AD #2324 – GM Drops Monthly Sales Stats, Scott Pruitt Sets Off a Firestorm, JLR Looks to the USA

April 3rd, 2018 at 11:36am

Runtime: 7:22

0:31 Scott Pruitt Sets Off a Firestorm
0:59 Legal Battle with California Likely
1:24 The Standards Keep Getting Stricter
2:23 Just Move the Goalposts to 2030
3:22 JLR Looks to the USA
4:02 Beware of the Tesla Burst
5:23 Michigan to Make 3D Maps with State Vehicles
6:05 GM Drops Monthly Sales Stats

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems and Lear Corporation.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com

44 Comments to “AD #2324 – GM Drops Monthly Sales Stats, Scott Pruitt Sets Off a Firestorm, JLR Looks to the USA”

  1. Kate McLeod Says:

    Scott Pruitt is a donkey’s ass. I doubt over time his pandering to the oil companies will win out over demand from Americans for clean air and water. I think he should lock himself in that $25,000 phone booth and come out when . . . pretty much never. And if you get one of those production cars coming off Tesla’s speeded- up manufacturing process, good luck with it.

  2. Frederick Schmidt Says:

    Hey Michigan…yea map the roads for changing conditions such as POT HOLES!!!! How about then fix the stinkin pot holes now, not a month from now after drivers have destroyed tires and wheels or before that “pot hole” grows into a sink hole. Here in good old NJ Gloucester county we can go online and report locations for pot holes, nice idea but it takes days or weeks for the repair to be done. Soon they will have the driver pick up some blacktop and repair the hole ourselves. Wouldn’t want the road crews to do something besides leaning on a shovel.

  3. Buzzerd Says:

    @Frederick- and around here the ” fix ” for the potholes is we send a crew out so throw some cold mix in the general direction of the pothole and have you drive over it with your car to compact it, with predictable results.

  4. Buzzerd Says:

    GM- pretty much anytime someone or group, religion, corporation ….tries to limit the information you are getting it’s not for your benefit.

  5. Mark Says:

    John, while you think GM is making a big mistake, you don’t really explain why from GM’s perspective GM will continue to know it’s daily/weekly/monthly sales, they just won’t share it with competitors and the news.

  6. Chuck Grenci Says:

    I agree with GM that monthly reporting can lead to too much speculation on reported numbers (by the automotive news). Quarterly, for reporting to general automotive field should suffice; internally, GM can ponder their monthly numbers and decide if any action would be required between the quarterly reporting’s.

    How’d you like to be one of the Tesla Model 3 recipients that gets the rush-built vehicle (so that Tesla can say they met their 3500 unit goal). Didn’t think so.

    I agree with John’s commentary about backing off (till ’30) on the final goal for current emission/mileage objectives. Even with the goals still escalating up till ’22 there is time to re-assess what and when things need to be implemented. The current standard (the one’s the makers current attain) are pretty darn good. Make a goal (but make it obtainable) without gymnastics and monetary leaps required.

  7. phred Says:

    California is attempting to “hijack” the EPA and the rest of the USA with their “Greenhouse Gas Laws” that are pushed by CARB. CARB is an appointed board that is not a reflection of the California voters but of a very small self proclaimed environmental group. Their agenda is to force electrical cars and public transport on the masses and “Kill” all combustion engines with their regulations. They have tried to outlaw “charcoal lighter” for outdoor grills, lawnmowers, and regulate Cow farts for methane gas emissions.

  8. Frederick Schmidt Says:

    #7 cow farts…how about politician farts…oh wait then they couldn’t talk anymore. #4 I hear ya!!!

  9. Buzzerd Says:

    I remember Jay Leno standing up in front of the crowd at Barrett Jackson selling the first C6ZR1 for charity and saying something like ” 50yrs from now this will be the last greatest corvette, with the 35mpg coming, I don’t know what’s going to happen” ……. it wasn’t was it.

  10. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Trump’s cynical appointment of Scott Pruitt was with one goal in mind, dismantle the EPA. If the car companies don’t want to make different cars for the states using the CA standards, make them all that way. Many cars models already are.

  11. Buzzerd Says:

    check out this link to Forbes for some of the times we tried to predict the future.https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2015/01/05/15-worst-tech-predictions-of-all-time/#32a98c001299

  12. Kit Gerhart Says:

    #11 Interesting list. I remember hearing the Edison comment about AC current years ago. He was a brilliant inventor, but there were things he didn’t know, like the existence of transformers to step voltage up for transmission through small wires, and down at point of use.

  13. Danny Turnpaugh Says:

    #10 sounds like a great socialist idea. Maybe we should force California to secede from the United States to save the rest of us. If the federal standards aren’t good enough for California let the socialist have only electric cars with electric generated by wind power.

  14. BobD Says:

    John, I agree that moving the standards out a few years would be a “common sense” solution. Unfortunately we are not working with a “common sense” administration, nor an EPA leader who even believes in man-made climate change. The agenda is not “common sense” but rather what is best for oil, gas, and coal companies regardless of the health of our citizens and long-term implications to our earth.

    As for different standards for difference states, that actually makes sense (within reason) compared to a one-size fits all as the need for higher regulations in CA is different than what is needed in Iowa or Montana.

  15. Todd T Says:

    Way back when GM was the first automaker to abandon 10-days sales reporting as well. It was deemed the monthly reports were “enough”. For the most part that was fine, since on the domestics and Toyota were reporting 10-day sales. But, to abandon monthly sales reports, something tells me there’s something GM would rather not share with it’s stockholders…IE sales performance.

  16. Frederick Schmidt Says:

    Danny…and Gov Moonbean should have to ride a horse to work. Better yet walk everywhere Moonbeam, horse eats hay and the byproducts cause pollution.

  17. Todd T Says:

    7 CARB has done what the federal government failed to do. Improve fuel efficiency, cut smog producing emissions, and improve air quality so people could; you know go outside, what a concept. Voters have been behind it lock-step and barrel, so don’t fool yourself that it’s some government agency run amok. Where it does get totally stupid, is when you update the intake on a car to something more efficient and clean, it won’t pass the inspector’s approval, because it’s not “factory”. But, all-in-all those who remember the air quality of the 70′s and 80′s are very supportive of CARB. And for those who don’t, go visit Beirut, Beijing or Mexico City sometime and choke on the smog for a few days then come tell us how you feel.

  18. Dan Says:

    The 54.5 fuel economy standard was ridiculous the day it was introduced. Basically these dreamers wanted to double fuel economy in a decade.

    Without using ‘Magic’ or black hole science you would have needed to reduce the size of most vehicles by half and gut the power plant.

  19. Todd T Says:

    13, don’t tempt CA to much to leave. Washington and Oregon would join I’m sure. Heck even NY, MA and IL might join was well. It would be the 4th largest economy in the world and the rest of the USA would fall to number 6 or 7. Yeah, that’s a great idea!

  20. Lisk Says:

    I don’t understand GM why GM is discontinuing monthly sales reporting. It has to be far easier to tally now than it was in 1976. I enjoy watching the ebb and flow of the different manufacturers. Are the following the Tesla pattern? What’s next, report only global sales?

    This is the second time Tesla is touting the burst mode. They can build the equivalent of 50 cars an hour for 15 minutes at a time and Elon claims to the world he can now has the ability to build 50 cars an hour. I agree with Chuck Grenci, I wouldn’t want a rush built Model 3. Does any remember the Lordstown Vega when they were building 110 and hour in the early 70s?

  21. Kit Gerhart Says:

    #18 A CAFE number of 54.5 equates to an EPA combined sticker number of around 40. That’s still high, but the CAFE number is much higher than the sticker.

    #17 Exactly. The air in Shanghai wasn’t so good either, a few years ago when I was there. I’m sure it is getting better, though, as the cars get cleaner, and the two stroke motor bikes disappear.

  22. Lambo2015 Says:

    Carb has proposed ridiculous changes in the past like preventing the sales of black cars in California because they generate more heat and require more ac than light colored cars. They also wanted to require employers to provide covered parking to help cut ac useage. So it’s obvious there is no common sense.

  23. Len Simpson Says:

    Model 3 never should have happened

  24. Chuck Grenci Says:

    Okay, let me get a little ridiculous: how many clean cars does it take to negate or dilute some of Hollywood’s explosion stunts that generate smoke, unburned hydrocarbons, heat and debris. Some are CGI but still many are crafted the old way with good old fashioned explosions and gasoline. Then you’ve got all the burnouts, racing fuels (much dirtier/toxic than a complete burn gasoline). It’s just not that easy to target the auto industry (well, I guess it is, but shouldn’t be because they also shouldn’t be the only pariah in the room). Ranting, yeah; but we need to work together for the best outcome without getting ridiculous.

  25. Bob P Says:

    #19 – what numbers are you looking at? California’s own gross product by state list show the 6 states you mention are only about 1/3 of the US economy. Would things be different if they were gone – yes. But not necessarily worse.
    #17 What started as a good thing has gone way overboard and out of focus. I’m not sure CARB deserves all the credit for air improvement, I don’t think they had much influence on the steel mills in Gary, Lorain and Pittsburg. CARB has been too focused on the automobile with diminishing returns. I won’t criticize their efforts on charcoal grills, lawnmowers, and snowblowers they should get more scrutiny. (I don’t think there is anything worse than the stench from a snow blower on a crisp morning while out shoveling snow, far worse than a F350 plowing. And then there’s the wild fires they keep having in CA, what do those to the air? Yet they seem to have them year after year after year.

  26. Frederick Schmidt Says:

    24 Chuck..Why doesn’t Moonbeam close all racetracks etc in California..he could do it one way or another in his socialist state…oh wait he needs their tax revenue to keep his wallet fat so he can continue to hammer businesses in California. My state NJ is trying very hard to be California East…tax everything and everyone to death so he can support all his pet crap. we just elected a eastern socialist multi-billionaire who could care less what happens to us regular citizens.

  27. Kevin Anderson Says:

    Remember that oil companies have to sell the ENTIRE barrel of crude oil. The oil company I worked for was always short of diesel and mogas and had too much asphalt and bunker C (fuel for freighters/other large boats.) Less demand for diesel and mogas might actually help oil companies! Also, if you want to see a polluting fuel, look at bunker C. Nasty stuff burned in ships with no pollution control.

  28. Bob White Says:

    Reports are out that Tesla only built 8180 model 3′s in the quarter and sales of S and X are down 23%.

    And the stock is up 5.2% ?????

    Can a financial genius out there explain this?

  29. Bob White Says:

    BTW that’s only 511 Model 3′s per week during the quarter. Way, way below expectations.

  30. Wim van Acker Says:

    @27: yes, I can explain that to you. Sales are down 23%: 2 plus 3 is 5, so there is the first part of the 5.2% upswing of the stock price. A Model 3 minus 1 = 2. So, a 5.2% share value increase is logical :-)

  31. Albemarle Says:

    I see the issue of the EPA reducing standards as quitting the responsibility to the rest of the world to carry a fair share of the global warming problem. It’s not about saving rich Americans money on their gas. Sure wealthy countries will be ok. Miami can spend the billions to keep the pink palaces high and dry but what about countries like Bangladesh?
    We are responsible for our fellow humans and this planet. What we do affects people who are less able to take care of themselves. We need to give our heads a shake if we are all tearyeyed about multinational corporations that are able to do what is required, but don’t want to. They need to grow up and serve this planet too.

  32. Buzzerd Says:

    There’s a little know rule that when discussing such things the first person to bring up Hitler losses the argument, we should also include labelling something ” Socialist” or ” liberal”. If you can’t argue the case with out these references you probably don’t have an argument.

  33. Victor West Says:

    California now has a growing economy because it has clean air and a better quality of life.

  34. gary susie Says:

    When i was young i wanted to move to Calif. but went i got there the air was so thick you could cut if with a knife. Now there are alot more cars and the air is so much better. They do not want to go back to the way it was.

  35. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Back in the days of Nixon, improving the environment wasn’t a political thing. A Democratic congress drafted legislation creating the EPA, and Nixon signed it. How far we have fallen, with an EPA administrator whose main goal is to dismantle the agency.

  36. Lambo2015 Says:

    34 I don’t think most people care what party or president started the EPA. And I also believe most people will agree the EPA is needed and has helped improve air quality. I don’t think anyone is trying to dismantle the EPA but trying to make sure a common sense approach is being taken. No one wants to rush into a repeat of 1980. Back when everything was got slapped on emissions equipment and you ended up with a pethetic excuse of a sports car the 1980 corvette with a uninspiring 180 hp which thru it back to a number it hadn’t seen since 1955 with an inline 6.
    They eventually figured it out and now produce emissions passing engines that achieve over 600 hp and close to 24 mpg. So they need to look at it like a proper hp for a small SUV or sedan might be 280 and 380 for a truck. Now what can the manufacturers achieve within those targets can they realistically hit 35 mpg and still get 380 hp? Not just throw numbers at a wall forcing them to build anemic vehicles no one wants. I think that most can agree that 700 hp isn’t necessary and proves they are capable of raising the bar. And I personally don’t care if it’s a republican or democrat but it needs to be done with common sense and realistic achievable goals. It does cost money to raise the bar and R&D isn’t cheap. Just seems an easy target when so many other things pollute the air as bad if not worse. What’s the emissions on the power plants that’s going to generate all this electricity for these evs? Is that a realistic goal or some number thrown out by some environmentalists that haven’t a clue?

  37. Kit Gerhart Says:

    #35. An adequate hp for a small SUV or sedan is 150 or less. That would get to 60 mph in 10 seconds or so. A fully loaded 18 wheeler takes
    more than 10 times as long, and they get down the road quite well.

  38. Sunrack Says:

    California standards can be met. Diesels will simply die and it means that all vehicles will become significantly more expensive. Think prices are high now? Wait and see what happens if the Obama EPA rules stick. And what will that do for this industry and for consumers?

  39. Lambo2015 Says:

    36 you may be fine with 150 hp SUV but that isn’t anything I would buy. Load an SUV up with the 5 or 7 people or try and tow anything and no it’s not sufficient. I don’t want to drive anything that it’s acceleration is compared to an 18 wheeler. On that 2 lane hwy I want something left in the engine to pass after I’m going 55 and not be tapped out. But that’s me

  40. Kit Gerhart Says:

    38 I said that 150 hp is adequate for a SMALL SUV. That would be CX-3, HR-V, etc. No, a Suburban with 150 hp would be slow, but still much quicker than a loaded 18 wheeler.

    Yes, most of us like power, myself included, but I got by fine with a 92 hp Chevy Celebrity wagon, and more recently, a 90 hp Jetta wagon.

  41. Lambo2015 Says:

    Kit I think that is exactly what Suntrack #37 is addressing. What will it do to the automotive industry if they are forced to achieve goals that puts 150 hp in a small SUV? It will be a huge impact as the price is increased and power and performance decreases. Not many people are going to be willing to drop 30 to 40K on a vehicle that is, in your words just “fine”. Which is why the NADA is praising the possible delay. They know they wont have desirable products to sell.
    The crazy part is no one is saying to abandon raising the bar and to continue to improve and certainly not to roll back from where we are. They just want realistic goals that can be achieved without turning vehicles into domesticated people movers with the appeal of something like your 92 hp celebrity wagon. Some people are perfectly fine driving something just fine but many people want something more than that.

  42. Kit Gerhart Says:

    At some point, a lot fewer people will use 5500 pound trucks to do the job of a 3000 pound car. The change may be due to market forces, more than regulations. When the change happens, yes, smaller vehicles will cost more, because the huge profits the mfg’s now make on big trucks and SUV’s will need to be made up for.

  43. Kit Gerhart Says:

    41 My Celebrity wagon was sporty, with bucket seats and a four on the floor. Yeah, it wasn’t fast.

  44. Lambo2015 Says:

    LOL I know Kit I had a bright yellow celebrity too. Not a wagon but probably same powertrain. bench seat so not sporty and was as exciting to drive as a riding lawnmower. Which was fine for a new 16 year old driver but I aspire to drive something a little more appealing these days.