By
Mike Noon
December 3, 2008
If you have been listening to the auto industry bailout debate, you might think the major problem is generous union contracts (Full disclosure: I am a member of UAW Local 4121). While the list of problems of GM, Ford and Chrysler is long, the greatest of these is that few people believe Detroit can regain its former glory. No one is going to give an industry $25 billion if they see no hope in its future. With some careful planning, the big three can make a comeback by going retro. They need to bring back the diesel car.
The years of neglect of Detroit’s non-SUV division has taken its toll. Every year, Consumer Reports releases its top vehicle pick for 10 different categories. In 2008, only one American vehicle, GM’s Chevrolet Silverado, was chosen as the best in its class. The popular Edmunds.com Consumers’ Top Rated Vehicle shows a similar result. Out of 20 vehicle categories, American vehicles only won in six classes. This gap is especially prevalent for sedans and wagons, where American vehicles were top-rated in only two out of 13 categories.
Vehicles such as the Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion and the exotic Chevrolet Volt have been the answer to this growing dearth of American passenger vehicles. This approach is likely to fail because companies such as Toyota and Honda have years of experience in producing small, cheap compact cars and hybrids Americans love. GM or Ford will have a tough time trying to unseat these giants if they play the game as the visiting team.
Diesel-powered cars are the best way for U.S. automakers to regain their market share. While gasoline’s petroleum cousin powers approximately half of European vehicles, only 3 percent of American vehicles run on diesel. There is significant room for growth in the U.S. diesel market.
American automakers also have many years of experience in diesel vehicles. Cars such as the Ford Temp, Buick Century and even the Chevrolet El Camino had diesel-powered versions in the 1980s. Overseas, both GM and Ford have successful diesel vehicles, such as the Cadillac CTS, Ford Fusion TDCi and the Ford Fiesta ECOnetic that gets 65 mpg.
Domestically, the diesel engine option is relegated to the truck and SUV classes. GM has diesel alternatives of its Chevrolet Silverado, Dodge Ram and GMC Sierra pickup trucks. Ford offers diesel on some of its F-Series pickups. Even Chrysler has a diesel version of its Jeep Grand Cherokee.
The biggest obstacle to widespread adoption of diesel vehicles in the U.S. is that they do not pass our air quality requirements. Diesel vehicles generally emit more pollutants than their gasoline counterparts, requiring additional pollution control equipment. Mercedes-Benz has developed one such system that is included in its E320 BlueTec sedans. Another development that has helped reduce diesel vehicle pollution is the switch to ultra-low-sulfur diesel in the U.S., which is significantly reducing sulfur dioxide emissions.
Switching to biodiesel means an even greater reduction in air pollution. GM, Ford and Chrysler could regain market share in an environmentally friendly manner by introducing a product line of biodiesel-ready cars. Beyond helping comply with U.S. air pollutant laws, the three automakers could partner with local producers to expand biodiesel production nationwide.
While the list of problems facing U.S. automakers is long, biodiesel-powered cars represent a plausible path for the big three to regain their place in American garages. All the technology and knowledge exists for GM, Ford and Chrysler to bring their successes in foreign diesel markets back home.
Reach columnist Mike Noon at opinion@dailyuw.com.
5 Comments
#1 Rob S.
on December 3, 2008 at 11:19 a.m.(Seattle, WA)
Mike, I couldn't disagree more with your assessment that the savior of the US auto industry is in the diesel car. The reason that UW companies have been losing market share constantly over the past 3 decades is that their cars are simply not of the same quality of their ilk from Europe or Asia.
European cars, while most times considered to be more expensive, are generally better machined, using finer tolerances within the engine and passenger compartment. This is one key reason why imported cars have gained market share: they are more comfortable, and do not require as much maintenance. Of course, this depends on the car, since the way that a person drives can very much affect the amount and degree of maintenance that their particular car endures.
Asian cars are generally smaller, more agile, and have better gas mileage than their American counterparts. This appeals to a younger generation, which thrives on speed and maneuverability, while maintaining a few bills in the wallet. Also, the same companies make sedan versions of their cars, to appeal to an older, more mature crowd that needs the space for hauling children or recreation equipment from place to place.
In short, American carmakers have held the "bigger, stronger, faster" mentality for long enough that they have been left behind in the market. People are looking for a fun ride that is efficient, and current models from GM/Ford/Chevy/etc do not provide that. US automakers still hold the reins of the truck market, because drivers of trucks are searching for different aspects of an automotive experience than car drivers.
My thoughts on how the auto industry in Detroit can change to regain market share? Progress, not running back 20 or 30 years to a throwback car model. We should be investing in electric cars (which are the wave of the future, since hybrid technology is at least 60 years old), alternative fuels (E85, pure ethanol, and nuclear fusion ala Back to the Future all come to mind ;-) ), and that old American standby: innovation. We've traditionally been some of the most prolific innovators in the world, and why we haven't seen much progress in auto design/technology in the past 30 years is beyond me. But I'd much rather see a return to the days where American automakers were innovating on a yearly basis, as opposed to a return to the cars that they created during those years.
#2 Samuel R.
on December 5, 2008 at 6:15 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"European cars, while most times considered to be more expensive, are generally better machined, using finer tolerances within the engine and passenger compartment. This is one key reason why imported cars have gained market share: they are more comfortable, and do not require as much maintenance."
Rubbish. As the owner of a European car that's about to have its third fuel pump in a year installed (by me, because service on these "superior" European cars is astronomically expensive), I can tell you here and now that European cars are by no means vastly superior in such things as engineering tolerances. While something like an Audi A8 may be built like a vault, at the price it demands (starting at $74,050 in the Audi's case) it had better be. Volkswagen's horrible reliability ratings are enough to show that European cars that don't cost a fortune are of average quality at best.
"Asian cars are generally smaller, more agile, and have better gas mileage than their American counterparts. This appeals to a younger generation, which thrives on speed and maneuverability, while maintaining a few bills in the wallet."
This is misguided as well. The Toyota Corolla and the Honda Civic, for instance, have smaller engines than both the Chevrolet Cobalt and the Ford Focus, while simultaneously getting worse mileage. As you move up in the range, you find the Accord and Camry suffering from a bloat over the models they replace just as the American competitors become lighter and improve in quality.
What I'm trying to get at here isn't that you're completely wrong; the situation you posit above would have been correct twenty or thirty years ago, and in many cases even as recently as a short decade ago. But just as you claim that American cars haven't significantly advanced in the past thirty years, I claim that it is your view of the automotive industry that hasn't advanced.
#3 old wbs
on December 6, 2008 at 6:14 p.m.(Toledo, OH | Unverified Name)
why do i have to pay the same road tax to run my 85 diesel jetta that the coal trucks & big rigs pay?? make the refineries get rid of the sulpher. In 2009 we could be driving diesel cars that cost 12k. let the big 3 and big oil adjust to economy.end of problem
#4 Greg
on December 22, 2008 at 4:05 a.m.(Livingston, TN | Unverified Name)
I agree that whatever car company that can bring new diesel technologies, in mass, to America (and make a profit doing so) can substantially increase market share, however...
The Europeans have the lead in this technology. Look who has the few diesel cars here; Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and BMW. No Asians and no Americans, although the American companies, especially Ford, may have the edge over most Asian companies.
The cost to produce these highly developed exhaust-treatment systems to meet a gasoline-powered passified emission systems, established by our EPA, will be very difficult. For instance, VW makes a small compact in Europe, a Polo BlueMotion, that is about the same size as a Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, and Chevy Aveo; however, the BlueMotion, though it gets 70 mpg (because it's diesel), cost $25,000. It's competiton cost $10,000-$15,000. It will be hard to penetrate the market with products that cost $10,000 more, even if they do get double the fuel economy.
My last comment is in response to Rob S. who claims diesel is old technology. When did this guy jump in our planet. Spark-ignition (gas power) is older than compression-ignition (diesel), so even if you are a hybrid fan, a gas-electric hybrid would be using older technologies than--say--a diesel-electric hybrid. Turbo charging and advance injection technologies have made diesels super quick, super refined and quiet, super clean, and super fuel efficient and are anything but older technologies. If you don't believe me, go to a BMW car lot and test drive a 335d (diesel); then drive a 335i (gas) and see which car is more of a pleasure to drive. You'll be surprised. Try driving each without looking to see which one you are driving, and see if you can tell the difference. I'll bet you can't, unless maybe the superior torque of the diesel gives it away while your getting 36 mpg!
#5 Greg
on December 22, 2008 at 4:11 a.m.(Livingston, TN | Unverified Name)
In response to old wbs, sulfur was removed from diesel fuel (from 500 ppm to 15 ppm) in October 2007. Trucks pay the same road tax per gallon of fuel, but they use much more fuel and they actually contribute to the economy by running on our roads, they do just provide convenience like cars do for commuters.
Besides, truckers and trucking companies pay lots of money in registration fees and permits, such as haz-mat permits. The drivers also pay much more to drive with requirements for CDLs, health cards, and so forth.
I hardly think our system favors trucks!
Post a comment