The more efficient new cars won’t save a drop of gas until they’re purchased. If they don’t sell, not only energy conservation, but pollution and safety improvements will be set back.
We have stated that the full-size car market can’t be ignored because it is accounting for 30 percent of domestic auto sales for the model year. Chrysler does not intend to, and would not, abandon a market segment of that size and importance to automotive buyers.
We have consistently opposed mandatory fuel economy standards as unnecessary. Because it is clearly in our self interest to meet customer requirements on fuel economy improvements, as demonstrated by our own high mileage m.p.g. small cars recently announced.
Absent a significant technological breakthrough. . . the largest car the industry will be selling in any volume at all will probably be smaller, lighter, and less powerful than today’s compact Chevy Nova…
It would cost us more to produce high octane, unleaded fuel; it would cost the consumer more to buy it; and it would cost the country more in terms of its overall consumption of crude oil.
In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most fullsize sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact-size cars — or even smaller ones — within 5 years . . .
The people in this room have the same amount of lead in their blood as do the natives in New Guinea. If you take lead out of the air, you’ll still have it in your body.
You could wake up with egg on your face if you force a double cost on the consumer.
There is no evidence that lead in the atmosphere, from autos or any other source, poses a health hazard.
There is no evidence that [leaded gasoline] has introduced a danger in the field of public health…lead is an inevitable element in the surface of the earth, in its vegetation, in its animal life, and that there is no way in which man has ever been able to escape the absorption of lead while living in this planet.
