By
Bengt Halvorson
Bengt Halvorson
Deputy Editor
BIO
Bengt Halvorson is Deputy Editor of High Gear Media's portfolio of car sites, overseeing the production of reviews, evaluating vehicles firsthand...
More
LATEST ARTICLE
2013 Honda Accord V6 Touring: Driven
The Honda Accord is now in its ninth generation, and as we reported in our First Drive of the 2013...
Read More
- #2LEADERBOARD RANK
- 2657ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED
- 108COMMENTS POSTED

Legendary HEMI not part of Chrysler’s future powertrains
Enlarge Photo
We’ve been here before. The government mandates more fuel-efficient vehicles across the board, yet the American public continues to gravitate toward what’s big and powerful.
Barring this era of greater responsibility and restraint, which might pass like a fleeting fancy with the recession, why not pick the bigger or more powerful car, we say?
A lot of things are different this time around, though. Perhaps most remarkably, quite a few executives of automakers and major auto-supplier companies are voicing out in favor of higher fuel taxes—of more rigorous regulation of what types of vehicles can be built and sold—as a way of reducing our consumption.
At the Reuters Auto Summit in Detroit, executives said that $4-a-gallon gas would have more of an affect on national fuel usage than the $25 billion Energy Department loan program approved by Congress earlier this year.
"We've got to continue to raise taxes in the United States so that, by the end of the next decade, gas is about $8 a gallon in today's terms," said Dura Automotive CEO Tim Leuliette, according to Reuters. Leuliette called the U.S. auto market “an artificial environment.”
Executives are suggesting a gradually rising fuel tax—more specifically, one that’s ‘floating,’ meaning that it would help moderate sharp price swings brought about by refinery issues, or politics.
Naysayers will likely insist that this will destroy the American lifestyle, but at the same time the American lifestyle often involves ridiculously long, time-consuming commutes that might be financially impractical nearly anywhere else in the world.
Clearly in brainstorm mode, the execs included some ideas clearly not quite ready for public consumption. Jerry York, the longtime advisor to billionaire auto-industry investor Kirk Kerkorian (and former GM board member), advocated some sort of subsidy system, like food stamps, to help low-income Americans get past the blow of the higher taxes.
Without it, the tougher fuel economy regulations—ramping up to a federally mandated 35.5-mpg fleet average by 2016—are going to be a bitter pill to swallow. Among the most fuel-efficient models for 2010, the Toyota Prius still reigns king, at 50 mpg (51/48 mpg city/highway); only the 2010 Honda Insight and Civic Hybrid manage to pass 40 mpg with their EPA Combined numbers. And that's hardly enough to displace the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of much lower-mileage trucks and performance vehicles that the public will still crave.

The final figure comes after a $7,500 federal rebate
Enlarge Photo
There’s already evidence that the restraint is fleeting, with more shoppers looking back longingly to larger and less-efficient vehicles. Will shoppers want to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles—like GM’s upcoming Chevy Volt—in large enough numbers to make a difference and offset the continued production of large trucks? Perhaps only if gas prices are higher.
Of course, the executives and investors are looking for profitability, not popularity, and a way to limit future regulation on products. And there is one little obstacle: getting the American public to think that this is a good idea. Until then, it’s political suicide.
Let us know what you think. Is a higher federal gas tax a good idea? Where should the money go? Do you have a better solution? Comment below, or better yet write for us.
[Reuters]
Have an opinion?
LarryH Posted: 11/4/2009 7:20pm PST
Matthew Posted: 11/4/2009 8:49pm PST
It's no question though that higher taxes will spur greater interest in more efficient cars (i.e. the Volt and LEAF), but not everyone can afford one of those, or would even want one.
Oh yeah, and I'm glad Jerry and Kirk (billionaires) suggest "food stamps" for people who can't afford the blow of higher taxes. Good job... another reason to stay at the bottom and sponge off of the government and other good-minded folks. I'm glad these people are in charge.
Nathaniel Posted: 11/5/2009 7:46am PST
On the other hand, perhaps a gas tax driving the price to $8 would generate the revenue to create a decent mass transit system across America. Just think! It would reduce our dependency on automobiles as private cars would be reserved only for the wealth, while the masses would be using rail and other transit systems. It could create a whole new job market re-employing all those laid off auto workers. Just think of the impact on reduced emissions and a greener environment, less dependence on oil, reduced foreign debt and better balance of trade. And we won't even require the American tax payers to continue bailing out companies lead by buffoons!
Perhaps ridiculous comments from auto execs are cutting off their nose to spite their face. And can you imagine the light rail industry wanting to hire the failed leaders of the auto world? Perhaps the Europeans are on to something!
Matt Posted: 11/5/2009 8:59am PST
I've thought about it and I think I puked into my mouth a little bit. Having spent a couple of years commuting into Manhattan via train, I'd never do it again. I can't count the number of times I got the flu or some other illness due to be packed into a train car while people cough their lungs out. They can keep their swine flu and I will sit in my own car in traffic, thank you very much.
LesBaer45 Posted: 11/5/2009 10:31am PST
These guys are wankers and should be asked to leave the public stage. Try fixing your broken companies first you idiots and stop "speaking".
R2Dad Posted: 11/5/2009 11:25am PST
Azotic Posted: 11/5/2009 11:03pm PST
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!