…says the guy whose company makes Hummers, Silverados, Tahoes and the like. So which is it… ? And how does an economy that’s already broken pay for 3 or 4 dollar a gallon gas?

if the unbiased and uninformed read his proposal, it looks great on paper, and seems as like it’s the no other option go ahead plan, however, personally, i don’t believe what he says A, will work, or B, is even true. American learning not to buy suv’s my ass, people buy on emotions, then they think based on sensability. if they want a hummer, but gas prices are high, guess what, no hummer, if they want a hummber, but gas prices are low, guess wat, their buying a hummer

What the hell? I am not going to buy a $30,000 subcompact car. Does he want to turn the US into Europe? Does he realize that the reason people buy $30,000 Golfs in Europe is because they cant afford anything else?! Does he realize that taxes in Europe are unbearable and i dont want to see the US turn into that. Europe is a good place to visit not to live and it should stay like that. If the gvt. starts increasing tax on gas they will soon venture into increasing tax on everything and before you know it we will be using euros.

i agree with him, its better to hav extremly well equiped, and efficient cars, than all those unreliable trucks.

The company that builds some of the most fuel thirsty cars is saying that consumers want efficient cars? I mean holy ****, they KNOW what the market wants, he just said it…and all they do is release SUV after SUV after RWD 20mpg.

Jesus christ almighty, they KNOW WHAT THE MARKET WANTS and still ignore it. Amazing stupidity.

Mr. Lutz will all due respect please go look up YAAFM because you are about to be the topic of an episode if you keep up this thinking. First you think about putting the Chevrolet bowtie on the Corvette now this. Someone needs to commit this fool before he makes GM go the way of the Dodo bird.

-MT

Is it just me, or has he been talking a lot recently?

Lutz is saying that consistantly higher fuel prices would create demand for smaller cars.

Lutz’s point about the $30k golf was that small car doesn’t equal cheap (low margin) car. Europeans want fuel efficent cars (partly because of taxes) but they also want safe well appointed cars. After all if they wanted a cheap pos they could buy chevy’s

Lutz wants the government to ensure high gasoline prices… yet the company he works for (GM) puts out nothing but gas hogs or P.O.S. econoboxes.

Which tells me that ‘Lutz the Putz’ is working to destroy GM, by forcing customers to buy small, quality, fuel-efficient cars.

Cars which GM does not make.

I actually think it’s a good idea. I don’t know if we need $6 gas, but $4-$5 would be a good target. If phased in over 15 years, consumers will have time to adjust their consumption and automakers to prepare their line-ups. The taxes on gasoline will yield good revenues beyond what the government already gets – possibly to put towards environmental research, including more efficient cars and trucks – and the American consumer will consume less. The thing is: if the consumers want SUV’s and good gas mileage, the first person in the auto industry to merge the two well, wins.

As importantly, it will help absorb shocks in the price of gas. A $2 jump in the price of gas in the U.S. in 2 years was a 200% increase. A $2 jump in the price of gas in Europe was a 33% increase. Which do you think is worse for the economy? My guess is that we will be facing future gas spikes more frequently than one every 10-20 years with our geopolitical mess, the growth of China and other nations and the fact that oil exploration is continually getting more expensive. Permanently rising gas prices (beyond market fluctuations) will force Americans to re-evaluate where they live and work and how they get from point A to point B. There is still room for the love affair of driving (going out to the lake house on the weekends, for example), if we make ourselves brutally efficient in other aspects of our lives (less suburban sprawl, more spending on public transport, development of new renewable fuels, etc).

I honestly don’t think this is as bad an idea as you all think it is – and I work with a fleet of trucks that get 12-13 mpgs. I’d love to see there be incentive for real efficiency gains, not just smaller cars, and new alternative fuel sources (oil is limited. period.) If you’re really worried about affordabiliy, we could use the money to set up a better health care system or protect social security or pay down our debt to China or just have the government reinvest it in the form of research, which will spawn hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. I think it’s a good idea – just has to be executed well (read: not by politicians, by economists).

If this ends up killing GM who can’t seem to stop making Hummers… it’s their own darn fault.

Small cars are fine for some but we as Americans deserve vehicles that suit our needs. Raise taxes on fuel but use the money to fund research for alternative energy.

and what captain america, someone that can’t afford a large car doesn’t deserve one?

“deserve ain’t got nothing to do with it” – just lay off the burgers and pop for a while and a smaller car will “suit your needs”

In fairness to GM they do make decent small cars in Europe – Opel Astra for one – just not quite as good as Fords or VWs.

A few things:

1. Americans don’t learn. Once the price of gasoline gets low enough, we will start buying SUVs again.

2. I like the idea of taxing gas in theory. Imagine, less SUVs on the roads, and more moms in statoin wagons. However, in practice, the extra tax from gas will go to pork and barrel projects, not to improving the environment or research into alternative energies.

3. If they do have a tax on gas, then people should have the power to remove it, say every 4 years or something. Did you realize the income tax was suppose to be a temporary tax to raise funds? I don’t want the US to depend on revenue from gas taxes.

4. Why penalize the small car owner with gas taxes? There’s another way to accomplish the same thing, and that is to increase the gas guzzler tax. Tax SUV’s, passenger vans, and mini-vans, don’t tax -as much- things like pickup trucks, and commercial vans. That way moms will pick smaller cars, and small businesses won’t get hurt. They should charge something like 5,000 dollars for every mpg less than an ideal mpg target. So if the ideal mpg is something like 22mpg, and your SUV gets 20, you should pay a penalty of 10k.

You’ve heard of Moms Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) what about Dudes Against Moms in SUVs (DAMNS) Hehehehe…..

This is one of the worst ideas that
I have read this year. A large part of our economy is transportation based. A lot of it by large vehicles. Cheap fuel built this country and without it things could be pretty bad. Think of all the independant contracters and small businesses that would be put out of business if gas was $6. Diesel would probably be $7. Think of all the truckers and trucking companies who then couldn’t afford to run thier trucks. Rampant unemployment, inflation shooting through the roof for the goods that could be delivered. Grocery goods and fresh foods to setting new heights in pricing. People who already live paycheck to paycheck would most likely have to get some kind of goverment assistance, using up most of the tax revenue coming in from Lutz’s plan, so people could eat.

this is one interview lutz should have maybe not given.

Cooper, they could have the gas tax only apply to gasoline and not to diesel used in bulk transport… Of course the consequence is that in europe, half the cars are diesel cuz it’s not taxed as much.

I think we really need to build compact cities where people would want to live before penalizing drivers.

First of all, I am from Europe and I now live in the USA.
If people over there buy 30k Golfs is not because they are motivated by some desire of having a fuel efficient vehicles at all costs. Instead, it’s simply due to the fact that under 30k you don’t find many vehicles you can buy, and this is due to very high taxation.
Also, it’s just so ridiculous to even think that raising taxes on gasoline would do anything to improve life for the average US citizen. Taxes on gas hit everybody in the same way and while this would not impact in any way the life of a millionaire (like Mr. Lutz), it would make living much more difficult for any regular Joe out there, and make it impossible for those that are already struggling to make ends meet these days.
Do you want to raise taxes ? Go knock at the door of millionaires and billionaires, not at the doors of regular and/or poor people, like you’d be doing by raising taxes on gas…
Ridiculous, Mr. Lutz, and quite sad…

Lutz’s a bit late, but he’s right. But it’s his own fault, instead of making the cars you need, he’s been buliding the cars you think you want for decades. In my humble opinion GM hasn’t come up with anything new or innovative for years, just new bumpers and fenders…

Taxing is never easy, and honestly I don’t really like paying an extra tax of 180% on every car I buy or paying a 60% income tax as we do here in Denmark, but I still feel it’s for a common good: Free hospitals, free education, free roads, a clean environment, culture and social security ( aka “flexicurity” ) and mucho more. And hey, we’ve got almost no unimployment, even though gas is down to 1.7 $ pr. litre the last time I looked.

Toy Yoda’s got some good points, so get started while you still have a chance to have some influence and be in charge, and don’t let yourself get run over by the way things develop around you.

Gas is much too cheap, and even though you might not think so, in reality US citizens are buying gas at a far, far too high price when you take in consideration the costs of the Iraqi war and the military presence here and there, pollution, terror and what have you.

I don’t know what Lutz is talking about; if gas fell to $ 1.60 my dad would be the first one to rush out to buy a 400 horsepower SUV.

Jeezus – I never expected such candid-lucid comments from the
‘cars with fins’ man. My only argument with him is giving the money to the Gvmt. This current lot of liars and criminals have added $400+Billon to the national debt in the last year alone. Why whould anyone willingly give money to them?!

j._m

Much as I hate to say it-he’s got a point.

The US has no alternate mass transportation options. So if gasoline hits $6-$8/gallon many would be left stranded.
And if no one wants heavy guzzlers, what is the US to do with these? Dump them in the ocean? No other country would want them with the exception of the Middle East and Venezuela where you pay $0.05/gallon.
I think market should dictate what is produced. People choices determine the planning of future products.

And Bob’s suggestion would not only affect automotive products, but would increase prices on all consumables in an exponential way. I don’t think the entire population should suffer in an effort to reach only ONE goal. I think Bob should retire- wasn’t he offered a retirement window at GM?

I had that thought for a minute, until I asked myself;

“Self, what the hell kind of wasteful programs would they blow that additional 100 billion dollars on?”

Then, I decided it was a bad idea.

Endurancevm: right on! Go Lutz lost his nuts this time. WTF was he thinking?!?

Bob Lutz is wrong. Let the market decide. In fact, government should reppeal the gas taxes and change the system of road maintenance to one of automated tolls. Cheaper gas and a user-fee for roads is the best balance.

Or, if they need to raise revenues, raise the speed limits and let people choose to spend more gas.

Raising the gas taxes? Insane idea. It will not reduce our quantitative demand for gas. The next day, people will still need to drive to work and be screwed. Lutz just wants to force all of us to buy new cars. He also doesn’t seem to care about the re-sale value (anyone looked at GM resale values lately?) of your SUV that his employer built.

Let the market decide what cars people buy. I don’t buy anything that does less than 25mpg on the highway.

Even if this were enacted and people were forced to alter their consumption habits, there’s a key element that’s being forgotten here. A lot of Americans live in suburbia where the infrastructure dicatates that a trip to the store, school, etc. is several miles away from home. In my area, the closest grocery store is about 2-3 miles away, and we don’t have any sidewalks. Yeah, I could walk there & pull a wagon with me to carry the bags back home, but the trip would be a suicide mission because the road I would have to use is heavily traveled and the speed limit is 50 mph. Also, what about in the winter when it’s snowy & icy? Then there’s the issue of no public transportation in my area. This is just one example.

Thank you Bob. Taxing gasoline to European levels will make it so much easier to afford upkeep when I trade my Honda for a V8 engined small car that I’ve been planning on getting. It’s not my fault the rest of the population loves 6mpg SUVs.

Even if gas goes to 5 bucks a gallon I still won’t buy some econobox little car, their slow, their ugly, and they aren’t very exciting to drive. My M3 gets 28mpg on the highway, I am happy with that. I don’t need to get 50 mpg. My Jeep Grand Cherokee get 18mpg on the highway, but I like having 4 wheel drive for winter. I understand that some people don’t need an SUV, but that why we live in America, we have the freedom to make that choice.

Matt: Don’t see the point. You buy an affordable car in the first place and then you keep it untill you can afford to buy a new one. I’ve got three kids and that’s how we do it…

Just like one of the users said: give me a free healthcare and 8 weeks of paid vacations and I can pay $5-6 bucks a gallon (hey, when you want to copy Europe why won’t they start with the good things). First of all public transportation in Europe is like 100 years ahead of the US and second of all distances between places are a lot shorter.

Lutz, why do you want to complicate my life? This article is rediculous

If the government implemented something like what he’s talking about, the American people would riot. Well, I would atleast!

He’s on the right track but I think taxing gas is a bit sensationalistic – a much better way to get people into more efficient cars would be to dramatically increase the tax on fuel consumption – yes, the ‘gas guzzler’ tax. Just put a real whopper of a progressive tax on vehicles that get below 40mpg and you’ll see how quickly people start dropping big SUVs.

That way people who buy efficient cars still get to run them super cheap, meaning that the average person isn’t getting screwed when it comes to meeting their basic transportation needs.

And you could argue that by using less gas collectively (lower demand), US fuel prices might become even cheaper! At any rate, it would make the economy somewhat more robust; i.e. less sensitive to fluctuations in oil prices.

Lutz is a putz. Let’s see if this will stick this time…ready? The oil find in the gulf at 5 miles deep completely destroys the previously held belief that oil is created from dead and decaying dinasaurs and other nastiness of that time. In fact, the find validates a theory that had been tauted for some time, and that theory is that the earth creates oil, like a by product of the mantle mixing and mashing chemicals, pressure and heat. Most fluids below confining bedrock remain there, some are fortunate enough to find breaks in the bedrock and move toward the surface. Up until this point, all oil found has been of the “fortunate” case, finding avenues through the maze of bedrock from the mantle to the surface. Odds are very good the the majority of oil created is not so “fortunate” and remains locked beneath bedrock confining layers. Odds are also very great that through this validation of theory, there is more oil than previously thought, and in order of several magnitudes more. In addition, since the earth creates oil, guess what? Oil is probably our greatest and most abundant NATURAL resource, following closely behind water. Go figure. So why on earth should we do something so ridiculous as penalize our economy by artificially inflating the cost of something that is more abundant than any other resource on the planet that can be used for fuel? Another question that is even more disturbing is, why does a Vice Chairman of a major organization like General Motors not know about the massive sea change in theory and validation that is taking place for a market that directly impacts his own? I guess we now know why Ford and GM are having so much trouble. If the ship is heading for the beach, either stop the motor or turn it about. These guys don’t even SEE the beach!!!

This proposal is on the wrong track, anyone driving a vehicle and supports this garbage has a screw loose.

Peter G: It was a simple senario. Don’t read into too much you might get a headache.

Bottom line, raising the price of a car by 30% would result in complete separation of the rich and poor in US as most buy cars through leases or loans. The poor will be stranded due to lack of public transportations in certain areas. Unemployment rate goes up, you see the pic…

Hi, I’m new here (found this site looking for the new Audi R8).

It’s quite apparent that more than a few folks here have no clue as to how and why oil is formed (”Dodge”), or how we got into the predicament of suburbanization (post World War II) in the first place. My father has worked in the oil, gas, and petrochemicals industry for many years, and also served as a pilot in Vietnam. He supports higher gas taxes that would eventually limit the need for troops in foreign nations militarily. This is good. I too have been trained in this industry, although now I consult for local governments in renewable energy policy and implementation. In addition, we have a farm that grows soybeans (biodiesel) and switchgrass (cellulosic ethanol in the future, perhaps). The way forward in this country is efficiency and new technology, combined with EVERYONE taking an active role in limiting our fossil fuel use.

Many of these comments are extremely narrow-minded while others are highly enlightened. I applaud Mr. Lutz for acknowledging our problem. Oil is finite; don’t let the abiotic cornucopians fool you into believing otherwise. The recent find in GOM isn’t even proven and won’t be online for years, and nothing points to proof it is abiotic in nature. Our current urban and suburban design was predicated on cheap oil obtained when the U.S. was the world’s leading producer. Now, we are not. The game has changed, thus everything else must change with it. We own numerous trucks and tractors and a boat and RV. Price increases would hurt, but a TRUE American patriot wants to see long-term success and sustainability not just so we can keep going with our wasteful, easy motoring lifestyles. Give me the pain now so future generations won’t have to deal with it.

Ironic considering GM relies heavily on its SUV’s and pickups

Dodge, that is the first i have heard of such a thing. I would be interested in learning about this new theory if you could provide a link or a text this was discussed in.

Suthuna, the only people I hear supporting this are the ones who can afford it. And from what you have said, you fall right into that category. Most people do not own RVs. Most people do not own multiple trucks and a boat. I would imagine the statistics regarding boat and RV ownership would closly resemble the percentage of those who make north of $150k. There are many reasons contributing to the fact that other countries are producing more oil than the US. Those countries happen to be 3rd world and rely on that ouput as their main means of economy. Not true here. We also have conservationists on steroids here that 3rd world countries do not have to contend with. Biodiesel and Ethanol do not provide enough energy versus how much is needed to produce a gallon of either. Forcing such a thing on the public is about as rediculous as taxing the hell out of oil consumption. First off, there is no outcry regarding the 60% of a barrel of oil that is being used for plastics production. Refined gasoline accounts for only 18%. The market is now there for inventors and engineers to further refine the internal combustion engine. The size of vehicles will not change. Our suburbanization and infrastructure will not change. What can and will change is the efficiency of engines. The market simply will not support high prices for the sake of independence from hostile nations. The only other possibility is to artificially alter the market to produce results and that simply ends in the collapse of that market. Just look at the collapsing energy markets in areas of the country that have been regulated for so long and now left on their own.

I understand your point and it’s valiant to offer yourself to that type of tax policy. Most complain abot what others should be doing. But most Americans cannot afford such a tax and shouldn’t be forced to. This is all of our problem and we need a solution(s) that will work for all of us.

Matt: Thanks

Well said suthuna.

It’s clear we have to change our ways, if for nothing else national security. We have the ingenuity to build space shuttles, artificial hearts, invisible bombers, etc.etc. We can solve the renewable energy problem.

I’ve always thought that we should do something similar to the Manhattan Project for the issue of energy. Put the best minds together, give them all the money they want, and don’t let them leave till they have the answer.

I’ve always thought that we should do something similar to the Manhattan Project for the issue of energy. Put the best minds together, give them all the money they want, and don’t let them leave till they have the answer.

Oh and I’m okay with gas taxes, as long as the money goes either into the roads or into ways to use less gas.

Amazingly astute and forward looking comments from the leader of a company that has been so wrong for so long…

I would say yes to higher gas taxes and any other efforts to begin to move this country away from it’s complete dependance upon the automobile. As someone else noted, it is virtually impossible to live in the US and NOT own a car. This of course was by design. In the 50’s what was good for GM was good for the country… we all bought into the mobile lifestyle so very easily – now we’re waging wars to feed the excesses of that choice. I want to walk, bike and use mass transit but find that impossible anywhere except in our largest cities. No wonder we’ve got the fattest population on earth…

I wouldn’t mind paying more for gas, if the gas in N.A. was half the quality that they get over in Europe. As it stands right now, we’re paying too much for the **** we get.

Peter G: No problem.

There are way to many people out there (even in this forum) who are to willing to pay higher taxes. Are you people nuts????? Fine you can pay for mine! Freaks!!!

Thanks Matt … you said it. I don’t care if these tax-happy people put their money where their mouths are … I care because they want to put MY money where their mouths are.
.
If it were as easy as people think, the market would make the investment and reap HUGE rewards. Apparently it’s not because these Bimmers out there really dont get a whole lot better mileage than my F150.

we dont know what actuly he sed for real he could have just been messin around an some news jurnalist writes somthing that can get everybody buthert!! so what im tying to say is dont intirley beleave what u read on the intornet!!

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And ya’ll should be out buying Hummers and GMT900 SUV’s.

Lutz is a genius.

I’ve been shopping for a new truck and was torn between the F-250 and Silverado HD. Thanks, Mr. Lutz, you made that choice an easy one! I’ll be down at the Ford dealer this afternoon.