Autoblog

1. If any of you is intrested in what the exact sales for all of General Motors cars and trucks were here is the link. These are last months numbers:

http://www.reliableplant.com/article.asp?pagetitle=General%20Motors'%20total%20sales%20for%20April%20down%20sharply&articleid=11726

Posted at 2:15PM on May 6th 2008 by George

2. And your link has what to do with this story?

Posted at 2:26PM on May 6th 2008 by SkiD666

3. virus don't click

Posted at 2:35PM on May 6th 2008 by Todd

4. First of all its noit a virus. Second of all its just for your info. Thats all. Whats the big deal. I like seeing sales breakdowns and Autoblog doesnt provide it so I just put it here.

Posted at 2:36PM on May 6th 2008 by George

5. Thanks for the post George nice to see the Saturn Aura up

Posted at 2:39PM on May 6th 2008 by Amber

6. But what does this have to do with an article talking about gas mileage?

It would be better served if you put it in the "GM lost XX amount in the first quarter" thread.

Posted at 2:39PM on May 6th 2008 by Seminole

7. My god nevermind. I ran into the article on the web and tossed it here on Autoblog. Jeez

Posted at 2:42PM on May 6th 2008 by George

8. Thanks George, I look forward to these every month.

Posted at 2:53PM on May 6th 2008 by Mr. Oak

9. george. stick to the post content. unless you are going to post for every automaker dont bother because some of us couldnt care less how abysmal GMs numbers were... others of us are quite well aware.

Posted at 3:53PM on May 6th 2008 by C.W.

10. George,

I think it was a good thing you posted that for those who would be interested. All I was saying is that you may reach more of the people who would be interested in the information by posting it on a related topic.

Posted at 4:54PM on May 6th 2008 by Seminole

11. "California's emissions standards, which means automakers are faced with the dilemma of possibly building two versions of every vehicle to meet both standards, go bankrupt trying to meet California's standards in time, or even not selling vehicles in those 17 states at all."

No, the automakers should simply build to satisfy California's (and 16 other states') standards. There's no reason to build two types. Pick the most stringent and build for that market. 1 version. The federal government is limp-wristed.

CA has the right to do this because CARB pre-dates the EPA by many years. CARB did something the feds were too myopic to consider: they tried to deal with air quality.

Posted at 2:15PM on May 6th 2008 by YouFaceTheTick

12. No CARB has no right to do this because federal law supersedes state law at all levels. California has no option but to accept the federal levels unless granted a waiver. Also, these standards aren't going to accomplish anything because they do nothing to take the 1.6 billion people in China off coal power. Read something.

Posted at 2:28PM on May 6th 2008 by Bruxell

13. 1 in 8 americans live in california - that's a lot. figure the other 15 states on board and that's a significant portion of the population. on its own, CA is the 6th largest economy in the world. there's no way that any car maker could give up on CA.

However, I do think that the result of CARB proposals will be a severe restriction on the types of cars available in CA. Manufacturers simply wont be shipping us their SUVs anymore (and the limited ones they do ship will cost ridiculously marked-up prices) and we'll be sing the lion's share of ford focuses and chevy cobalts. So in that way, CA gets what it wants with mileage improvements, carmakers dont really end up changing, and the consumer just gets a whole lot less choices.

Posted at 2:35PM on May 6th 2008 by tj

14. "There's no reason to build two types."

If a competing automaker does build two types, people living in the other 32 states won't buy very many of your Cali-spec clowncars.

Posted at 2:53PM on May 6th 2008 by Dan

15. CARB probably can do this despite what the federal judges commenting here on Autoblog say. Time will tell. And this rule will have no affect on what can or cannot be bought in California. It didn't have an affect in 1970 and it won't have an effect today, 40 years later. On the contrary, it should make a considerable difference in the quality of air you and your family breathe. The previous laws already did.

Posted at 2:55PM on May 6th 2008 by Disgruntled Goat

16. Federal law supersedes state law? What the hell happened to the the parties that states' rights is now a liberal issues?

China isn't part of the USA. California's CARB was grandfathered in and allowed to make their own air quality laws, with a rubber-stamp from the feds - a courtesy stamp. Until the Bush admin trampled on states' rights and said, no more freedom to California or any state that legally had a right to follow California's air quality laws.

If not for carb we wouldn't have the catalytic converter or maybe even air pollution laws.

Posted at 3:06PM on May 6th 2008 by YouFaceTheTick

17. States' rights don't mean that the federal government has no authority. States' rights means that the states have sole authority to legislate on any topic which the Constitution does not explicitly grant authority to the federal government to legislate on. Interstate commerce is one of the federal government's enumerated powers, which is why you hear states' rights people (more accurately, people who have read the constitution and think we should probably pay some attention to it) saying that CARB should not have what effectively amounts to the authority to dictate automotive design practices for the remaining 49 states. Of course, we'd also say that the federal government greatly oversteps their authority authority to regulate interstate commerce by dictating automotive design, but that's another issue. No matter how you cut it, if there's an authority to say what sort of car is acceptable for sale to the US population, it doesn't live in California.

Posted at 3:32PM on May 6th 2008 by johncuyle

18. johncuyle, if they (and the other 16 states btw) have the right to regulate their own pollution, it's not at all California's problem how the automakers choose to solve the problem.

Anyways, those 17 states are also some of the most populous states, since pollution is a much bigger problem in the more densely lived in states, so even though it's 17 states it makes up a much larger proportion of the US population.

Posted at 5:16PM on May 6th 2008 by tekdemon

19. Then they should remove themselves from California. The asians are heavily invested there, no? As is GM with Toyota as NUMMI.

They have their games, we have ours.

Posted at 2:22PM on May 6th 2008 by elprogramer

20. They kind of already have. Didn't a bunch of automakers move their design studios to the east coast?

Posted at 2:41PM on May 6th 2008 by Seminole