By on January 30, 2017

Mark Fields

Ford Motor Company chief executive officer and doomsday prophet Mark Fields thinks one million American jobs will be placed in peril if the country’s current fuel economy standards aren’t made more flexible.

The alarming scenario was given by Fields to President Trump himself at last week’s private meeting of U.S. automakers at the White House. 

According to Bloomberg, Fields said that he did not specifically request to have the economy standards eliminated during the meeting with the president. Instead, he eluded to an alternate timeline resulting in the industry being severely crippled or brought to the brink of collapse if nothing was done.

Semantics aside, the Ford CEO — along with General Motors chief Mary Barra and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ own Sergio Marchionne — are interested in government regulations taking into account consumer demand.

“We think having one national standard on fuel economy is really important,” Fields said at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in New Orleans. Referencing numerous studies he did not identify, Fields said the million jobs “could be at risk if we’re not given some level of flexibility on that — aligning it to market reality. So that really resonated.”

Fields has been the domestic auto industry’s most outspoken critic of federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

While consumer trends have shifted slightly toward heavier, larger, and less-economical vehicles, it’s difficult to make a case for consumers clamoring for worse fuel economy standards. Still, some automakers are having a difficult time adhering to regulatory targets and timelines.

[Image: Ford Motor Company]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

141 Comments on “Fields to Trump: Fuel Economy Rules Put One Million U.S. Jobs at Risk...”


  • avatar
    Pricha33

    Fields for sure is most interested in corporate profitability, but he has a valid point. The costs involved to meet the arbitrary targets will be passed onto consumers unwilling or unable to afford them on the upfront costs of a new vehicle. North America is leaning towards larger and more luxurious vehicles, I love my TDI but if I want a sports car or SUV I’ll be damned if I can’t buy one because some persons want 50 mpg as a reality.

    • 0 avatar
      bts

      It’s only expensive to meet these targets because every manufacturer wants to steadily increase horsepower and fuel economy at the same time for every new model. This is the main reason for the turbocharging craze going on now. If we took a step back to power levels from even a few years ago, we’d find current tech could easily meet these fuel economy targets without adding any extra cost or losing jobs.

      This link might not be the best explanation, but puts the entire thing into perspective.
      http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/25/horsepower-has-increased-112-since-1980-and-other-fun-facts/

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The Mirage CVT with its 78 hp I3 and 2050lb curb weight only gets to the 2022 standard. The Fiesta SFE with its 1.0L engine gets to the 2019 level. A 4-cylinder Impala with an hp rating a little less than a ’95 Lesabre only meets the 2017 standard for large cars.

        Cars and small trucks will have a very difficult time meeting the 2025 standard without electrification, going diesel, or drastic weight cutting efforts. Any of that will be expensive.

        OTOH, larger trucks are in better shape. The Ford 2.7L 2WD is already at 2024 levels while the GM 4.3L and 5.3L are good through 2022. The new 10-speed might be able to get them there.

    • 0 avatar
      Add Lightness

      Everything in life is arbitrary.

      Excitement comes with danger.

      If you want excitement, you need to go for stupid $ or risk your precious ass.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    If every carmaker is subject to the same standards, and everybody’s gotta drive somewhere, how do tighter standards magically make 1M jobs disappear?

    I can see that increased costs might lead consumers to hold on to older vehicles slightly longer, but not 1M jobs worth of “longer”.

    Now, jobs might SHIFT from automakers who haven’t done a good job preparing for the standard (and whose sales suffer as a result), to carmakers who have prepared, but I don’t see that as something requiring a fix. It’s not as if the new standards are some big surprise; they’ve been in the works for years.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      sirwired, you get it exactly. The need for vehicles will not go away; the sales will go to those who can provide them. Now the smaller cars may not have the profit margin of the biggies, but the inevitable rise in fuel costs will make buyers switch away from them at some point if history is any indication. None of this will matter to T-Rump, as selling out the environment (and since energy is a big part of national security, security as well) for fat cat profits is in his DNA. What will happen is that some carmakers will ignore the smaller segment for profits now, only to be left with plunging sales when the market swings in the other direction. Just like in the 70s…

    • 0 avatar

      I agree with your points.

      The sad truth is that if Ford and other US automakers are allowed to continue pumping out gas guzzlers ad nauseum, then foreign carmakers will become leaders in alternative fuel vehicles. When the inevitable occurs and gas prices sky rocket the big three automakers will find themselves unable to compete with the foreign autos and ALL domestic big three cars jobs will vanish into thin air.

      If automakers push hard on electrics, then there will be many new jobs created to build the necessary infrastructure to support them.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      sirwired, what happens to the profitability of Ford, GM, and FCA if consumers buy the same number of passenger cars as today, but they choose to keep rebuilding pickup trucks instead of buying the new 2025 model? They’d be hurting without the profits from large numbers of trucks to cover their legacy costs.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      As costs go up, people find substitutes. Those who need a car to get to work, go on the dole, hence account for some of the 1 million. Which lowers car demand, making car workers account for more lost jobs etc…

    • 0 avatar
      Ol Shel

      No jobs are going to be lost because the US auto industry collapsed and vanished, as predicted by the industry, when they were required to provide seatbelts. And when airbags were mandated. And emissions controls. All the jobs were lost.

      And they’ll be lost again by the next requirement, because corporations want profits, and when denied some profits at the expense of workers, consumers, taxpayers, or the planet, they lie. They’ll say anything or do anything (hi, VW and GM!) to get the cash they’re addicted to.

      And in Trump’s reality, there is no truth.

      • 0 avatar
        colin42

        +1

        What these doomsday predictors fail to realise or choose not to realise is that Engineer’s are very good at evolving technology to drive up reliability and drive down cost. Today’s Toyota Camry is a great example of this, cost significantly less is inflation adjusted dollars of a Camera from 20+ years ago.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “Today’s Toyota Camry is a great example of this, cost significantly less is inflation adjusted dollars of a Camera from 20+ years ago.”

          I’ve got a 1989 Japan-made Camry V6 that I use as my daily driver for short hops. I bought it from my best friend for $100. He said he paid $12K for it in 1989.

          Today, a similar LE V6 would cost $24K, or less, if you can find one. The four-banger versions go for ~$20K, with plenty to choose from.

        • 0 avatar
          April S

          People do not seem to understand while cars may be more complicated and cost more due to all those government rules and regulations but there has been real improvements in safety and drivability. I seem to recall there so much gnashing of teeth when automobile manufacturers when from carburetors to fuel injection (to decrease pollution). It was so terrible that mechanics couldn’t fiddle with them anymore but drivability improved immensely.

          Same goes for safety standards. There are thousands of people who would be dead or mained for life if it wasn’t for those horrible government mandates for airbags or anti lock brakes.

          I really doubt these items would have happened without government intervention.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        I can’t even tell if you are being sarcastic. Obviously, hundreds of thousands of US car industry jobs have been lost. The auto industry hasn’t grown in proportion with the population or economy due to social engineering. If every manufacturer has to make less appealing, more expensive products; then the size of their market will shrink. The carry on effect of this economic contraction will ripple out until the economy is diminished in ways that are unpredictable. The world would be a less stupid place without the lot of you that defend Obama’s CAFE.

        • 0 avatar
          sirwired

          @ToddAtlasF1

          No, I’m not being sarcastic. Yes, the auto industry is a smaller portion of the country’s economic output (and employment) than it used to be, but that’s due mostly to factors that have bupkis to do with CAFE. We have:

          – Vehicle longevity: When cars easily last 2-3 times longer than they used to for a comparable inflation-adjusted price, of COURSE the industry shrinks. Nothing to do with CAFE.

          – Offshore manufacturing: Many of our cars (except pickup trucks because of the Chicken Tax) are now manufactured outside the country. Nothing to do with CAFE.

          – Shifts to foreign nameplates: When Detroit kept producing unreliable rust-buckets and the Japanese showed there was a better way, consumers, not being idiots, bought less Big 3 iron. Nothing to do with CAFE.

          – Automation: Manufacturing is far more efficient than it used to be; we have automated rigs that eliminate hand labor for many of the tasks that used to be required for vehicle assembly, reducing both cost and employment. Nothing to do with CAFE.

          If Ford, et al, want to keep blaming the EPA for all their ills, who are they gonna blame if they get their way, yet the exact same trends continue?

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          “If every manufacturer has to make less appealing, more expensive products; then the size of their market will shrink”

          The quality has increased, the longevity of the sold product is much better and the price of the products to the consumer is lower for the amount of content. Even the worst makes make a better product than the used to.

          And despite all this, the SAAR keeps going up, year over year.

          I don’t think there’s any reasonable way you could say that regulation has harmed the market, except that it’s forced the OEMs to have to deal with things like safety and emissions before they become problems, instead of reacting to them after the fact, OPEC-crisis style.

          What Fields et al want is those few regulations removed so that they can sacrifice stability for quarterly sales & margin numbers.

        • 0 avatar

          New cars sales vs population shows alot of trends, a lot more cars were sold back when the only lasted 50,000 miles for instance. You can also see declines in every recession. But I don’t see any dips that real line up to CAFE changes or added requirements like airbags. So I’m not sure where your getting the idea from

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    The Quid Quo Pro is now (as I predicted) apparent; Ford/Fields gave Trump license to tweet MAGA re cancellation (allegedly) of Mexican Factory (and moving production of compact cars there, also)…

    …and now Ford/Fields wants relaxation of CAFE standards.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Quid Go Pro Quo Live Tweeting. The question is not: Which policy is best for American interests? The question is now: Who has more pull: Fields or Musk?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Ford is just a coincidence, actually I am the one calling for a elimination of CAFE and I expect the President to negotiate.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Yeah. Thing is, regardless of November’s election, we in America still respect the rule of law. Because we either have laws, or we don’t. Meaning that we are today treated to the spectacle of Trump’s own acting attorney general deciding not to defend his immigration directive, because of concern that it is not legal.

        Same thing here. EPA has a process for setting fuel economy targets, into which carmakers have given input, and the result is a real timeline. And if Trump wants to change that to an ‘alt timeline’, he is welcome to go through the same process. No negotiation. Law.

        • 0 avatar
          OldManPants

          VoGo, I love The Law. It lets us deport illegals :-D

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          You’re channeling me right as the so called upholders of laws have ignored it for the past sixteen to thirty years. Thing is your don’t believe in law, you don’t get to suddenly find Jeebus now.

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          re: “…we are today treated to the spectacle of Trump’s own acting attorney general deciding not to defend his immigration directive, because of concern that it is not legal.”

          not entirely accurate – the acting attorney general in question is actually a holdover from the obama administration, just until trump’s guy gets approved.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            ” the acting attorney general in question is actually a holdover from the obama administration, just until trump’s guy gets approved.”

            I see this as an incentive for Chuck Schumer to stall the confirmation process for Trump’s guy, all the while faking tears……

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            WRONG, Philipwitak and HDC.
            Sally Yates was appointed by Trump. She replaced Loretta Lynch, who was Obama’s attorney general.

            The fact that Trump’s own appointee could not defend his executive order because it is illegal really says something. The fact that he immediately fired her for following the law tells you even more.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            IIRC Sally Yates was the Deputy AG under Loretta Lynch, and Eric Holder, and the senior FTEE at DOJ for many, many years.

            When Dept heads vacate, it is usual for the senior career FTEE to take over as Acting.

            But correct me if I’m wrong. If the next FTEE also fails to defend Trump’s travel ban, that person will get fired, and the next in line gets moved up.

            There’s plenty of precedent for that. Look to DOJ history and past presidents.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            VoGo, now that you know you’re wrong about Sally Yates, and that she is indeed a plant of that traitor Obama; does it change your position on anything? Or are you as smart as any other marionette?

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          The EPA 54.5 mpg fuel economy rules don’t have the same strong legal underpinnings as the previous CAFE standard that came about from an actual law passed by congress. If the Trump administration changes the endangerment finding that justifies regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, all the resulting regulations can also be changed.

        • 0 avatar
          chuckrs

          Trump to acting Atty General – You’re fired.

          Also, interesting buzz about the Congressional Review Act. Seems that significant regulations and rules have to be submitted to Congress for review. More info at the link, although other accounts have different opinions about how far back Congress can reach if the regulators were too lazy to submit the required paperwork.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/congressional-review-act-obama-regulations.html

      • 0 avatar
        OldManPants

        28, be sure and show the badge I gave you.

        -Kek

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        Perhaps Ford can engage Sen. Chuck Schumer to negotiate from a position of tearful strength?

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    “alternate timeline”

    Everything now has an ALTERNATE……

    I just read that the universe is a 2 dimensional hologram….

  • avatar
    Arcadia Ego

    Like sirwired, I really can’t see the argument from fuel standards to job losses across the industry. I can see Ford running into problems since it depends on trucks and SUVs for its profits – but then other companies will move in to take its market share.

    Two other problems –

    1. Job losses are going to be largely due to automation, which will increase, regardless of CAFE standards.

    2. If we just SUV our way into the future, the drive may be comfortable, but the result will be a faster descent into climate change hell. I think its time industry leaders and shareholders thought seriously about something other than next year’s profits.

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      Exactly. With all the hand-wringing and boo-hooing over emissions, safety and mpg rules 50 years ago, all the domestic makers got was a bye and a huge loss of market. They STILL can’t make a profitable, efficient, reliable small car. Meanwhile Japan Inc (and now Korea) just sharpens their eating utensils.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I can understand Fields asking for something in return for keeping production of smaller vehicles in the USA. I don’t think eliminating efficiency standards is the answer but a compromise would be to give the manufacturers more time to comply with the standards. If all manufacturers are held to the same standards then there should not be any significant loss in jobs. Maybe vehicle owners will hold onto their vehicles longer but many are doing that now. Maybe there needs to be a financial incentive to get owners to move to more efficient vehicles. I do believe that manufacturers will use more robots to lower labor costs and to improve quality but that will happen anyway. Eventually making products in other countries will not be as big a factor in where something is made but shipping costs could be a bigger factor.

  • avatar
    srh

    Did he really elude an alternate timeline? Or did he allude to an alternate timeline?

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Blah blah blah. You can watch Fields’ lips move, but his words fail the logic test. What he’s really saying is “We will have a better competitive position within the industry if you relax these standards.”

    The thing is that Steve Bannon and Scott Pruitt will be a receptive audience, because they know they can irritate liberals by relaxing the standard. So expect it to happen.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      It’s surreal.

      I thought my world became bizarre after the 9/11 attacks (massive disaster of Iraq War v2.0, rise of the all-seeing/all-hearing/constant surveillance state, torture memo from Gonzales, Great Crash of ’08-’11, etc., etc.), but we’re beyond the surreal now with Executive Branch Appointees who have adversarial relations with/to the agencies they’ve been appointed to head.

      Trump’s swamp has gotten back-filled, too, with even more Goldman Sachs alumn than any other President in history (Cohn, Mnuchin, Bannon, Jim Donovan, et al.).

      We have Pruitt who refuses to recuse himself from active lawsuits he filed against the EPA while AG of Oklahoma (trying to defeat regs relating to clean water, clean air and clean other thing acts, on behalf of huge polluters), and who is on record stating EPA should be eliminated, Betsy DeVos, who essentially wants education privatized (she’s dumb a a rock, but I actually do agree with allowing vouchers to be used by parents who wish to send their kids to nonpublic schools as they should not have to pay property taxes to fund public schools in districts where such schools are utter failures), Rick Perry, who also wants to eliminate Department of Energy, which he is charged to lead (and who did not know DOE has jurisdiction of nuclear matters), and Mnuchin, and I’m too tired to even go there.

      It’s like a Salvador Dali painting meets a Federico Fellini movie, and then mates with an Orwell-Kafka novel, and the present reality is born.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        I think it is kinda exciting! I didn’t vote for Trump but I admire his aggressive opening gambit, both nationally and internationally.

        Trump is no fool. Everyone underestimated Trump, and now they may call him Mister President.

        I truly believe, we ain’t seen nuttin’ yet!

        The Left’s heads are exploding and they’re left with that stunned, stupefied deer-in-the-headlights expression.

        • 0 avatar
          mikey

          HDC I’m just watching the CNN coverage. Yes I do see exploding heads. I have a “no commenting ” policy when it comes to US politics.

          Not my place to say “who is right who is wrong”

          Seeing history made.. exciting yes, interesting very much.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            mikey, I do believe we in America, and maybe everyone all over the entire planet, are seeing history being made.

            Trump’s no fool, no matter how much the Left wants to portray him as such. That same attitude of the Left got Trump elected.

            Trump’s gonna do what he’s gonna do. He was elected based on his promises that got people to vote for him.

            The big question is, how effective of a President will Trump be?

            I mean, we’re only 10 days into his presidency. What will he be like for the next three years and 355 days?

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Strictly speaking, aren’t we “seeing history being made” every minute of every day, regardless of who’s in charge?

          • 0 avatar
            mikey

            True dat

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Drzhivago138, in my more than 70 years living on this planet I have never seen a transition, nor a political movement initiated by the vox populi like the one that formed behind Trump.

            I didn’t vote for the guy, but a lot of people did; Enough to soundly beat the tar out of Obama’s policies and his anointed successor to be.

            I live in a Blue State.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Certainly there’s a lot of changes going on. I’m more pointing out that saying “history is being made” can be true of any point in time and any event. This morning, history was made when I finished off a box of Raisin Bran. History was made the night before when watched a PBS show about the six wives of Henry VIII. Tomorrow, I plan on making history yet again by driving one inch closer to the center of the highway on my way to work.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Drzhivago138, I understood your premise. But how much of that “history being made” is consequential to so many people?

            I’m astonished at the whirlwind of changes brought on since 12pm, 20 Jan 2017.

            I have to admit that I like what the guy has done so far. I have found none of his executive actions objectionable, so far.

            He said he was going to do it. And then he did it. Can’t find fault with that.

            If he keeps up this pace, which I hope he will, he could be the most productive president of modern times.

            I just hope that the changes Trump brings will benefit me.

            The last guy hurt me, caused me to set in motion certain estate-shelter plans, which I can not undo because of this unforeseen election outcome of Trump winning.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            HDC, what you’re seeing is thanks to Steve Bannon. Trump doesn’t have the wits or the knowledge to execute this program.

            It is ambitious, but it’s also reckless — it’s being undertaken without any apparent wish to involve career professionals with subject matter expertise or even to comply with the law. Many of the actions have no real substantive meaning, and those that do (like the Muslim ban) are very likely to be found unconstitutional.

            Bannon is playing a game of high-stakes poker which I think he is going to lose.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            dal20402, I don’t know anything about all “The Brains” behind Trump, but I find it very hard to accept that Trump and his team are as naive and ignorant as much of the Media makes them out to be.

            Hell, I was in Europe for 6+ months and all we heard there was people making fun of Trump, in a variety of languages.

            But I am impressed with the actions by Trump already set in motion within the first 10 days of his presidency.

            It’s beginning to look like Hope and Change with Trump has become a reality within a very short time. I would like to see Trump keep his promises to all those forgotten people who voted for him, and make their lives great again.

            I’m sheltered now. Protected from the ravages of YUUUUGE government. Minimized my taxable income. Already bought the last vehicles of my lifetime.

            But the people who voted for Trump, He is their Messiah now since the previous guy dashed all their hopes, dreams and lives.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            You don’t need the media to determine that Trump and his team are firing blind. You just need to look at the substance of what they’re doing.

            Running roughshod over the statutory protections for civil servants in general, and whistleblowers specifically, in telling civil servants to “get out” for ideological reasons. They are going to get sued for that and lose.

            Excluding people who are LPRs, been through a vetting process, have lived in this country legally, worked, and paid taxes for decades, and don’t have any other place to go — based on an order that was issued after they had already gotten on a plane coming to the US.

            Issuing an executive order on Obamacare that didn’t actually tell departments to do anything.

            Creating a major international incident before even assuming office purely because of ignorance of our decades-old policy toward the second most powerful country in the world and, at the moment, our only serious long-term strategic adversary.

            Issuing a statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day that blew an anti-Semitic dog whistle so loud even OldManPants could hear it.

            None of that is the approach of a team that has any knowledge or sophistication, regardless of whether you agree with their ideology or not.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            dal20402, I’m not being judgmental in my comments because I try to keep an open mind about a new Sheriff being in town.

            New guy, new way of doing things, new list of priorities.

            What stands out for me is that this new guy telegraphed like two years ago what he stood for and what he was going to do if he got into office.

            And now, to everyone’s enormous surprise, he’s doing exactly what he said he would do.

            AFAIAC, whatever he chooses to do, or prioritize, is his voter-bestowed right to do. It was the same for the last guy in that office.

            Who knows, maybe Trump will miss some great opportunities, like the last guy did. But I sure hope that Trump doesn’t fvck things up, like the last guy did. Lotta Americans hurting because of the policies of that last guy. Hence, Trump, the anti-Obama.

            America has done a 180. To the Lefties I say, “Suck it up and deal with it”.

            Get used to some mjajor changes. There ain’t no stopping this train now.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            No, HDC, he’s *pretending* to do what he said he was going to do. Most of what he’s done, Muslim ban excepted, has no actual substance. He signs a paper, makes a statement for the cameras, and no one but policy wonks looks into what the paper actually says.

            And that’s before we get to whether the things he said he was going to do are good ideas or not.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            dal20402, he’s doing things his own way. I suspect he doesn’t give a sh!t about how you and I feel about it.

            Not defending him. Just saying, he’s his own dude. Does things his way. Good, Bad or indifferent.

            I’m certain that there is lots more schit in the pipeline. I’m sure a lot more people who hate him will be thoroughly p!ssed off when those come down the pike.

            For the people who voted for him, he can do no wrong, as long as he keeps his promises.

            Seems to me that’s what he has done so far.

        • 0 avatar
          April S

          @highdesertcat

          “The Left’s heads are exploding and they’re left with that stunned, stupefied deer-in-the-headlights expression.”

          Thing is many Republicans feel the same way. Trump is not king and his recklessness will put us in a shooting war (or worse).

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            Like the 3 “shooting”wars obama got us into?

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            markf,
            Just FYI, in the US, only Congress can declare war. They have not done so in the last 8 years.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            April, I’m no Trump fan. Didn’t vote for him. I will say that Trump supported Democrats like the Clintons, ran as a Republican this cycle, but was voted into office as a Populist by voters of all political persuasions.

            It’s not unusual that SOME Republicans are totally disgusted by Trump who they see as a RINO. (McCain, Graham, Rubio, Cruz, Bush and on, and on)

            I suspect that more Republicans will become shrilly vocal when Trump embraces the ‘crats Infrastructure Rebuilding bill, requiring more than $1Trillion to be invested in America proper. No offsets there.

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            As in a shooting war I meant China. Trump will do something reckless, impulsive plus stupid in the South China Sea and boom, there we go.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          The reality:
          “but we’re beyond the surreal now with Executive Branch Appointees who have adversarial relations with/to the agencies they’ve been appointed to head ….Trump’s swamp has gotten back-filled, too, with even more Goldman Sachs alumn…It’s like a Salvador Dali painting meets a Federico Fellini movie, and then mates with an Orwell-Kafka novel, and the present reality is born”

          The Reaction:
          “I think it’s kinda exciting!”

          o_O

          I should probably start apologizing to my children now for subjecting them to this world.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            Congress has not “declared war” since WWII so what is your point exactly?

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            My point exactly? Congress authorized military engagements in the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan prior to Obama, but exactly zero during Obama’s administration.

            So your allegation of 3 shooting wars that Obama got us into is utterly false.

            As usual.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            30-mile-fetch, every day is a surprise. We, the people, never know what to expect from day to day. And this is only day 11 of the Trump presidency.

            I’ve got this nagging feeling that we’ll be seeing some real doozies in the days ahead.

            You know, like a ban of individual remittances to foreign countries, forcing illegals to spend that money in America instead of in their home countries.

            It’s coming, I feel it in my bone!

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Ain’t life just a box of chocolates?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I don’t know about chocolates, but life in these United States certainly has done a 180, since the last guy.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Yup. We replaced leadership with entertainment.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “My point exactly? Congress authorized military engagements in the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan prior to Obama, but exactly zero during Obama’s administration.”

            So now the goal post has moved from declaring War to”congressional authorization” Obama acted without Congress authorizing it….

            Please explain to families of the dead servicemen that their loved ones were not in an actual “shooting war”…..

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            markf,
            We have no idea what you mean with your accusation of 3 shooting wars, and frankly I’ve lost interest. If you can’t be bothered to explain your bizarre thoughts, I can’t be bothered to give a rat’s ass.

            Let’s just short cut this, shall we? Obama is gone; find a new scapegoat for the misery that is your existence.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            Beta Sean, you arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance…….

            “We have no idea what you mean with your accusation of 3 shooting wars, and frankly

            Let’s just short cut this, shall we? Obama is gone; find a new scapegoat for the misery that is your existence.”

            1. Libya
            2. Syria
            3. Yemen

            Yes, Obama spent 9 years blaming Bush for every single thing but now the President has “R”after his name we have to “stop blaming Obama” 11 days after he left office

            And I use “sho ting” wars in quotes because I have yet to see a none shooting war…..

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            markf,

            cyber warfare.

      • 0 avatar
        April S

        @DeadWeight

        You left out Trump’s Attorney General pick Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. Another fox in the henhouse. He will set back civil rights 60 years.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        DeadWeight – Canada needs to start our own wall project and rigid screening of American refugees. We wouldn’t want white supremacists aka alt-right types getting in.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some
          Tell me why you want to lay there, revel in your abandon
          Honey, it don’t make no difference to me baby
          Everybody has to fight to be free, you see

          You don’t have to live like a refugee
          (Don’t have to live like a refugee)

          We ain’t the first
          I’m sure a lot of other lovers been burned
          Right now it seems real to you, but it’s
          One of those things you gotta feel to be true

          Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some
          Who knows maybe you were kidnapped tied up,
          Taken away and held for ransom
          Honey, it don’t make no difference to me, baby
          Everybody has to fight to be free, you see

  • avatar
    gottacook

    Some 40 years ago, Ford advertised its still-traditional full-size cars as having the advantage of “road-hugging weight” versus the new 1977 GM cars. Doesn’t surprise me a bit that they want to sell heavier cars now, too.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Yep, and they advertised the Lincoln Town car as the “last of the whoppers” before the downsized model was introduced. That didn’t help sales much…

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “That didn’t help sales much…”

        No it didn’t. Back in Nov 1991 we bought my wife a 1992 Town Car Executive, so she could show her potential Real Estate buyers around in style.

        When it came to buying a new vehicle in 2008, we switched to a Highlander instead.

        There was nothing appealing about Lincoln in 2008.

    • 0 avatar
      markf

      Ariana Huffington left HuffPo over a year ago.

      The fact that Chuck “Crocodile Tears” Schumer is against Sessions shows you what great pick he is. I judge nominees like that by who opposes them.

      This is the just last breaths of the dying Democrats who promised to obstruct most Trump nominees….

      • 0 avatar
        DCR

        Thanks for cluelessly pointing out why our country is screwed. Instead of demanding those in power do what’s best for the country we’re instead stuck with a sizable population of mouth breathing morons more obsessed with cheering on childish “wins” against those on the other side of the political spectrum.

        in the same week Agent Orange unleashes chaos, supposedly without consulting Congressional leaders or affected Cabinet level department heads, he elevates a political strategist over the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the NSC, but who cares, right? Most people affected were brown and he made Schumer cry and wasn’t it funny when he called Yates an Obama-era hack? High-Five!!

  • avatar
    ajla

    Silver-lining to the storm cloud if CAFE dies.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    CAFE is not needed.

    Gas is a significant expense for many people. It’s not like we’re all going to start driving Escalades with blown 8L engines if CAFE is scrapped.
    .
    .

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      I would, just to celebrate the return of Tall.

    • 0 avatar
      northeaster

      Not all. But I think we can count on a certain amount of self absorbed idiocy.

      That too will eventually pass given the fact that, some time ago, Tesla turned the argument about what’s faster into a rearguard action by the anti-CAFE crowd.

      It’s now simply a matter of short years before advancing battery technology and infrastructure buries it forever.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Master Baiter, I’m a fan of the V8 engine. If I could afford one I’d be an even bigger fan of the BMW V12 engine!

      V8 fans do not care about fuel economy. People who worry about fuel economy and mpgs ought not to buy a pickup truck.

      So I hope that the current administration relaxes the CAFE rules that have been stifling V8 availability. With the encouragement of more drill baby drill, I think that they’re on the right track to energy independence, especially if they can bring back those coal jobs.

      IMO, the truck or SUV I buy should have a V8 engine. Something I grew up with, and have never outgrown.

      In today’s truck world, I think the Rolex of V8 engines is the Toyota all-aluminum 32-valve DOHC 5.7L V8. I currently own two of them.

      But for the sheer thrill of responsiveness in SUVs there is no substitute for the 6.4L Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT V8. Thirsty? Absolutely! But so much fun to goose.

      Hell, even a 5.3L Silverado V8 is a better truck than a Ford Ecobust, and I would buy a V8 F-series if I needed a 3/4-ton pickup truck, because Toyota doesn’t offer one in the US.

      So I’m hoping that CAFE will be scrapped, even if most buyers will opt for smaller, lighter vehicles with fewer cylinders and smaller displacement.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Energy independence…at what cost?

        We do NOT want coal making a comeback, hdc…particularly in Asia. Even when you set the climate change argument aside, the environmental costs associated with it are incredibly high. Coal’s day needs to be done. And that truly sucks for the people who mine it. Best thing we can do is help them find something else to do.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          FreedMike, Trump said he wanted to bring back coal, and oil, and still support solar, wind and nuclear.

          I believe in maximizing all American resources to become energy independent. And that includes coal, shale, whatever.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            A rational president might consider letting the market decide. Why not allow various energy sources to duke it out in the marketplace, adjusting for externalities?

            BTW, I say this with complete confidence that solar and wind will win, because…science.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            “In 2011, a study in the journal Lancet found that those who lived close to densely trafficked roads were at a far higher risk of stroke and dementia than those who lived farther away. A year later, a team led by Alzheimer’s disease researcher Dr. Samuel Gandy at Mt. Sinai in New York first established that air pollutants induced inflammation, cell death and the buildup of amyloid protein in the brains of mice.

            The new study extends those findings.

            Authored by geriatric and environmental health specialists at USC, the new study estimates that before the EPA set new air pollution standards in 2012, some 21% of new cases of dementia and of accelerated cognitive decline could likely have been attributed to air pollution.”

            Cribbed from The LA Times –

            I doubt that the current EPA nominee gives a rat’s arse about this; a certain number of casualties, skyrocketing health cars costs and just general human misery is an acceptable trade off for slightly cheaper cars. – resist

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Is it just me, or does Fields looks like he missed his calling as a lounge singer?

    Lovvvve Booaaatttt.

  • avatar
    Freddie

    How about replace the mandates with a sliding scale tax/rebate based on EPA ratings? Below, say, 30 MPG you pay a tax on the vehicle purchase and above 30 MPG you get a rebate funded by the sub-30 tax revenue.

    • 0 avatar

      @Freddie

      Sounds like a plan. If we can trust the automakers to be honest.

      Whenever large sums of money can be made if a car meets some standard, somehow as if by magic, cars meet the standard.

      I’m not saying automakers would cheat, first we need to discuss what we mean by the word cheat. Then true progress can be made. Not.

  • avatar
    PentastarPride

    I agree that fuel economy and emissions rules are (increasingly) stringent. Auto manufacturers are resorting to anything from cheating (Volkswagen) to dropping and underpowered engines and complex, unreliable technologies (such as DPF) into their cars to make it all work.

    I say that standards from about 2010 are as about as good as it will realistically get without cheating or complicating something as simple as the internal combustion engine. Leave it alone. Let people decide what they want. If they want a V8 truck instead of the wheezing turbocharged V6, that’s their call.

    Did the pro-CAFE people ever stop to think that the “compliant” cars will be filling up the junkyards after a few short years because something complicated and expensive broke out of warranty, or the engine just plain wore out because it has lived its short life pushed to the limit even though it was operated in a “normal” fashion? It is better for the environment to keep a less-than-optimal vehicle on the road (in terms of efficiency) than to recycle it and build a new one that will last less longer.

    • 0 avatar
      mik101

      You’re not seeing the forest for the trees. They want these complex vehicles to be junked when they start losing efficiency/emissions increase. Then you buy a new one sooner than before because that’s what keeps the economy going as well… You do want the latest Tech toys afterall don’t you?
      *Facepalm* I know it sounds terrible to many, but that’s the mentality they are trying to spread.

    • 0 avatar
      N8iveVA

      “underpowered engines”
      “wheezing turbocharged V6”

      Huh? are you missing the horsepower wars? This is a great time if you like horsepower.

  • avatar

    spot on Mr Fields.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    It remains to be seen if the EPA standards are totally eliminated. My guess is that any pending standards will be delayed. I doubt Mr. Fields expects an elimination of EPA but he is negotiating for a delay or a freeze on impending standards. Ford’s EcoBoost, aluminum bodies, and 8 to 10 speed automatics on their trucks is in response to the impending standards but even that will not be enough to meet the final phase in 2025 of these standards.

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    Did Stephen Hawking say when the robots and computers would figure out human beings are incapable of acting for the common good, and exterminate us all?

  • avatar
    stevelovescars

    His “1 million jobs” number fails any basic logic test. Wouldn’t that essentially be almost every OEM job in the country?

    I do agree with one thing, having a standard for fuel economy on producers without any resulting incentive for consumers to choose cheaper cars is self defeating. Today, gas prices are very low partly because we have no comprehensive energy policy in the US. One arm is trying to drill more and cut cost for oil producers while the other wants to push fuel economy standards and alternative energy.

    Some states are even talking about higher registration fees for hybrids and electrics because they aren’t paying their “fair share” of gasoline taxes. It is all just a crazy mess.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      “…higher registration fees for hybrids and electrics because they aren’t paying their “fair share” of gasoline taxes…”

      Because they’ve (crappy politicians) been too wimpy to raise the gas tax to where it should be, they attempt to enact a punitive tax against a small minority of drivers who are trying to make the air cleaner. EV’s aren’t the problem, as far as road revenues go, but I hope they get there, because the country will be a bit better for them.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do believe Fields is correctly stating job numbers, except CAGE isn’t the culprit.

    Is this so called million include Chinese, Mexican, Canadian and other nations that provide parts?

    How many jobs will be lost to robotics and AI?

    How many jobs will be created in EVs and associated tech?

    I do see much bullsh!t in his blaming of CAFE.

    Oh, for your info I don’t support CAFE. There are easier ways to improve FE.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “I do believe Fields is correctly stating job numbers, except CAGE isn’t the culprit.”

      True, ol’ Nic is pretty much relegated to straight to video these days.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    If Fields is negotiating with Trump then he will ask for more than he expects to get. Ask for the CAFE and EPA standards to be eliminated and negotiate for a delay. Fields has agreed not to put a new plant in Mexico and in return he expects some concessions. Trump most likely expects Fields to negotiate with him. This is what Trump has done in his businesses and this is the “Art of the Deal.”

  • avatar
    April S

    Now only if the Lead Lobby can convince Trump millions of jobs are at stake unless they are allowed to put Tetraethyllead back in gasoline.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      That sounds like another thing Scott Pruitt would do just to hear liberals whine.

      Another 20-year crime wave? Oh well. Just the price of those sweet, sweet liberal tears.

      • 0 avatar
        April S

        We’ll see but in the meantime It won’t be long before Trump and his supporters go full Apoplexy when the Dems pull one from the Republican playbook and block indefinitely Trump’s choice for Supreme Court Justice.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          That will never happen and you can thank Harry Reid for invoking the nuclear option…..

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            Not if the Dems filibuster then there will be no vote.

            The Republicans did that and now there will be heck to pay.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’m looking forward to the upcoming insurrection.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            “insurrection”

            “2nd Amendment” crew would win, I’m sure.

            The Rule of the Gun, Trumps the Rule of Law.

            You know how you get that little shot of adrenaline when you make political points that suggest violence?

            Almost addicting, bet the “real thing” is even better.

            resist

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “Not if the Dems filibuster then there will be no vote.

            The Republicans did that and now there will be heck to pay.”

            Wow, you really are clueless. Harry Reid changed the rules when he was in charge. It now takes 51 votes to end a filibuster, the Republicans have 52. AKA the “Nuclear option”

            Do the math.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Speaking of math, did you see how Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have deserted Betsy DeVos?

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “Speaking of math, did you see how Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have deserted Betsy DeVos”

            Totally meaningless. It was brilliant move by Trump, perfect head fake. Nominate someone for a useless position (education is a local issue not a Fed one)watch the left go apoplectic over totally useless cabinet position.

            They can filibuster the Supreme Court pick but he will get voted in by 51 or 52 votes.

            You can send Harry Reid a thank you letter for me.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            “Totally meaningless. It was brilliant move by Trump, perfect head fake. Nominate someone for a useless position (education is a local issue not a Fed one)watch the left go apoplectic over totally useless cabinet position.”

            Wow, you’ve described very well the level of cynicism and disdain that Trump and his crew have for even the positive roles that government has to play.

            Warning: Now Falwell Jr. is going to ruin college education by funneling government aid to religious diploma mills.

            This election was a true disaster for anyone concerned with true freedom. (Freedom from religion, and freedom of thought).

            Non-violent RESISTance is called for.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Translation: this is our price for not moving more production to Mexico.

  • avatar
    WDC Insider

    Do Ford Motor Company executives talk to each other or are they simply hypocrites? Five years ago automakers joined President Obama in increasing new vehicle fuel economy standards from 35 miles per gallon to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by model year 2025. President Obama stated the “historic” 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standard agreement will save consumers “$1.7 trillion at the pump.” (White House 7/29/11)

    Ford Motor Company’s Group Vice President of sustainability, environment and safety engineering, Sue Cischke, supporting the 54.5 miles per gallon fuel economy standard said, “This long-term commitment allows us to invest in technology and everything we need…the new standards will compel car companies to develop more diverse technologies in order to supply more fuel-efficient autos.” (Intl. Bus. Times 7/30/11)

    In addition, Honda’s Executive Vice President John Mendel said the new fuel economy standard is “a huge advantage to the American public.”

    Is Ford Motor Company backing away from the company’s “commitment” with the previous Administration to significantly improve the fuel-efficiency of their vehicles? What is the real value of a Ford Motor Company commitment to the government and the consumer?

  • avatar
    mor2bz

    Poppycock and twaddle. Horsefeathers. Utter nonsense, and complete bullshit. American automakers have whined, stalled, and refused efficiency standards for about as long as I can remember. It is just a game, and they know that government will comprise, delay, or just relent.

    Meanwhile the Japanese ask what emission level and how many do you want?

    We have lip service to electric car and battery development.

    If the feds are so crazy impatient to save the environment and our resources, why in the hell are they not switching gov. fleet and military vehicles to CNG?

  • avatar
    doug-g

    Anyone else think Mark Fields looks like a Vegas lounge singer from the 70’s?

  • avatar

    Let’s see, relaxing CAFE may sound nice on the short term, but it also means that Detroit will no longer feel pressed to compete with regard to technology to make cars more efficient. Ergo, what already is a dreadful export track record will become worse. Detroit will no longer be able to export cars, for the simple reason that they consume too much, which makes them unsalable. And frugal, foreign cars imported to the U.S. will become more expensive. Nicely done, Mr. T.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • BobinPgh: One question that was asked about the Chrysler bailout was: Besides build unreliable gas guzzlers, what has...
  • SqueakyVue: To piggyback off Dan the poverty spec Caviler’s passenger mirror was an “option” all...
  • Arthur Dailey: This is quite upsetting. I keep closing my eyes and trying to remember the interior of the Pucci Mark...
  • Arthur Dailey: Mathew, enjoyed the Tacks reference. There was a period of about 20 consecutive years where every...
  • DenverMike: It’s just a theory. Except suppose they go directly from entry level Fords to entry BMWs? Or entry...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber