of incentive; hence, they are unlikely to refuse to sell an SUV to someone under the CFC scheme because it 'doesn't fit the intended spirit.' Like any 'successful' government instituted plan, everyone gets to say they win, but realy, no one does.

Transparency Hops in the Back Seat

General Motors tries to Keep the EPA from Stealing Its Lunch
(Image Credits: A&M Flims)

It seems that GM's CEO, Fritz Henderson, had better grow some eyes in the back of his head; he's going to be spending a lot of time backpedaling. After issuing a statement several days ago on the Chevrolet Volt being potentially commercially unviable (after previously making it the centerpiece of GM's comeback from the brink), Mr. Henderson has now had to do a bit more reversing. After claiming (by a mystical, magical, opaque (re: not transparent) formula) that the Volt would be rated at 230 MPG (get it?), the General has had its magic carpet pulled out from under it by the EPA: the EPA has not tested a Volt. This is like that scene in The Breakfast Club (RIP J. Hughes, enjoy the High School in the Sky) where Judd Nelson and Anthony Michael Hall are talking with Molly Ringwald and AMH accidentally, but not accidentally, hints that he and MR are secretly having nocturnal discourses. Did GM seriously think that they could make outlandish fuel economy claims and have everyone just take it? Does their hubris still run so deep that they can actually believe they are one of the most trusted institutions in America? Making bold claims can show boldness. However, making unsubstantiated and bold claims is plainly foolish.

Progress Means Moving Forward

Richard Nixon's Resignation Speech Was Merely His Attempt at Being 'Transparent' About His 'Progress' Since the Watergate Scandal
(Image Credits: www.visitingdc.com)

In a recent update of Autocar Online, GM states that the Chevrolet Volt may not be commercially viable. To any casual follower of the auto industry this should come as little of a surprise. GM has not broken new ground since it came out with badge-engineering in the 1980's; and really that just made it easier for the executives since they could refer to their product as 'car' rather than 'cars.'
I really do feel for Fritz Henderson, however. The guy will have to respond apologetically to every polemical comment levied against GM thanks to Rick Wagoner's arrogant and shameful last stand. I do think that he should have better press people, though. While I admire GM's obvious desire to spin this as a positive by being 'transparent' and trying 'to keep the public informed of our progress,' this is not the sort of thing that one wants to be transparent about. And, frankly, how can this be interpreted as progress? If Mr. Henderson means that GM has made 'progress' in that it is no longer denying that it makes inferior product and that its competitors vastly outstrip its innovative capacity, well then kudos for GM making it past step 1. However, that seems far too existential a realization for GM at this stage.
GM is hoping that something bold, brash, and brilliant like the Volt will bring it back from the brink (apologies for the alliteration). The trouble with that line of thinking is that it is too much like banking on a home run to win the game; chances are, you're going to strike out. Any student of history knows that success in war requires steady, consistent, and unwavering progress, especially in the face of adversity. Let's all hope that GM is 'transparent' about some real 'progress' in the future.

My Auto Company Bail-Out Plan: Sell the Focus RS

The Future of Ford: Currently on Sale in the UK
(Image Credits: Ford of Europe, UK)

TO: President Barack Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

Dear Sir,

Call me old-fashioned, but back in the day car companies sold cars. Trouble is, somewhere along the line the business-types became more important than the engineers and political infighting superseded common sense. My favorite (most recent) example of this has to be the Ford Focus. I've written previously about how there are two Foci out there in the world. Here is the current American model; here is the current European (UK market) model.

Now I'm sure, Mr. President, that you will have particular thoughts on this based on your geography, but which would you rather own? The trouble with it is that you cannot, and will never have, a choice. Ford is actually two (three if you count Australia) separate companies with two (three) separate design offices with two (three?) separate design languages. Actually, it looks--much like their accents--that the Australians and English stay closer to one another than to the American language. A sensible mind would say, "wait a second, why build two of the same type of car?" The trouble is that sensible people only earn pink slips in the auto industry.

In the last episode of Top Gear (12 July), Jeremy Clarkson had a whacking great time in the new Focus RS. Here's a thought: an affordable, practical, 3-door hatchback with 300 horsepower, a high-tech differential, Bluetooth connectivity all for the equivalent price of about a Volkswagen R32 or Audi A3. Sounds like the kind of car that Ford needs to be selling, doesn't it? Problem is, they won't. Instead, America will get that exciting, Dodge Avenger-esque styling. Boy, doesn't THAT send your pulse racing.

The trouble is that American automakers have been so busy fighting amongst themselves that they haven't realized a couple of important points. The first is that none of them have styled something original since the Dodge Viper; and even that was a tarted up modern Shelby Cobra. Hence, nothing fresh is entering the American design aesthetic. Furthermore, Ford of American remains insistent that the European division can't possibly design a car for the American market because it is so "different." Yet, all this time, Honda, Toyota, and VW seem to be able to design cars for us "different" Americans. The second is that we, as consumers, have spoken with our silence. By not buying the droll, beige, generic cars rolling off Detroit production lines we've made quite clear that whatever they're selling we'll have no part of. When, all this time, our European cousins have been living it up, driving the Fords we should have had all along.

So, Mr. President, if I may respectfully offer my advice, if I were your 'car czar' my bail-out plan would be to bring things back to basics. Have the car companies sell the great cars that they are already building in America. Champagne would fall from the heavens, brands would be born again; that which was old would be made new. The Focus RS is either, sir, a vision of the future or another painful example of corporate-consumer disconnection.

Respectfully Yours,

Fuel Interjected