DOCSLIB.ORG

Fuel Economy Fraud

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fuel Economy Fraud Fuel Economy Fraud Closing the Loopholes That Increase U.S. Oil Dependence AUTHORS DON M ACKENZIE LOUISE BEDSWORTH DAVID FRIEDMAN Union of Concerned Scientists August 2005 II U NIONOF C ONCERNED S CIENTISTS © 2005 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved Don MacKenzie is a vehicles engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program. Louise Bedsworth is a senior vehicles analyst in the Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program. David Friedman is research director for the Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development, and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions. The Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program develops and promotes strategies to reduce the adverse environmental impact of the U.S. transportation system. More information about the Union of Concerned Scientists is available on the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org. The full text of this report is available on the UCS website or may be obtained from UCS Publications 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 Or email [email protected] or call 617-547-5552. Fuel Economy Fraud III CONTENTS Figures and Tables ......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1 Non-Passenger Vehicle Loophole................................................................................................... 9 Two Different Standards............................................................................................................. 9 Automakers Shift Production to “Non-passenger” Automobiles ............................................... 9 Costs of the Loophole ............................................................................................................... 12 The Potential to Increase Fuel Economy .................................................................................. 12 Methods for Closing the Loophole ........................................................................................... 14 Savings From Closing the Loophole......................................................................................... 16 The 8,500 lb Loophole.................................................................................................................. 18 Background............................................................................................................................... 18 Costs of the Loophole ............................................................................................................... 19 Closing the Loophole................................................................................................................ 19 Savings from Closing the Loophole ......................................................................................... 20 Dual-Fuel Loophole ...................................................................................................................... 22 Background............................................................................................................................... 22 Costs of the Loophole ............................................................................................................... 23 Fixing the Problem.................................................................................................................... 24 The Luxury SUV Tax Loophole................................................................................................... 28 Background............................................................................................................................... 28 Expoiting the Loophole............................................................................................................. 30 Closing the Loophole................................................................................................................ 32 Gas Guzzler Loophole .................................................................................................................. 35 Background............................................................................................................................... 35 Closing the Loophole................................................................................................................ 37 The Next Loophole? ..................................................................................................................... 40 Attribute-based CAFE Standards.............................................................................................. 40 Problems with Attribute-based Standards................................................................................. 40 Guarding Against New Loopholes............................................................................................ 43 Appendix: Vehicle Lists ............................................................................................................... 45 IV U NIONOF C ONCERNED S CIENTISTS FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Figure 1: Sales Distribution Since 1975 ................................................................................. 11 Figure 2: Average Fuel Economy of Cars and Light Trucks, 1975-2004 .............................. 11 Figure 3: “Light Truck” Gasoline Demand ............................................................................ 16 Figure 4: Consumer Savings Due to Closing Light Truck Loophole by MY2011................. 17 Figure 5: Fuel Demand from Trucks Less than 10,000 lbs GVWR ....................................... 21 Figure 6: Net Consumer Cash Flow Savings Due to Closing the Class 2b Loophole............ 21 Figure 7: Distribution of FFV Sales and E85 Fueling Stations .............................................. 25 Figure 8: Gas Guzzler Tax versus Fuel Consumption............................................................ 36 Figure 9: Projected Shift in Light Truck Sales ....................................................................... 42 Figure 10: Trends in Pickup Truck Sales................................................................................ 44 Figure 11: Trends in SUV Sales ............................................................................................. 44 Tables Table ES-1: Savings from Closing Loopholes in Current Fuel Economy Standards…............2 Table ES-2: Savings from Increasing Light-Truck Fuel Economy to 27.5 mpg by 2011….....3 Table ES-3: Savings from Increasing Commercial Light Truck Fuel Economy…...................4 Table ES-4: Proposed Gas Guzzler Tax Schedule for Non-Passenger Automobiles…...….....7 Table 1: CAFE Standards, 1985 - Present .............................................................................. 10 Table 2: Impacts of Non-Passenger Loophole........................................................................ 12 Table 3: Average Characteristics of Pickups, SUVs, and Vans ............................................ 13 Table 4: Fuel Economy Potential of Pickups, SUVs, and Minivans in 2010 and 2014 ......... 13 Table 5: Savings from Raising Light Truck Fuel Economy to 27.5 mpg by 2011................. 16 Table 6: Savings due to Increasing CLDT Fuel Economy to 27.5 mpg by 2011 ................... 20 Table 7: CAFE Test vs. Credited Fuel Economy Values for Selected FFVs ......................... 22 Table 8: Fines Avoided Using AMFA Credits ....................................................................... 24 Table 9: Current and Proposed Dual Fuel Vehicle Credit Systems........................................ 26 Table 10: Fraction of Purchase Cost Deducted by Year of Service ....................................... 28 Table 11: Depreciation Limits for Cars and Trucks < 6,000 lbs GVWR ............................... 29 Table 12: Maximum Deductions in Year of Purchase by Vehicle Type and Price ................ 31 Table 13: Minimum Number of Years Needed to Fully Depreciate a Vehicle ...................... 31 Table 14: Comparison of Costs for a Crossover Utility Vehicle and a Pickup ...................... 32 Table 15: Comparison of Costs for a Luxury Car and a Luxury SUV ................................... 32 Table 16: Possible Depreciation Limits.................................................................................. 33 Table 17: Cost Comparison of for a CUV and Pickup Under Revised Depreciation Limits . 33 Table 18: Cost Comparison for a Luxury Car vs. SUV Under Revised Depreciation Limits 34 Table 19: Gas Guzzler Tax Amounts and Lifetime Excess Gasoline Consumption .............. 35 Table 20: Estimated Gas Guzzler Taxes................................................................................. 36 Table 21: Proposed Gas Guzzler Tax Rates for Non-passenger Automobiles ....................... 38 Table 22: Gas Guzzler Taxes Applied to Non-passenger Automobiles ................................. 38 Table 23: Fuel Economy Loss Due to Upweighting............................................................... 42 Fuel Economy Fraud V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Support for this work was provided by The Energy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North America Sales History and Forecast
    North America sales history and forecast 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 U.S. car 131,559 153,658 162,703 172,505 166,848 170,794 172,594 195,026 211,172 Canada car 7,701 8,922 9,182 9,900 10,903 10,895 10,872 13,956 13,423 Mexico car 1,944 2,442 3,995 5,219 4,573 4,990 6,468 7,680 8,189 North America car 141,204 165,022 175,880 187,624 182,324 186,679 189,934 216,662 232,784 U.S. truck – 1,312 26,720 40,622 34,021 37,789 68,611 66,613 67,151 Canada. truck – 89 1,840 2,802 3,072 2,857 5,102 5,142 4,909 Mexico truck 115 233 213 897 982 989 928 890 983 North America truck 115 1,634 28,773 44,321 38,075 41,635 74,641 72,645 73,043 BMW 141,319 166,656 204,653 231,945 220,399 228,314 264,575 289,307 305,827 U.S. car 739,217 – – – – – – – – Canada car 86,148 – – – – – – – – Mexico car 47,176 – – – – – – – – North America car 872,541 – – – – – – – – U.S. truck 1,770,794 – – – – – – – – Canada truck 183,048 – – – – – – – – Mexico truck 45,123 – – – – – – – – North America truck 1,998,965 – – – – – – – – CHRYSLER CORP. 2,871,506 – – – – – – – – U.S. car – 889,506 894,219 863,043 739,430 744,526 751,850 775,084 796,545 Canada car – 92,064 89,163 76,691 83,291 80,243 79,625 84,883 88,430 Mexico car 52,058 65,957 86,948 78,504 86,942 87,746 91,957 97,751 North America car – 1,033,628 1,049,339 1,026,682 901,225 911,711 919,221 951,924 982,726 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Road & Track Magazine Records
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8j38wwz No online items Guide to the Road & Track Magazine Records M1919 David Krah, Beaudry Allen, Kendra Tsai, Gurudarshan Khalsa Department of Special Collections and University Archives 2015 ; revised 2017 Green Library 557 Escondido Mall Stanford 94305-6064 [email protected] URL: http://library.stanford.edu/spc Guide to the Road & Track M1919 1 Magazine Records M1919 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: Department of Special Collections and University Archives Title: Road & Track Magazine records creator: Road & Track magazine Identifier/Call Number: M1919 Physical Description: 485 Linear Feet(1162 containers) Date (inclusive): circa 1920-2012 Language of Material: The materials are primarily in English with small amounts of material in German, French and Italian and other languages. Special Collections and University Archives materials are stored offsite and must be paged 36 hours in advance. Abstract: The records of Road & Track magazine consist primarily of subject files, arranged by make and model of vehicle, as well as material on performance and comparison testing and racing. Conditions Governing Use While Special Collections is the owner of the physical and digital items, permission to examine collection materials is not an authorization to publish. These materials are made available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any transmission or reproduction beyond that allowed by fair use requires permission from the owners of rights, heir(s) or assigns. Preferred Citation [identification of item], Road & Track Magazine records (M1919). Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, Calif. Conditions Governing Access Open for research. Note that material must be requested at least 36 hours in advance of intended use.
    [Show full text]
  • Approved Vehicles List
    The School Board of Superintendent of Schools Hillsborough County, FL Jeff Eakins Deputy Superintendent, Instruction Van Ayres Tamara P. Shamburger, Chair Deputy Superintendent, Operations Melissa Snively, Vice Chair Christopher Farkas Steve P. Cona III Chief of Schools, Administration Lynn L. Gray Harrison Peters Stacy A. Hahn General Manager of Employee Relations Karen Perez OPERATIONS DIVISION Mark West Cindy Stuart SAFETY AND RISK MANAGEMENT Director of Safety & Risk Management Corries Culpepper APPROVED VEHICLES LIST 2019-2020 INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 15, 2019 TO: All Principals/Program Administrators FROM: Corries Culpepper, Director of Safety and Risk Management SUBJECT: Transportation for School Related Functions (Updated List) Florida Statutes regulate the type of vehicles that may be used to transport students for school related functions, such as field trips and athletic events. • No Pick-up trucks of any type • No Conversion Vans of any type • No Compact Recreation Vehicles (CRV) Parents, teachers, coaches and other volunteers may use the following vehicles to transport students: • ALL PASSENGER CARS (except convertibles) ARE APPROVED. Approved Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPV’s), listed below Must meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Passenger Car Standards and be on the Florida Department of Education’s TSA #T-00-4. If you have a question regarding your vehicle, please call the Safety and Risk Management Office at 840 - 7324. The Approved MPV’s are: MANUFACTURER MODEL YEAR NOTES Acura
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2020 Parents, Teachers, Coaches and Other Volunteers May
    The School Board of Superintendent of Schools Hillsborough County, FL Jeff Eakins Deputy Superintendent, Instruction Van Ayres Tamara P. Shamburger, Chair Deputy Superintendent, Operations Melissa Snively, Vice Chair Christopher Farkas Steve P. Cona III Chief of Schools, Administration Lynn L. Gray Harrison Peters Stacy A. Hahn General Manager of Employee Relations Karen Perez OPERATIONS DIVISION Mark West Cindy Stuart SAFETY AND RISK MANAGEMENT Director of Safety & Risk Management Corries Culpepper APPROVED VEHICLES LIST 2019-2020 INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 15, 2019 TO: All Principals/Program Administrators FROM: Corries Culpepper, Director of Safety and Risk Management SUBJECT: Transportation for School Related Functions (Updated List) Florida Statutes regulate the type of vehicles that may be used to transport students for school related functions, such as field trips and athletic events. • No Pick-up trucks of any type • No Conversion Vans of any type • No Compact Recreation Vehicles (CRV) Parents, teachers, coaches and other volunteers may use the following vehicles to transport students: • ALL PASSENGER CARS (except convertibles) ARE APPROVED. Approved Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPV’s), listed below Must meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Passenger Car Standards and be on the Florida Department of Education’s TSA #T-00-4. If you have a question regarding your vehicle, please call the Safety and Risk Management Office at 840 - 7324. The Approved MPV’s are: MANUFACTURER MODEL YEAR NOTES Acura
    [Show full text]
  • SUV Fit Guide
    SUV Fit Guide Size Years Vehicle 98-98 Chevy Tracker 2dr 99-04 Chevy Tracker 2dr 89-97 Geo Tracker 2dr 86-95 Suzuki Samurai 89-98 Suzuki Sidekick 2dr 99-04 Suzuki Vitara 2dr Extra Small 96-99 Toyota RAV4 2dr Size Years Vehicle Years Vehicle 05-09 BMW X3 55-86 Jeep CJ SUV * 95-05 Chevy Blazer 2-door 07-09 Jeep Compass 83-94 Chevy S10 Blazer 02-09 Jeep Liberty 98-98 Chevy Tracker 4dr * 07-09 Jeep Patriot 99-04 Chevy Tracker 4dr * 87-09 Jeep Wrangler * 07-09 Dodge Nitro 04-09 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited 01-09 Ford Escape 95-09 Kia Sportage * 96-97 Geo Tracker 4dr * 94-97 Land Rover Defender 90 92-94 GMC Jimmy 02-05 Land Rover Freelander 95-99 GMC Jimmy 2-door 08-09 Land Rover LR2 Small 83-91 GMC S15 Jimmy 01-09 Mazda Tribute 92-93 GMC Typhoon 05-09 Mercury Mariner 97-09 Honda CR-V * 91-94 Oldsmobile Bravada 05-09 Hyundai Tucson 99-09 Suzuki Grand Vitara * 89-00 Isuzu Amigo 99-04 Suzuki Vitara 4dr * 01-03 Isuzu Rodeo 2dr 96-05 Toyota RAV4 4dr * 99-01 Isuzu VehiCROSS * 09-09 Volkswagen Tiguan 84-01 Jeep Cherokee Size Years Vehicle Years Vehicle 07-09 Acura RDX 03-09 Kia Sorento 00-06 BMW X5 94-04 Land Rover Discovery 95-05 Chevy Blazer 4-door 99-03 Lexus RX300 99-01 Chevy Blazer Trailblazer 07-09 Mazda CX-7 66-77 Ford Bronco * 91-94 Mazda Navajo 84-90 Ford Bronco II * 98-05 Mercedes-Benz M-Class 91-03 Ford Explorer 2dr 87-04 Nissan Pathfinder 98-00 GMC Envoy 08-09 Nissan Rogue 95-01 GMC Jimmy 4-door 00-09 Nissan Xterra 94-02 Honda Passport 96-04 Oldsmobile Bravada Medium 01-06 Hyundai Santa Fe 01-05 Pontiac Aztek 08-09 Infiniti EX 02-09 Saturn
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in the Static Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans
    DOT HS 809 868 June 2005 NHTSA Technical Report Trends in the Static Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear only because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. DOT HS 809 868 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date June 2005 Trends in the Static Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Marie C. Walz 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation Planning, Evaluation and Budget 11. Contract or Grant No. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC 20590 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Department of Transportation NHTSA Technical Report National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Rollover crashes kill more than 10,000 occupants of passenger vehicles each year. As part of its mission to reduce fatalities and injuries, since model year 2001 NHTSA has included rollover information as part of its NCAP ratings. One of the primary means of assessing rollover risk is the static stability factor (SSF), a measurement of a vehicle’s resistance to rollover. The higher the SSF, the lower the rollover risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Fmvss No. 214 Amending Side Impact Dynamic Test Adding Oblique Pole Test
    U.S. Department Of Transportation FINAL REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS FMVSS NO. 214 AMENDING SIDE IMPACT DYNAMIC TEST ADDING OBLIQUE POLE TEST OFFICE OF REGULATORY ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS AUGUST 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.............................................................................................E-1 I. Introduction .................................................................................................I-1 II. Background ...............................................................................................II-1 III. Injury Criteria ........................................................................................... III-1 IV. Test Data and Analysis of Pole Test Data ................................................IV-1 V. Benefits .....................................................................................................V-1 VI. Technical Costs and Lead Time ...............................................................VI-1 VII. Cost-Effectiveness and Benefit-Cost Analyses .......................................VII-1 VIII. Test Data and Analysis of Moving Deformable Barrier Test ............... VIII-1 IX. Alternatives...............................................................................................IX-1 X. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis............................................................................................... X-1 XI. Sensitivity Analyses ……………………………………………….........XI-1
    [Show full text]
  • Tech2win Coverage Exceptions
    https://tis2web.service.gm.com/tis2web/?target=ADN0I0IQ0I04C0I0&target.method=onSubmit&newsmen u:AQJ0I0TV0I01F0I0=1&bm=newsmenu:AQJ0I0TV0I01F0I0#newsmenu:AQJ0I0TV0I01F0I0 This document introduces Tech2Win, a PC program that executes Tech2 software on a Windows PC. Tech2Win communicates with a vehicle through a vehicle communication interface (VCI), using the MDI. Almost all vehicle systems supported by Tech2 will also work with the Tech2Win. The same software downloaded and executed on Tech2 will also run on Tech2Win. For that reason, the TIS2Web communication procedures used for Tech2 are also applicable for Tech2Win. Tech2Win allows you to store as many configurations as you wish. A configuration defines how Tech2Win is to be used. Each configuration may use its own PCMCIA card file or MDI serial number. To learn more about Tech2Win please consult the help that comes with Tech2Win. Model Vehicle Series Systems Remarks Year Chevrolet ISO-9141 \ 2011 Optra, Spark,Epica,Aveo RKE\RFA KW08\SDLISO - Holden Epica, Barina Not Implemented Chevrolet Optra ISO-9141 \ 2009- SIR KW08\SDLISO - 2011 Holden Viva Not Implemented Chevrolet Optra, Spark,Epica,Aveo ISO-9141 \ 2009- Holden Epica, Barina RKE\RFA KW08\SDLISO - 2010 Pontiac Not Implemented G3,Wave,Matiz ISO-9141 \ 2009 Buick Excelle RKE\RFA, SIR KW08\SDLISO - Not Implemented GM UART \ 2008 Chevrolet Tracker IMMO XDE5024 - Not Implemented GM UART \ 2008 Chevrolet Vivant ECM XDE5024 - Not Implemented Chevrolet GM UART \ 2007 Passenger Car ECM XDE5024 - Not (Z) 2.0L L4 L34 Implemented 2007- Buick
    [Show full text]
  • Injury, Collision, & Theft Losses
    INJURY,COLLISION,INJURY,COLLISION, && THEFTTHEFT LOSSESLOSSES By make and model, 1998-2000 models September 2001 HIGHWAY LOSS DATA INSTITUTE 1005 N. Glebe Rd. Arlington, VA 22201 703/247-1600 Fax 703/247-1595 www.highwaysafety.org The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) is a nonprofit public service COMPARISON WITH DEATH RATES organization. It is closely associated with and funded through the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is wholly supported by Collisions that result in serious and fatal occupant injuries are rela- auto insurers. HLDI gathers, processes, and publishes data on the tively rare, so they have only a small influence on the insurance injury ways in which insurance losses vary among different kinds of vehicles. results reported in this table. (The results in this publication are dom- inated by the relatively frequent low to moderate severity collisions and associated injuries.) A separate report, published periodically by GUIDE TO THIS REPORT the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, is based on fatal crashes. It summarizes driver deaths per million registered vehicle years by The table inside summarizes the recent insurance injury, collision, and make and model. theft losses of passenger cars, pickups, and utility vehicles. Results are based on the loss experience of 1998-2000 models from their first Vehicles with high death rates often have high frequencies of insur- sales through May 2001. For vehicles newly introduced or redesigned ance claims for occupant injuries. For example, small two- and four- during these years, the results are based on the most recent model door cars typically have high death rates and higher-than-average years for which the vehicle designs were unchanged — either 1999- insurance injury claims experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Quattro Freni Qf69202
    QUATTRO FRENI QF69202 КОЛОДКИ ТОРМОЗНЫЕ FR С МЕХАНИЧЕСКИМ ДАТЧИКОМ CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (2006-),OPEL ANTARA(2006-) CROSS-REFERENCE: 96626069, 96626070, D966226070, 19149903, 19168899, 20789468, 4808861, 4817764, 19149903, 19168899, 20789468, 4808861, GDB1715, 4817764 Характеристики: Вес [кг] 2,042 кг Внутренняя ширина [мм] 61,9 мм Высота [дюйм] 62,1 дюймы Высота 1 [мм] 61,9 мм Высота 2 [мм] 62,2 мм Высота [мм] 62 мм Высота остановки 2 [мм] 61,9 мм Высота упаковки [см] 7,5 см Длина 1 [мм] 149 мм Длина 2 [мм] 149 мм Длина [мм] 148,5 мм Длина упаковки [см] 8,5 см Количество датчиков износа [на ось] 2 на ось Количество тормозных колодок 4 Наружная ширина [мм] 149,2 мм необходимое количество 1 Толщина 1 [мм] 16 мм Толщина 2 [мм] 16 мм Толщина [мм] 17 мм Ширина 1 [мм] 56 мм Ширина 2 [мм] 56 мм Ширина [мм] 61,9 мм Ширина упаковки [см] 18,5 см Применяемость CATERHAM SEVEN (CF) 2.3 CSR 01.2005 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 3.6 4WD 01.2008 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 3.6 01.2008 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 3.2 4WD 06.2006 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 3.0 4WD 01.2010 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 3.0 4WD 01.2011 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 2.4 LPG 4WD 01.2007 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 2.4 LPG 01.2007 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 2.4 4WD 12.2006 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 2.4 4WD 06.2006 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 2.4 4WD 03.2011 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 2.4 03.2011 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 2.4 01.2011 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 2.4 12.2006 - CHEVROLET CAPTIVA (C100, C140) 2.4 06.2006
    [Show full text]
  • Q1 2019 Earnings Press Release 4.30.19
    FIRST-QUARTER 2019 EARNINGS GM Reports Income of $2.1 Billion and EBIT-adj. of $2.3 Billion • Full-size truck launch ahead of plan; average transaction prices for all-new crew cabs up $5,800 vs. outgoing models. • Execution of company’s transformation cost savings of $2 to $2.5 billion through 2019 remains on track. Q1 2019 RESULTS OVERVIEW Net Revenue Income Auto Operating Cash Flow EPS-Diluted GAAP $34.9 B $2.1 B $(2.2) B $1.48 vs. Q1 2018 (3.4)% + 93.2% $(1.1) B + 92.2% EBIT-adj. Margin EBIT-adj. Adj. Auto FCF EPS-Diluted-adj. Non-GAAP 6.6% $2.3 B $(3.9) B $1.41 vs. Q1 2018 (0.6) pts (11.5)% $(0.6) B (1.4)% EPS-diluted and EPS-diluted-adj. include a benefit of $0.31 from Lyft and PSA revaluations. GM IS BULLISH ON PICKUPS GM's first-quarter operating results were in Q1 sales of the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC line with expectations we shared in January. Sierra light-duty crew cabs were up 20 percent year My confidence in the year ahead remains over year, delivering on GM’s strategy to launch high- strong, driven by our all-new full-size truck content, high-margin trucks first. These all-new crew launch and our ongoing business cab models generated transaction prices nearly $5,800 “ transformation.” higher than the crew-cab models they replace (Q1 – Mary Barra, Chairman and CEO 2018, J.D. Power PIN). The 2019 GMC Sierra leads the segment in pricing, with more than 95 percent of its sales in high-end models.
    [Show full text]
  • Manual Transmission Fluid Application Guide
    Manual Transmission Fluid Application Guide 1 Understanding Today’s Transmission Fluids With so many automatic Transmission fluids, it’s hard to choose the one best-suited for each vehicle. As the trusted leader in Transmission and drive line fluid applications, Valvoline has the most complete line up of branded solutions. Contact 1-800 TEAM VAL with any questions or comments. General Motors & Chrysler: General Motors & Ford: Valvoline Synchromesh Manual Transmission Fluid Valvoline DEX/MERC • High performance manual Transmission lubricant • Recommended for vehicles manufactured by designed to meet the extreme demands of passenger General Motors & Ford, 2005 and earlier car manual Transmission gearbox applications • Recommended for many imports, 2005 and earlier, • Enhanced performance in both low and high including select Toyota and Mazda temperature operating conditions • Recommended for use where DEXRON®-III/MERCON® • Excellent wear protection under high loads and Transmission fluid is required extreme pressure Part# VV353 • Resistance to oxidation and remains stable under extreme pressures • Exceptional anti-foam performance for added protection • Recommended for General Motors and Chrysler vehicles Ford: including GM part numbers 12345349, 12377916 and Valvoline ATF Recommended for 12345577 as well as Chrysler part number 4874464 MERCON®V Applications Part# 811095 • Recommended for most Ford vehicles • Required for 1996 and newer Ford vehicles and SynPower 75w90 Gear Oil: backwards compatible with MERCON® applications Valvoline SynPower Full Synthetic Gear Oil Part# VV360 • Formulated for ultimate protection and performance. A thermally stable, extreme-pressure gear lubricant, it is designed to operate and protect in both high and low extreme temperature conditions. • Specially recommended for limited-slip hypoid differentials and is compatible with conventional General Motors: gear lubricants.
    [Show full text]