President Obama told automakers Monday they should focus on making smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Another breathtaking show of arrogance from a Harvard Law-trained social activist? Call it a breathtaking show of ignorance.
“You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks,” Obama said at a Minnesota town hall. “There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market.”
Automakers know their market just fine. It is Obama who needs a lesson.
In claiming to have “turned around” the U.S. auto industry, Obama apparently has no idea that the industry has come back on the back of SUVs. Thanks to cheap gas and the resurgence of small trucks — which make profit margins of up to $5,000 per vehicle — taxpayer-assisted GM and Chrysler are in the black again.
They would not be as healthy if they had ignored their customer needs and sold only Obamacars like the Fiat 500. Indeed, even Sergio Marchionne, the Fiat executive handpicked by Obama’s Auto Task Force to run Chrysler is a convert to Obama’s hated “SUVs and trucks.” Unblinkered by Obama’s green zealotry, Marchionne has learned the U.S. market and has beefed up not only Chrysler’s truck offerings — but Maserati’s and Alfa’s SUV lineups as well.
The president is remarkably stubborn in his ignorance.
“Today, automakers . . . refuse to make the transition to fuel-efficient production because they say it’s too expensive,” candidate Obama lectured the Detroit Economic Club in May, 2007. “But expensive is no longer an excuse for inaction.”
He has clearly learned nothing as president. As radical then as he is today, he still insists on forcing vehicles the market doesn’t want. Indeed, vehicles he himself doesn’t want. At the time he lectured automakers in 2007 on making smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, Obama himself drove a gas-guzzling, hemi-powered Chrysler 300C – a car he quickly sold when he was found out.
Today, he patronizes automakers on fuel-efficiency from . . . a giant, diesel-powered bus.
The fuel efficiency that counts is NOT the vehicular rating. What truly matters is Passenger Miles Per Gallon . A loaded 40 passenger bus gets much better PMPG than a Toyota Prius.
5 Gallons will move 4 passengers in the Prius approximately 200 miles, for a total of 800 passenger miles.
The same 5 gallons of fuel will move the 40 passengers on the bus 40 miles, for a total of 1,600 passenger miles.
hmmmm....
(Of course, when you've only got 6 people on the bus, the math for the bus gets ugly real quick)
PASSENGER MILES PER GALLON. Yes, Obama is undoubtedly ignorant of the importance of PMPG, but let's not fall into the same trap here at NRO.
(Of course, other factors play in to the market for vehicles than just MPG, or even PMPG. It's fairly safe to assume from his past statements and positions that Obama is as clueless about those factors as he is PMPG. No need to rehash them here.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, I don't get why they never measure it this way. Many larger families I know drive the evil SUV, 4 door pickup or minivan because if they didn't they would have to take two cars everywhere they go. One loaded SUV is far more efficient then a pair of mid size sedans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLarge families will be the next thing outlawed by the liberals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSUV's and light trucks don't make the automakers money? What is he smoking? It's those SUV's and pickups that have kept the American auto industry in the black when they are in the black. That's what America wants Barry. Its those stupid little death trap green cars that nobody wants that's puts Detroit in the red.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhat he meant was they can't "just" make money off of trucks and SUV's ...
funny thing is that for many automakers that is the only sector that they DO make money off of ...
Come on ... give Obama a break, its not like he can do anything about the price of gas ... oh, wait ... he has done something about the price of gas, he's made it go up ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSomebody else said it already but it's too perfect:
This new affordable-yet-highly-profitable Electric Car that President Genius speaks of should be called "The Chevy Unicorn" in his honor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusenext he'll be tellin Apple that they can't "just" make money off of the IPad or IPhone ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Obama had his way, we would have greener iPads and iPhones that we hand crank to leave a lighter footprint on the grid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemaybe he'll tell Coke that they can't just make money off of Coke or Diet Coke but they need to make more money off of green juices made with arugula ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe that is in the works.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat everyone ignores is that our current SUV market is the natural by-product of the original CAFE standards. When cars became increasingly smaller and lighter, consumers became increasingly concerned that they weren't safe, added to the fact that SUV's, being trucks were exempted from the CAFE fleet created the market we now operate in.
My "SUV" in reality is just my father's station wagon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed Jim, the big station wagon went extinct when I was a kid in the early 1980's. It was a big change when the family traded the last wagon for our first Chrysler mini-van.
My dad still wanted the wagon, but they were not available anywhere. I think he disliked that he was losing his V8 powered wagon for a very underpowered 4 cylinder mini-van since they didn't have bigger choices yet (the second van had a V6).
I think my mom liked the van better as she liked riding up higher. Ironically mini-vans (and big wagons)have far more utility then the SUV's. The folks never moved on to SUV's like most, they found them stupid. Dad has gotten over not having a huge wagon.
I think people forget too, that tradespeople had plenty of big wagons for working too. So they ended up moving into light trucks as well. One of my neighbors is a painting contractor, and he is still babying a 1982 chevy big wagon for work. He has set up his crews with full size vans and pickups but he drives the wagon. He prefers the wagon because the town tickets commercial vehicles in residential zones so he cannot take a van home.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRich,
You're mistaken about minivans. They don't have "far more utility than SUVs". They have far more utility than sedans, but mid and full size SUVs have something that minivans have NEVER had.
Decent tow ratings and off road capability. That's where the split really occurred. That last wagon your Pops traded in could tow a travel trailer, or a boat. The minivan couldn't. So, if you wanted to take the family boating, you either needed a pickup truck to pull the boat and another car for the family, or you got an SUV.
While the off-road capability of most SUVs has always been more of a "just in case I need it" thing than actually utilized, not so the towing. As people haulers, minivans are better than SUVs. But many Americans haul more than just people....
(This same dynamic is responsible for the explosion in extended and crew cab pickups.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama’s ability to “understand the market” resulted in his encouraging General Motors to produce the Chevy Volt, which is to date the second worst-selling American car in modern history—behind the leaky-roofed, 1963–1966 Studebaker Wagonaire—with sales of only 2,029 vehicles since its introduction in 2010.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...(the radical) does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing..."
Apparently, if you repeat an absolute falsehood about a concrete fact loud enough and often enough, and the fact will mold itself to your will. That's what our Fearless Leader took away from Alinsky anyway...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, if you look at the damage done by buses to the environment (buses do more damage per passenger to the roads than subcompacts do, which produces particulate pollution plus the fact that buses use more gasoline per passenger mile) you will see that buses are environmental disasters. So Obama's use of the bus is environmentally suspect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBuses are disgusting! The smell of diesel fumes makes me sick to my stomach.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe market doesn't want it because the public can't use it. There is little or no utility in a SmartforTwo or in an electric car with less room than it's gas or diesel powered twin that goes 40 miles. Much less utility at double the cost even after hiding most of the cost increase in the government.
This administration defines leadership as dictating what is good for you regardless of your wants, needs and costs while using a flawed misanthropic basis for deciding what is supposed to be good for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA giant, diesel-powered, made-in-Canada bus.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe Canadians have officially renamed the bus Hoser 1
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse