Harley Lover

Will the 'average consumer' be able to handle the task of fueling up on the two different fuels?

If Ford were to get that money, it would be in the form of a LOAN. In contrast, the feds have taken an OWNERSHIP STAKE in both GM in Chrysler. There is a world of difference between the two transactions, it's not even close to being shades of grey.

Market cap has nothing to do with Toyota's financial capabilities as a company - it's simply the value of their outstanding stock.

What happens to all the money given to GM and Chrysler from the feds? Is that money considered to be a loan, and therefore to be repaid (perhaps with no interest accrued)? Or is the money all gratis? If the money "purchased" an ownership position in GM and Chrysler, wouldn't it be in the interest of GM and Chrysler to pay it back, and buy their freedom (assuming they become profitable enough to do so)? Whichever scenario it is (other than free money, which I doubt), then GM and Chrysler aren't really going to be "debt free", if they ultimately seek to pay back either a loan, or buy out an ownership stake.

Here's my alternative from earlier in the thread:

Richard, I read an article the other day that stated that the Clean Air Act of 1970 specifically gave California the right to regulate auto emissions within California. I can't remember if any other details were offered, but this might explain why they have to get approval from the feds before they can implement regs that are more strict than the federal regs - they are required to get permission via the CAA of 1970. Also, IIRC, over the years their requests were approved every single time until the most recent refusal during the Bush administration, which of course has now been resolved with this week's announcement. Personally, I'd like to see the government place a "special" gas tax on California related to its more stringent regs, if they choose to enact them after 2016. Raise the price of gas to, say $8.00/gallon, and I don't think any of the manufacturers will have a problem selling the type of product mix the politicians seem to want. Of course, the politicians will never grow a set large enough to actually confront their constituency with the reality of things - that's why California is in such a mess today.

Doesn't it probably depend on the their sales mix? For example, if suddenly Toyota started meeting its sales goals for the Tundra (I know, this is a far fetched example), then that would seemingly have an adverse effect on their average. If, on the other hand, they started selling the bejeebers out of the Prius (also somewhat far fetched, HAHA), then that would positively effect their average. I would guess neither of them meet the regs today, but maybe could if they rigged their sales mix just so.

With a fleet target of 35 mpg for 2016, what influence will this have on Ford's product line and product development? For example, does the KA become a more likely candidate for NA because of this change in regs? Given that work is probably happening today on products due in 2012, this only gives Ford 4 years to build any changes into their planning cycle. What changes might occur in the product mix - more hybrids and electrics (if they can be sold)? I'd really like to read everyone's thoughts - I'm sure Ford has been planning for this possibility, as obviously Mullaly has already started the company down a path that will make it easier for Ford to meet the requirements. Nonetheless, it would seem that this agreement would influence Ford's product plans, and that's what I'd like to discuss. Your thoughts?

MSNBC is reporting the standard to be 42 mpg by 2016: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514 Edit: Automotive News quotes the Wall Street Journal as reporting the standard to be 35 mpg for 2016. 35 mpg written up by 20% (as mentioned by a previous poster) would give the 42 mpg figure.

Then some of "us" should share with the rest of "we".

Didn't have time to read the whole thread, but for clarification, GM stated yesterday that none of the Pontiacs would be rebadged as other brands (G8), and also stated that the Solstice is dead.

And what would the Feds be expected to do with the "windfall in tax revenue."? Perhaps there should be a "Windfall Tax Revenue Tax" placed on the Feds? Seriously, putting so much more money in the hands of the feds means we really need to consider how that money would be used; otherwise, they'll spend it like drunk sailors on shore leave (no offense to drunk sailors).

Article excerpt:

More details, please (if you can).

Guys, could you clarify something for me? Does the new S80 use the current EUCD platform or an updated version of EUCD? I ask because the S80 offers a V8, so if it rides on some version of the EUCD, wouldn't that suggest that much of the engineering work for a V6 to fit the chassis has already been done by Volvo?

LOL Excellent!

Wow, this news cuts deep. Another potential opportunity for Ford to move ahead of the competition.

MKII, in your opinion, how close is the Iosis Max concept to the next C-max?

Does anyone know how many days of supply this inventory number equates to?

Aw c'mon. Have you seen VW's new Polo? That's boring!

Damn straight. It's nice to see him being more outspoken about this differentiation.

Agreed, wouldn't it be the combination of direct injection and turbocharging, with the turbos compressing much more energy into the same volume than its normally aspirated brother?

Was hoping for a 3 door hatch alongside the sedan just to affirm that it's coming too. Oh well.

Worse than expected: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090226/D96J8RGG0.html

AFAIK, it's the same deal as GM and Chrysler. The point is how different the impact of this agreement is on Ford versus GM/Chrysler. For Ford, it adds to their potential to avoid government support altogether. For GM/Chrysler, it's just a little more salve to make the pain more bearable.