Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TD

2017 GM Fleet Vehicle Guide

Recommended Posts

Subject RE: 2017 GM Vehicle Guide, and the lack of any flex-fuel sedans is painful.

 

From Chris J Hoolehan <chris.j.hoolehan@gm.com>

 

To pratt1@provide.net <pratt1@provide.net>, Ed J Peper <ed.j.peper@gm.com>, David M. Kanous <david.m.kanous@gm.com>, Kristin M. Koehl <kristin.koehl@gm.com>, Ted Pfister <ted.pfister@gm.com>

 

Cc Ron L. Dixon <ron.l.dixon@gm.com>

 

 

ate 2016-05-20 15:38



Mr. Pratt - thank you for taking the time to write us, and more importantly, thank you for being a GM customer.

We understand that E85 is a priority for customers like yourself and the Federal Government, and we do all we can to meet your requirements.  Unfortunately, we need to balance resources to meet the varying demands of the market.

You are correct, in that we will not have E85 available in our 2017 Cruze or Malibu.  Although it is in a larger vehicle class, we will be offering E85 in our 6 cylinder Impala for 2017.  We expect this package to be very attractive to many government agencies, especially at the state and local levels.

I will copy Ron Dixon, who administers our sales to the GSA, for his information.

Again, we appreciate your input.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Hoolehan
Director – Fleet & Government Sales
GM Fleet and Commercial
100 Renaissance Center
Detroit, MI  48265-1000
Cell:   914-523-5583
 
 
 
-----

-----Original Message-----
From: pratt1@provide.net [mailto:pratt1@provide.net]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:47 AM
To: Ed J Peper <ed.j.peper@gm.com>; David M. Kanous <david.m.kanous@gm.com>;
Chris J Hoolehan <chris.j.hoolehan@gm.com>; Kristin M. Koehl <kristin.koehl@gm.com>; Ted Pfister <ted.pfister@gm.com>
 
Subject: 2017 GM Vehicle Guide, and the lack of any flex-fuel sedans is painful.

Dear General Motors:

Today I was able to download and look through the new 2017 GM Fleet Guide which is posted on-line at:
http://www.gmfleet.com/resources/fleet-guide.html   and I have to say I
am again very, disappointed.

I am a life-long Michigan resident and have always driven GM cars.  I am disappointed in the 2017 offerings
because there is not a SINGLE 4-cylinder Sedan offered that can use E85 fuel.  Again.
GM was an industry leader in Flex-Fuel vehicle production for years. I currently personally own a 2012 Malibu
(the last year Flexfuel was offered in a Malibu) and will soon buy a 2013 Buick Regal (as that is the last year Buick Regal was flex-fuel).

As a federal employee, I AM REQUIRED BY LAW at work to only purchase as use alternative fuel vehicles, as part of the United States Government rules and Executive Orders on the use of alternative fuel vehicles.

Our office used to use Flex-Fuel cars – and when GM stopped offering a compact, or medium size vehicle in flex-fuel, we were forced to buy from Chrysler (the 200) or Ford (Escort).  We would much rather by ANY compact or midsize GM sedan for our office’s Federal Fleet use, but
cannot, because it simply isn’t offered any more.   Not as an option,
and not as standard equipment.

I would ask that you consider building EITHER a Cruze or Malibu with a 4-cylinder flex-fuel option.
 
Any of the 1.4-1.8 liter family engines from the Cruze would be fine, as would be the 4-cylinder option for a
Malibu. If you offer it, then we will be able to buy it.   As is stands now, the Federal Government fleet users
will be shifting to other manufacturers because of the lack of GM small, compact or midsize Sedans in flex-fuel.

I am one of the people who will not buy gasoline if it is possible to run on something else.  I am a retired
U.S. Army officer and energy independence is very important to me.  I use ONLY E85 when it is available,
and now have been using E85 almost exclusively for the last few years.

Without a GM small or midsize sedan offering E85 capability,  I cannot buy a new GM car.  And neither will my
employer, the Federal Government.

I don't know how much of your sales is to Federal agencies, but the lack of Flex-Fuel capability, even if it were
a low-cost option (under $500) would help GM sell more cars.

I look forward to being able to buy a flex-fuel 4-cylinder Sedan someday from GM.

Sincerely,

Jim Pratt
Howell, MI
Life-long Gm customer.
Edited by James48843

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope the new Administration would put a new EPA director in place. One that is more sensible to the expansion of ethanol fuel use. The EPA policy on ethanol fuel is currently strange, unfair, and not based on good science. For example the carbon rating, "R" factor for mpg ratings, CAFE benefit to car companies, and the 1 psi vapor pressure exception. The agency should be finishing up testing of E30 super premium fuel for future needs of high efficiency engines. They haven't lifted a finger. The whole EPA is afflicted with bureaucracy that needs to continually swallow up more revenue. One lucrative source is the private sector business that by EPA regulations,  have a  new need to to, i.e. certify flex fuel vehicles. Something is wrong with that.

 

It is no surprise that car companies are limiting their FFV fleet. It cost to much to certify and they get little benefit other than a small percentage of customers so motivated to shop for them. As we have often posted, the hardware and software for high ethanol vehicle fleet is but a few hundred dollars at most. The value to public and national security, if we had a international crisis of petrol supply would be tremendous.

 

The publicity, penalties, and recall cost to automotive car manufacturers, if some defect found upon switching fuels would indeed be a mighty concern. The problem is the potential to do environmental harm if such a event happened may be minimal as compared to avoiding the FFV fleet manufacture. Meaning it may be insanity to spend so much wealth on taking the fly poop out of pepper. We have no sensibility upon EPA on the greater good. They see themselves as merely a controlling agency and to generate hoops in which they can tyrant rule. Not a good cooperative agency that works to minimize cost and maximize benefit to citizens or the environment. Actually, these types of agencies that propagate laws per administration authority probably not constitutional. Only Congress can make such laws and they would never be able to implement, but basic rules and enforce them. That is supposed to be the American way to avoid bloat of federal regulations that propel employment by ever increasing jungle of complex regs. The way to avoid picking out the fly poop mentality.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... Actually, these types of agencies that propagate laws per administration authority probably not constitutional. Only Congress can make such laws and they would never be able to implement, but basic rules and enforce them. That is supposed to be the American way to avoid bloat of federal regulations that propel employment by ever increasing jungle of complex regs.

 

 

Actually, it was CONGRESS who gave authority to the EPA to set "reasonable rules" to advance the Cean Air Act (CAA), and let the EPA make the rules. 

 

Before any rule goes into effect, it is published for public comment, and the public gets an opportunity to raise issues at that point in the process.\

Here is the actual language that Congress put in the Clean Air Act providing for the EPA to issue rules and regulations on air quality:

 

 

 

"Congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution. Section 169A(a)(4), in part, requires EPA to “promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.” The CAA also requires States to submit SIPs containing such emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the goal."

 

 

Source: 

https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/reasonable_progress_guid071307.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress gives the authority to EPA to pass laws or better known as regulations and gives them the authority or power to enforce. This is called administration law and thought to be unconstitutional, nonetheless both parties claim in our modern day, required. We have a history of such delegated authority and a large and growing percentage of the population do not like the tyrannical power of this setup as it is increasingly affects our daily lives as well as freedoms. Sure, EPA currently treads upon the cover of having a comment period to phony up or create a haze to lesson public concern of their power. I guess the activity works to make those commenting think they have some power or influence. That would be a very weak influence and the type of influence that smacks of politics. Meaning the need of such laws should not be subject to outside forces unless they are indeed acting like unelected congress. Are they acting in fashion of lawmakers accessing the political climate and needs of powerful influentials? If so and I suspect so, it is the stuff that erodes confidence as history is an good indicator that such power will eventually be corrupted much like the often troubled banana republics seem to have. In other words, does the agency in fact have an accurate tabulation of need for the law? Why the comments then? Are they following the intent of the true lawmakers, aka Congress, or merely grabbing power to revise law to their liking. I don't like where this is going and it appears the setup has an inherent conflict of interest with job creation, power grab, authority creep, and shuffling off their true cost to increasing sales price of goods and services. One example is the fisticuffs they place on private sector and the total disregard of government agencies that often times the worst offender. How about the no nonsense quick and hard hitting bashing of small business and the evolutionary time periods when pushing up against international corporations that just happen to spend the most upon politics. In fact it is a modern political invention to hold up EPA pending regulations as long as possible with politicians holding their hands out before action. This stuff is coordinated between government employees to benefit their desired leadership and these agencies have a tremendous bias upon their Union mentality and hate of the opposition. We witness much corruption that goes to trash heap of "what are you going to do".  Why do these agencies always exclude private citizens, but hammer small business. Answer, the politics. Even the politics to comfort large business per the act to savage small business competition. The more regulations we have to conform to, the more big business wins and increasingly in a noncompetitive market. Iv'e heard anecdotal evidence stories of close acquaintances that I rate trustworthy that claim of suffering EPA restrictions or penalties in the most unfair application of their power. The modern day fines of gov't missed conformance are fully capable of commandeering all of ones assets. The legal route for small incomes not available and they know that. Judges offer little help and have little patience.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×