It's official: Congress passes 35 mpg CAFE standard

[NewYorkDoc]

It's official: Congress passes 35 mpg CAFE standard (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/18/its-official-congress-passes-35-mpg-cafe-standard/)

Posted Dec 18th 2007 2:24PM by Sebastian Blanco (http://www.autobloggreen.com/bloggers/sebastian-blanco/)
Filed under: Ethanol (http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/ethanol/), MPG (http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/mpg/), Legislation and Policy (http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/legislation-and-policy/), Green Daily (http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/green-daily/), USA (http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/usa/)

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2007/12/congressbuilding.jpg

This afternoon, the energy bill that requires 35 mpg by 2020 CAFE handily passed Congress. After passing in the Senate last week (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/13/breaking-35-mpg-it-is-senate-passes-energy-bill-back-to-the-h/), the first increase in average fleet fuel economy in 32 years sailed through the House of Representatives 314-100. The auto industry's best friend in Congress, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., "was key to a compromise on vehicle efficiency increases," as the AP put it. As we mentioned (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/13/breaking-35-mpg-it-is-senate-passes-energy-bill-back-to-the-h/), part of that compromise meant stripping out tax provisions for renewable energy requirements and the elimination of new incentives for plug-in hybrid vehicles. Oil companies were also spared higher taxes. President Bush has said he will sign the bill.

The new CAFE standard is part of a broad energy bill and includes a massive boost to ethanol producers. As the AP reports (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy;_ylt=ApLUXmuY.06H23c0Tcqnt7Ss0NUE) :

In a dramatic shift to spur increased demand for nonfossil fuels, the bill also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a boon to farmers. And it requires new energy efficiency standards for an array of appliances, lighting and commercial and government buildings.

With the negotiations over, the auto industry now needs to get all of their wonderful concepts out of the auto shows and onto the roads. Thirteen years should be plenty of time, even in the notoriously slow auto industry. They'll need to work hard, based on the number of cars we can buy today that will offer 35 mpg - not many (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/18/what-cars-can-we-get-today-with-35-mpg/).

[NewYorkDoc]

House Passes Energy Bill, Sending It to President

By JOHN M. BRODER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: December 18, 2007

WASHINGTON — Legislation that will slowly but fundamentally change the cars Americans drive, the fuel they burn, the way they light their homes and the price they pay for food cleared the House on Tuesday by a large margin. President Bush said he would sign the hard-fought energy bill on Wednesday.

The bill, which passed on a bipartisan vote of 314 to 100, sets higher fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks by law for the first time in 32 years and requires the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, a nearly fivefold increase from current ethanol production levels.

The measure, known as the Energy Independence and Security Act, also establishes new efficiency requirements for household appliances and government buildings and aims to phase out the incandescent light bulb within 10 years.

Its passage marks one of the largest single steps on energy that the nation has taken since the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970’s. But its full costs will not be known for years. Critics contend it will make cars and trucks less safe and more expensive, divert farmland to costly production of feedstock for ethanol and other synthetic fuels, and raise the price of food because of competition for corn and grain between fuel refiners and livestock growers.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of California, described the bill as groundbreaking because it would reduce oil imports, cuts production of the gases that scientists blame for global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and significantly increase the efficiency of the nation’s auto fleet.

“You are present at a moment of change, of real change,” she told her House colleagues before the vote was taken.

Ms. Pelosi and other supporters of the bill expressed disappointment that it did not include a requirement that utilities produce a growing share of electric power from renewable sources and was stripped of a package of subsidies for wind, solar, geothermal and other alternative energy sources that would have been paid for by higher taxes on oil companies.

“It could have been stronger,” said Senator Barbara Boxer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/barbara_boxer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of California. “It’s really unfortunate that we didn’t have the renewable electricity standard or the incentives for wind and solar. But we’ll fight for those another day.”

[Ninjahedge]

Good that it has been passed, but I wonder if SUV's are included.

Also, it is a shame that certain incentives for hybrids have been removed. I think this is a step in the right direction, but definitely a lot smaller than we could have taken with minimal reprocussions.

[MikeW]

I think they are.


Good that it has been passed, but I wonder if SUV's are included.

Also, it is a shame that certain incentives for hybrids have been removed. I think this is a step in the right direction, but definitely a lot smaller than we could have taken with minimal reprocussions.

[Bob]

Thumbs down on this one. Congress should have repealed CAFE, an unnecessary intrusion into the free market.

Not everyone wants to drive a Prius.

[RandySavage]

They also should repeal the Clean Water/Air Acts... an unnecessary intrusion into the free market.

Not everyone wants their kids to be healthy.

[MidtownGuy]

What free market, Bob? In relation to oil and energy consumption, there is no free market.

The free market is just a myth, like a unicorn. It just doesn't exist. Especially considering all of the corporate welfare and subsidies in this country.
It works both ways Bob.

[MikeW]

That is patently, unquestionable, absurdly false.

I was around during the early 70's oil shock. The market worked fine. OPEC decided it would screw with us. At first it worked. Everyone was driving behemoth land yacht cars (think full size SUVs but not as tall). People were stuck with them, but started driving less. Eventually, the weird little cars from our old enemy, Japan, started looking interesting, and people started buying them in large number. Everyone was insulting their houses. In short, the people started conserving, and you know what happened? It worked. By the 70s, early 80s timeframe, the drop in demand caused oil prices to collapse. At the height of the oil crunch they had hit in excess of $1.50 a gallon (quite a bit back then, considering they were down under $0.50 a gallon before the Arabs got frisky), by the mid-80's by which time I was driving, and buying gas, prices were back down well under a buck.

There are two lessons out of this. First, the market works. I works well, it just takes time for the prices to sink in, and for people to make arrangements to deal with it (like replace their cars with more fuel efficient ones). Second, we really don't need new technology to deal with this. Everything we need to cut automotive fuel consumption was in the '79 Honda Civic. Between modern gas engines and diesels, we could easily cut fuel consumption in half, people justneed to get their heads around the concept fo smaller vehicles.


What free market, Bob? In relation to oil and energy consumption, there is no free market.

The free market is just a myth, like a unicorn. It just doesn't exist. Especially considering all of the corporate welfare and subsidies in this country.
It works both ways Bob.

[BrooklynRider]

Go to Europe and see all the Smart cars. They are properly named.

[MikeW]

If you want one, they're coming here.

Personally, a Mini is about as small as I'd go.

[Ninjahedge]

Thumbs down on this one. Congress should have repealed CAFE, an unnecessary intrusion into the free market.

Not everyone wants to drive a Prius.

Um.... yeah.

1. There is no restriction to horsepower. You can still egt a 35 MPG car to get more than 200 HP, you just have to engineer it better. So your "prius" comparison is ill-suited.

2. We are SO good with resources that we should not have any restrictions on milage, pollution or anything else that companies try to take the most of as quickly as possible w/o regard to what would happen in the future or to others.

Come on Bob! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "free market" and you know it!

[Ninjahedge]

Mike.

For starters, a nation controlling an asset is not "free market". It is actually the antithesis of free market. THEY control the market. Our dependence on this resource has made it so that if a guy like Chavez decides to up the price to, what is it $100 a barrel?, that we stop buying SUV's (sales for the larger ones have been down the past few years. FORD is suffering a lot).

That is not free. That is a reaction driven industry based on someone elses choice of management of a limited resource.

You make it mandatory for cars to get better milage and you ease this control. You might even say it gives people more of a choice of what they want since everything is on teh same playing field. You want a truck? Fine! It is not going to cost you $2000 more a year because OPEC decided to reduce oil shipments to the West.

Second, "people started buying small cars from our old enemy"?

WT@ is that? WWII had VERY LITTLE to do with people's opinions of what was coming over. The fact that they were little plastic vehicles had more to do with what people thought of them. The oil embargo was enough to allow Japan to sell cars to a previously American dominated market to the point where their industrial base stripped that title away from us.

GJ!!!

So in this whole "free market" we can have a third party institute a policy that makes an industrial base shift out of the US and go to another country. That is not exatly "free". I don't remember having any say in it.

[MikeW]

Ninja,

You miss the point entirely. OPEC tried to corner the market on oil, and drive up the price, to their benefit. In the end, the market reasserted itself, through reduced demand, and, eventually, that attempt blew up in their face.

[Ninjahedge]

Ninja,

You miss the point entirely. OPEC tried to corner the market on oil, and drive up the price, to their benefit. In the end, the market reasserted itself, through reduced demand, and, eventually, that attempt blew up in their face.

No, you missed my point.

That no market is truly free when it relies on others for its own operation.

This is not a case of which MP3 player is the best, or whether you like McD's over BK. This is not what apparel you are wearing. So the free market model, and argument, oes not fit well to the car milage standards.

You can argue that certain things should not be imposed on the industry, but your choice of supporting material does not fit what you are trying to defend.

I am a bit of a nit-picker that way! ;)

[eddhead]

@ Mike W.

Remember, OPEC is by definition a cartel. The fact that the supply of a commodity and as a result its price is controlled by a loose affiliation of partners who function more as partners than competitors undermines the presumption of a free market which is based on competition, and access.

The same can be said of Big Oil companies whose standard operating practices include partnering on the build out of delivery infrastucture sush as pipelines. These partnerships undermine the basic principle of the "free market"

And don't get me started on refineries.

[pricedout]

Guess who's one of the ethanol industry's best friends? Jeb Bush. I have no problems with minimum fuel efficiency standards for cars, but the ethanol issue is not so cut and dried. Bloomberg Markets had an article recently on the working conditions for cane cutters that made me want to take a closer look at the investments my international funds were making. I've also read a lot of conflicting information on the overall efficiency of using corn and sugar-based ethanol. One report indicated that it takes more energy to produce the end fuel product than it produces.

Not everyone wants to drive a Prius, but they are a very good fuel-saving option (not to mention those pesky environmental issues).

[MikeW]

^
Sugar cane works well. Corn, not so much. It has to be broken down to sugar before it can be fermented/distilled.

[pricedout]

Isn't most of the US-based ethanol production from corn? I know most of the ethanol derived from sugar comes from Brazil (those really nasty working conditions I referred to in my last post), but I thought the US had been investing more heavily in the Midwest farm products.

[RandySavage]

I believe the vast majority of US biofuel is ethanol from corn. The corn-ethanol piece of the energy bill, to me, seems like pure pork-barrel legislation by the Cornbelt congressmen (as well as a bit of green-wash). Under current technologies, it takes about as much fossil fuel to produce corn-ethanol as is saved. Sugar cane has a somewhat better efficiency. Greater promise lies in switchgrass (cellulose) and algae.

[MikeW]

Someone needs to genetically engineer a non-tropical sugar cane.

[Ninjahedge]

Nah, someone just has to make a solar powered Ethanol plant!

Think od it as converting sunshine into a storable commodity/energy source.

[NewYorkDoc]

EPA says no to California greenhouse gas rules waiver (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/19/epa-says-no-to-california-greenhouse-gas-rules-waiver/)

Posted Dec 19th 2007 8:44PM by Sam Abuelsamid (http://www.autobloggreen.com/bloggers/sam-abuelsamid/)
Filed under: MPG (http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/mpg/), Legislation and Policy (http://www.autobloggreen.com/category/legislation-and-policy/)

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2007/12/stephen-johnson-us-epa-bg.jpg (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/19/BA55U1JD6.DTL)

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson today announced the agency was rejecting California's application for a waiver that would allow the state to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. California and seventeen other states had wanted to impose rules that would limit CO2 emissions. The rules would have effectively raised fuel efficiency requirements since CO2 emissions are directly related to fuel burned.

Johnson used the energy bill that was signed into law by the President today as part of the rationale for the decision. Since the new fuel economy regulations apply to all fifty states denying the waiver would avoid having multiple state level regulations that would make life more difficult for carmakers. Immediately following the announcement California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would sue the EPA at the earliest possible time to overturn the decision.

[Ninjahedge]

How can the EPA forbid the state to regulate that?

If anything, the EPA should be able to set national MINIMUMS. Each state should be allowed to add whatever it wants on top of it.

Federal mandate again. This really needs to be stopped.

[MikeW]

^
Actually, no. We really need to set a single national standard. What happens when each state sets its own? Companies are going to have to make cars (or other stuff besides cars) to cater to each state? That's ludicris. If anything, the authority that California was granted to set it's own pollution standards should be revoked.

[eddhead]

I am kind of surprised to see you take that position.. all along, i took you for a 'states rights' and small federal govt kind of guy.. live and learn.

[eddhead]

I believe the vast majority of US biofuel is ethanol from corn. The corn-ethanol piece of the energy bill, to me, seems like pure pork-barrel legislation by the Cornbelt congressmen (as well as a bit of green-wash). Under current technologies, it takes about as much fossil fuel to produce corn-ethanol as is saved. Sugar cane has a somewhat better efficiency. Greater promise lies in switchgrass (cellulose) and algae.

aaahhh but we would have to import sugar cane from south america.. and where's the fun in that??

Much better to line to pockets of the farm lobby... how else do can you expect to carry the iowa caucus??

You see, there is the "issue" and the "ISSUE" (meaning the politics) and never the twain shall meet.

[Ninjahedge]

^
Actually, no. We really need to set a single national standard. What happens when each state sets its own? Companies are going to have to make cars (or other stuff besides cars) to cater to each state? That's ludicris. If anything, the authority that California was granted to set it's own pollution standards should be revoked.

1st, Ludicrous. Ludicris is a singer, I think... ;)

Second, car makers wouldn't have to do jack. IF they wanted to sell a car in Cali, have it registered there, they would have to make consessions.

You would have to limit the restrictions to ones that are common, like emmissions and milage, but if a state wants 100mpg, let them do it. Their "free market" will start to pressure their politicians to reduce restrictions to where they are tolerable.

The thing that gets me though is that states should be able to call what they want for their state. It is not saying that trans-state vehicles have to do this, they are not harming american interests as much as your statements seem to imply (where do you think most of the Auto industries $$s are going? It ain't Detroit anymore!!!).

We, as a nation, were not set up so the feds could control everything. If they are concerned about national interests, so be it, but they should back off when it comes to almost anything else.

[Bob]

The so-called "federal government" has its hands in way too many things. As it stands right now, I can't buy a toilet that flushes properly, and heaven forbid if I even TRY to buy lawn darts. Quick! Call out the state police! Bob bought some lawn darts at a tag sale!

As for the CAFE standard, I have thought about that a bit more. Let's see...the current standard is 27.5 mpg, ok. The new standard bumps this to 35 mpg by 2020. That's 13 years, and that seems somewhat reasonable. Technology alone should be able to make much of this within reason. In fact, I suspect the automakers met privately with many of the key decision-makers and told them what could be done and by what time. So even though I would prefer there be no CAFE rule, it is what it is. And I'm hoping it's not all that bad. Look -- it's not that I oppose higher fuel economy. I simply oppose further meddling in the auto industry by Uncle Sam, the same well-loved but occasional knucklehead who brought us the 5 MPH bumper.

[Bob]

Come to think of it, I am pretty upset about not being able to buy lawn darts in the U.S. Fortunately I saw the future many years ago and scarfed up at least six complete sets of them.

Hey! It's a free country!

[Ninjahedge]

Come to think of it, I am pretty upset about not being able to buy lawn darts in the U.S. Fortunately I saw the future many years ago and scarfed up at least six complete sets of them.

Hey! It's a free country!

You bought Lawn Darts living in Arizona? :rolleyes:

[lofter1]

Re: LAWN Darts

Damned good for you lawn-loving desert-dwelling sodders that it's a free country, :cool:

Just remember: The water isn't free -- or necessarily abundant. That's what made it a desert.

[Bob]

Off topic, but the lawn darts are still at my house in New York. Of no use in Arizona, as the ground is essentially concrete!

Back on topic: anybody here think the President will push the 35 mpg standard ever higher?

[Ninjahedge]

I hope so, but before that, he needs to remove SUV's from the "truck" category.

They are, by no means, "work vehicles" (unless you are a politician or a pimp....or both).

[Bob]

How high would you push the standard? 45? 60? 100? (Serious question.)

[Fabrizio]

Mileage standards (and testing methods) should be the same for all countries... after all, the product is global.

Europe currently requires a 40 mpg average and it will go up to nearly 50 in the coming years.... and the US should do the same.

But nothing like that will happen in the US unless gas prices are taxed heavily and kept artificially high as they are in Europe.

[Ninjahedge]

How high would you push the standard? 45? 60? 100? (Serious question.)

It really depends on the efficiency possible.

I would not want a 200 MPG vehicle that gets only 40HP. It would be like driving a golf cart.

But if they can get me 200HP (instead of 300) at 40MPG, I would say 40MPG (etc etc).

Again, they need to get rid of certain standard exceptions hey made for things that are being used inappropriately.

A Hummer is not a work vehicle, or at least the commercial version of it isn't. Allowing that 9 mpg boehemoth on the road was the pinnacle of our bloated capitalistic arrogance. The ONLY thing it ver said was "I have money to throw away, AND I want to use it to make me a tough guy".

Horrible.




As for gas tax?That is a tough one. I do not thnig we need to do like Europe to encourage higher CAFE standards, but it would help.

And we also need to get rid of that 9/10¢ thing. It mattered when gas was 20¢ a gallon, but now it is just pointless.

[Fabrizio]

"I have money to throw away, AND I want to use it to make me a tough guy".

Horrible.

Who cares?

And what is the psychology behind buying a Rolls, a Maybach or a Ferrari?

[Ninjahedge]

Who cares?

Not enough.


And what is the psychology behind buying a Rolls, a Maybach or a Ferrari?

F' you all, I have money.

[Fabrizio]

So?

[ZippyTheChimp]

In the big picture, a Hummer (or a Farrari) has zero impact.

Hummers account for 1% of GM sales.

[Fabrizio]

GM had a wonderful opportunity with the Hummer. It could have been developed into becoming GM's Jeep-like brand. Like "Jeep", the name Hummer (Humvee) is legendary... it has real history and recognition connected to it. And it is known globally.

A limited production over-the-top H1.... well, why not? But it should have been introduced together with the smaller H3 and then followed with even smaller models. GM could have built a very cool brand. But they kept with the big monster Hummer as the only offering for too long really killing the name's appeal.

[Ninjahedge]

Because the H3 defeated the purpose. It was not a true HumVee adaptation anymore. If I remember right it was just a truck chassis and engine with a hummer body put on it for show.

This lost the enthusiasts that liked the original vehicle and pretty much turned it into just another gas guzzling SUV.

I believe some of the commercials even showed an almost suburban mommy looking driver in them....


As for "So", they are SO over teh top that really great things could be done with that amount of cash. It is PURE excess. Absolutely no need for its power or ability (or, in the case of Rolls, opulent decadence). I am not going to go into "you could feed XXX kids with the money blah blah" but it gets to be more than a bit sobering when you look at some of the higher priced models and realize thata small school could be built for teh same price.

I have no problem with quality or durability or workmanship, the line for me is drawn where you spend the extra cash to put Gold Wings on your Italian Loafers.

Or Gold leaf on your Bagel, for that matter!
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/445507/new_yorks_best_restaurants_for_luxury.html?cat=22

Range Rover has been dancing that line for so long now it is rediculous. I always laugh at the idea of 95% of their client base EVER having to do more offroading than parking on an unpaved driveway.

I respect the engineering and the craftsmanship, but not commercial product itself.....

Just like Art, I think it is stunning and though provoking to look at and to share, but somehow OWNING the more remarkable works seems.....off.

[Fabrizio]

The preaching and morality is tedious.

For plenty of people in the world, your life-style is ridiculously wasteful too.

Do you really need that much space? That much food? That much heating and airconditioning ? That much of everything?

------

There has always been a Rolls.

And the domesticated Jeep has been around since the 1960's. Marketed to houswives: "Jeep" ... a WWII Army vehicle, marketed to housewives?

You don't seem to get my point at all about the Hummer. It was a great opportunity to do with Hummer as as other were to do with Jeep.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/G0_Jeep-Ad.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/broch29.jpg

[Ninjahedge]

The preaching and morality is tedious.

For plenty of people in the world, your life-style is ridiculously wasteful too.

Are you trying to split hairs?

You are saying that spending $250K on a vehicle that does nothing more than entertain you (serves no real purpose) can be compared to a 15 year old Mazda I have had as my one and only car since College and my commute to work?

You really are barking up the wrong elephant there Fab....


Do you really need that much space? That much food? That much heating and airconditioning ? That much of everything?

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

I get mad at wasted leftovers, I turn the heat down in the house to below what most people find comfortable, and if there is no AC, I cannot sleep, work efficiently when I come in, and earn money/design buildings that others want designed.

Woof woof?



There has always been a Rolls.

Never said there wasn't. There were also regal horse and carriage, it does not mean that something that has been around for a while validates its very existance because of its age.


And the domesticated Jeep has been around since the 1960's. Marketed to houswives: "Jeep" ... a WWII Army vehicle, marketed to housewives?

They tried to market it to the weak segment. Guys wanted jeeps, women were the ones that probably kept the guys from buying them.

How many women do you know that hook up the boat to the trailer to go fishing as implied in that "fun" ad you showed there?

And they crapped up the Jeep with their 4 cylinder and other design changes. It is not the rugged little vehicle that could get you to where you wanted to go even after its floorboards rusted through (yes, a friend had a jeep with holes in the floor.... Fine, unless it rained....)


You don't seem to get my point at all about the Hummer. It was a great opportunity to do with Hummer as as other were to do with Jeep.

I think I know what you are saying, but the Hummer was one step further. It was ENORMOUS. And taking a vehicle and divorcing it so completely from its original intent makes it difficult to continmue to support or validate.

The Jeep I knew was the knockabout. It was the one that was relatively small, inexpensive to buy and upkeep. It was the used vehicle of choice to many who wanted more than an old datsun or pinto.

Marketing and redesign cheapened the vehicle and made it less durable, and they changed who they were aiming it at. It turned the same way the artist colony turns into cheap Yuppie Condos. V6-$ cylinder, colors like Turquoise come out, and commercials show bubbleheads on their way to the beach.

You saying that doing the same for Hummer would have saved it, but Jeep is dying. One of the main reasons I hear now is just because they suck. No matter how much "fun" you paint it with, a car can only keep a reputation for so long.....


But whatever. It does not matter. I don't think I will change your opinion on this, and when I think about it... it really does not matter...... :I

[Fabrizio]

Up In The Sky, It's A Bird, It's A Plane, Nooooo, It's Another Post Going Completely Over the Head of Ninjahedge!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Hint: The point is brand-recognition. A name was taken, and transformed into a new genre. Every SUV made today anywhere in the world points directly to Willys-Jeep.

[kz1000ps]

But they kept with the big monster Hummer as the only offering for too long really killing the name's appeal.

Huh? Sticking with the big old H1 for too long did them in? Seems to me Hummer had its greatest success when it released the H2 back in late 2002.

[Fabrizio]

It was a different world in 2002. Again I repeat: "they kept with the big monster Hummer as the only offering for too long really killing the name's appeal."

---

As Ninjahedge calls jeep a dying brand, February Wrangler sales are up 28% over 2008. Apart from the new Challenger, Jeep is the only bright spot in Chrysler corp sales.

An interesting article from Ward's Auto :

Jeep Brand as Intrepid as Its Vehicles
By Eric Mayne
WardsAuto.com, Sep 10, 2008 9:44 AM

In an economic climate where SUV has become a 4-letter word, what does an auto maker do with a brand solely comprised of utility vehicles? If you are General Motors Corp., you put Hummer up for sale. And if you are Tata Motors Ltd.’s Land Rover, you thumb your nose at volatile pump prices by repositioning the marque as an elite luxury brand. As for Jeep, analysts recommend little or no change. “Jeep is secure just because it’s Jeep,” says Alexander Edwards, president of Strategic Vision Inc.

Regular-grade gasoline prices peaked in July at $4.11 per gallon, nearly 50% above year-ago levels, according the American Automobile Assn., and sucked the life from the once-thriving SUV segment. Jeep deliveries fell also, but at a lesser rate, 24%, than SUV sales. The brand recorded 247,717 sales through the year’s first eight months, compared with 326,209 in like-2007.

Observers credit Jeep’s strong brand image for its resilience. And while Chrysler LLC executives are eager to highlight Jeep’s substance, they concede the brand benefits from a unique style. “It’s a really tribal brand,” says Deborah Meyer, vice president and chief marketing officer. “People become part of a club. You drive your Wrangler and (other Jeep drivers) wave at you. You wave at other Jeeps. You have that whole sense of community.” This affinity even has spawned a $500 million cottage industry around branded consumer products, from T-shirts to toys. In the fourth quarter, marketers expect to sell their 2-millionth Jeep-emblazoned baby stroller.

“Think about where branding’s going today,” Meyer tells Ward’s in a recent interview. “People, when they choose brands, a lot of times, bring it into their lives, because it’s part of who they are. We see it as a big trend, and we think it’s going to continue.” Says Edwards, whose California-based consultancy studies consumer buying patterns and brand loyalty: “Jeep is not your soccer-mom SUV, even though it’s used as a soccer-mom SUV.”

He contends Jeep’s bold message, derived from its military heritage as a battlefield workhorse, is best defined by a special-edition Wrangler released in 2003. Featuring an appearance package that suggested toughness, the limited-run model celebrated video-game heroine Lara Croft, who was portrayed that year in an action film starring Angelina Jolie.

Compass sales in 2008 lag last year’s levels by 24.7%, according to Ward’s. However, Patriot deliveries, which totaled 44,154 through August, are more than double the Compass tally and represent an 89% jump compared with the first eight months of its launch year. “The hard-core Jeepers will probably never accept those products,” Plecha says in a recent interview. “But that’s OK as long as we give them great products like (the) Wrangler.” In addition, Ralph Gilles, who became vice president-design Sept. 1 following the retirement of Trevor Creed, tells Ward’s he envisions a Jeep-brand pickup inspired by the JT concept truck Chrysler unveiled last year. “Jeep will be all right in the end,” Peterson says, partly because of the brand’s cache.
Says Meyer: “Consumers are at a much higher level of brand sophistication or brand savvy than they were when I started in marketing 20 years ago. So, when they choose a brand, it is something that they take on as part of their lifestyle.”
The phenomenon can be explained, in part, through the theory of “conspicuous consumption” put forward by 19th century sociologist and economist Thorsten Veblen, according to Canadian academic Vicky Paraschak. Conspicuous consumption is the act of acquiring over-the-top possessions, and being seen to acquire them. Combine this with the fundamental human need for socialization and you have a snapshot of the Jeep experience, suggests Parashak, a sociology instructor at Ontario-based University of Windsor. “You crave belonging, a sense of self-esteem through being valued by the group,” she says. “(Jeep owners) find a community they can belong to that lines up with the values that they ascribe to themselves.”

http://wardsauto.com/ar/jeep_cachet_intrepid_080910/

-----

As I was saying: GM messed up a great oppurtunity with the Hummer brand.

--

[Ninjahedge]

Up In The Sky, It's A Bird, It's A Plane, Nooooo, It's Another Post Going Completely Over the Head of Ninjahedge!

You are so funny I forgot to hit you.

[Ninjahedge]

Hint: The point is brand-recognition. A name was taken, and transformed into a new genre. Every SUV made today anywhere in the world points directly to Willys-Jeep.

Clue: I know this.

[Fabrizio]

Funny, I just walked out the door and there's a Hummer parked out front (it's 8 in the evening here):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/hummer.jpg

[Ninjahedge]

Things that make you go...........


BTW, it always freaks me when stuff like that happens.

Recent examples:
The trailer for the Watchmen is playing in the background. It gets to the part where Moloch is looking in thr fridge and sees the "look behind you" note. I look down and that is the exact part I am reading in the book at the moment, to the page.

One of our co-workers was talking about properties and he mentioned Edgewater (NJ). The next morning, th eone town they mention on the "Hyper Local" forcast is, of all places, Edgewater.



...Hmmmmmmmm.