Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

11314151719

Comments

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,886
    Or am I missing something???

    I believe you did. I said Man Made Global Warming is NOT proven. It is a political ploy to raise taxes through the backdoor to our wallets. Cap n Trade was behind the idea from the start. They would have pushed it under man made global cooling but the trend reversed to warming and threw the tax and spenders a curve. I hope that explains mine and about half the population's opinion on the subject. Believe what you like it is sort of a free country. Unless you say what you believe to the media.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,687
    I hope that explains mine and about half the population's opinion on the subject.

    I think you will find that it is somewhat less than half, gagrice. Last poll I saw said 67% considered man-made global warming to be a moderate or serious threat, and that was a few months back.

    Certainly the consensus is at roughly 99% in the scientific community.

    But only 20% of all man-made emissions that contribute to global warming come from cars, from what I understand. So it is only tangential to the topic of CAFE, IMO, since my larger concern with CAFE is savings of the consumer's gas money and a reduction of oil importation.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,129
    It's sort of odd to think that science depends on polling.

    Ford seems to be happy with the CAFE announcement.

    Ford: Perfect Timing for EcoBoost Celebration (AutoObserver) and Ford Couldn't Have Picked a Better Day to Celebrate Its EcoBoost Engine

    And Chrysler is hopping on the PR bandwagon:

    Chrysler Says It Can Meet Future CAFE Standards With Help From Fiat (Green Car Advisor)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,129
    "The proposed new CAFE's numbers may appear like a difficult target to reach for the automakers, but when compared to current EPA numbers, they're already not that far off. After crunching some numbers, we've estimated that it takes a 2008 combined EPA rating of only 26 mpg to achieve the proposed CAFE rating of 35 mpg. Break it out by cars and trucks, and the proposed 39 mpg CAFE rating for cars translates to only about a 29 mpg EPA rating. For trucks, the proposed 30 mpg CAFE rating equates to roughly 23 mpg on a current window sticker."

    CAFE vs. EPA: Obama's MPG targets are closer than you think (Edmunds Daily)

    "However, as in all things involving politics, the new fuel-economy standards aren't what they seem.

    "Turns out that there are loopholes almost big enough to drive an SUV through," quipped Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl."

    CAFE, EPA Math: 35 Equals 26 (AutoObserver)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    Yes, this tells it like it is.

    CAFE is computed based on a number that was officially repudiated as unrealistic in 1985. And in 2008 the 1985 numbers were also revised downward because they were also deemed unrealistic (and didn't take into account things like ac use, 70 mph hwy speeds, etc.).

    Anyway, what Obama has done is still a big change and a big improvement, but when the feds say that the fleet in the future is going to get 35 mpg, that's just a big, fat, lie. The real number is 26, as this article states. Thanks for that.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,687
    Now we need the last piece of the puzzle: what is the current standard in EPA numbers?

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Using the rough 'discount factor' of 20-25% ...
    the auto fleet figure under CAFE is 39 mpg combined; thus the combined EPA value would be in the 31-32 mpg range;
    the truck fleet figure under CAFE is 30 mpg combined; thus the combined EPA value would be about 23 mpg.

    But in addition no vehicle maker has to meet these standards. The industry must meet these standards. The new accurate title of this program is Industry Average Fuel Economy ( IAFE ). But that's too cumbersome.

    The big benefit for the nation is the increase in the truck fuel economies. Since the truck segment numbers are so low to start then small increases mean much more important savings in fuel not used.

    To wit...
    Let's say that all 'trucks' on the road today get an EPA average of 18 mpg combined. ( 'trucks include pickups, SUVs, minivans, crossovers and even the HHR ). If a typical year in this new world of reduced volumes is 10 million units of new production, 50% being 'trucks' and 50% being autos, the 'truck' segment will use 4.2 Billion gallons of fuel each going 15000 mi/yr on average based on today's actual averages.

    Under the new program where 'trucks' are going to have to attain about 23 mpg as an industry that means that 5 million units each going 15000 mi/yr would use 3.3 Billion gallons of fuel.

    900 million gallons of fuel NOT used each year.*

    The 5 million unit auto fleet now has a combined EPA rating of about 27 mpg meaning that it uses about 2.8 Billion gallons each year.

    At the new standard which would be about 31.5 mpg combined EPA the auto fleet would use 2.4 Billion gallons annually.

    400 million gallons of fuel NOT used each year.*

    *This assumes no increase in population nor in auto sales. What it actually does is spread out the supply of petro-fuel over a larger usage base and over a longer period of time.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,886
    Let's say that all 'trucks' on the road today get an EPA average of 18 mpg combined.

    Do you really believe the industry can squeeze 22% more miles out of a gallon of gas, without sacrificing power? The easiest way would be diesels. I just don't see the CA government allowing that. And they are the tail that wags the dog.

    You can buy a GMC Hybrid PU that is rated 21 MPG and selling at invoice for $41k base. Same vehicle with the most common 5.3L V8 is selling for $30k. On the highway the hybrid only gains ONE MPG. Not worth $11k to me. I suspect not to many buyers.

    Even if people were willing to spend from $5k to $15k more for a hybrid PU or SUV. Where would the additional materials come from. Ford has fought to get what parts it needs for hybrids from day one. The big bully Toyota has used its clout to limit what Ford could get. That has created a situation where an Escape hybrid sells for $8k more than an equally equipped V6 Escape. Add to that an additional $800+ for our sales tax and it becomes rather pointless to buy a hybrid truck or SUV.

    Or if you are really feeling green you can spend $90k for an Escalade hybrid or $16k for an LS600h L.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    Forgive me for the late reply, but I've been very busy this past five weeks.

    kdhspyder: That's precisely why I used the word 'intransigence' on the part of the D3. They didn't diversify and balance product lines except as minimally needed to satisfy the minimum requirements of CAFE.

    They were already building small vehicles before CAFE. Check out the introduction dates of the Gremlin, Pinto, Vega, Mustang II and Chevette. As I said, the main diversification occurred with the transplant manufacturers, as they branched out to build SUVs, crossovers and full-size pickups.

    kdhspyder: As I've stated several times before if they had made serious efforts to provide competitive vehicles that were more efficient they would have been better placed to switch directions when the US buying public switched directions. They didn't so they are close to dying.

    And yet we had CAFE, and they are still failing. Please note that CAFE standards
    only required them to meet a mileage target, not a price, quality or performance target.

    kdspyder: In the end it was the decisions of the three Managements in Detroit to fight and to ignore CAFE while digging in their heels and concentrating on the least fuel efficient vehicles that did them in.

    Sorry, but you are incorrect. The Big Three didn't ignore CAFE. If they had done so, they would not have met the standards and would therefore have paid the resulting fines.

    Some of the European manufacturers have done this - and the last time I checked, they were not near bankruptcy. The Big Three made a point of making sure that their fleet averages meet CAFE standards, which prevented them from paying these fines (for both public relations purposes and to prevent shareholder lawsuits). So much for the thesis that ignoring CAFE is what has driven them to the brink.

    kdhsypder: That intent of the original law apparently is poorly understood on your part because it appears that your statement ignores the normal growth in population and thus in drivers.

    I understand perfectly - when the original goal is not met, a new one is invented to cover up its failure.

    I'm surprised that no one has argued that CAFE was meant to cure erectile dysfunction or help the Biggest Loser contestants lose weight, although I'm sure that if the discussion continues long enough...

    kdhsypder: Are you seriously saying that your understanding of CAFE was that it was intended to absolutely reduce the usage of petro-products even if the population grew from 250 MM people to 300 MM people? If so then you're arguing nonsense.

    kdhspyder, please come to Harrisburg, and we can go the Widener School of Law Library and pull the issue of the Congressional Record where the original CAFE law was debated. It contains speechs from supporters as to why the original law was enacted.

    I'm sorry that it has failed in those regards, but you would do better to ask why we should support something that has clearly failed in the original mission, not to mention the missions du jour that supporters have dreamed up to mask its failure. That's better than stoning the messenger for pointing out that the CAFE Emperor is stark naked. ;)

    kdhspyder: 'New reason(s) for the extention of CAFE'.....since it was the initiative of G W Bush and his advisors what do you think those reasons are? You and I have covered this issue as well in our prior annual exchange on this subject.

    Yes, it was the one where you were predicting gasoline shortages and resulting mayhem in the streets by 2015 and $5 a gallon by this May. I just bought gas yesterday. It was $2.35 a gallon. So much for that prediction...

    kdhsypder: From your entire prior post you acknowledge the advancement in the marketplace of more fuel efficient vehicles. Agreed, it's undeniable.

    Yes, it had been happening since 1965. CAFE went into effect in 1977. Is CAFE now responsible for increased economy gains and the movement to smaller vehicles BEFORE it went into effect? That's quite a stretch!

    kdhspyder: Your main rationale against CAFE is that in your view the vehcle-makers would have done this on their own. Several times you've stated that pressures from the marketplace would have brought them to provide us the same levels fuel effiiciency simply for their own survival.

    Which is supported by history and market trends since 1965.

    kdhspyder; What has Detroit done? the D3 did nothing but dig in its heels - until it was too late - and we as a nation abandoned them to their fossilzed relics.

    GM, Ford and Chrysler met the original standards. They specifically made sure that they avoided paying CAFE fines, unlike some foreign manufacturers. Since when is this synonomous with digging in their heels?

    What you are upset about is that they lobbied against increasing the standards. As did Mercedes, Toyota, BMW and others. Are Mercedes, BMW and Toyota fossilized relics, too?

    Your argument based on corporate goodwill toward the nation fails in the face of reality.

    If consumers want more fuel efficient vehicles, manufacturers will give it to them. I see no evidence that people who buy Accords or Corollas or Fusions, for example, are unhappy with the mileage of their vehicles.

    What you are upset about is that some purchasers are willing to make other trade-offs in fuel economy for performance, room, cargo capacity, etc. They don't want a Fit; they want a Silverado. When you make their vehicle payments for them, and show that you know more about vehicles than they do, then feel free to dictate their choices. Until then, it's best to leave them make their own decisions. ;)
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,129
    Some of the European manufacturers have done this - and the last time I checked, they were not near bankruptcy.

    Just an aside, but Porsche is in trouble. Paying CAFE fines probably hasn't helped any. (link).

    Welcome back. :)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    GM's 2-Mode hybrids are currently only being offered in top ofthe line models. They could just as easily be offered in every truck that GM makes. Now that the rules are known and when GM exits from BK court it will qualify to dip into the $25 Billion set aside for the D3 by the 2007 Clean Energy Act. GM can in effect recover it's entire R&D investment cost on the 2-Modes making them much more competitive. In addition volume solves nearly all pricing woes in the auto industry.

    Finally the new 'Good GM' will not have to factor in legacy costs, Jobs Bank, an overbearing debt burden into its pricing structure. These latter three items alone could take $5000-$8000 out of the cost of every vehicle. After it reaches breakeven on the 2-Mode R&D amortization this 'extra cost' of $3000-$5000 disappears or flows directly to the bottom line as profit.

    GM could after BK end up selling $30000 non-hybrid trucks for $23-$25000 and making a profit. It could sell $34000 2-Mode trucks for as little $27000 and make a profit. It's all in the accounting.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,886
    GM's 2-Mode hybrids are currently only being offered in top ofthe line models.

    They are still neutered. Unable to tow enough to be a real truck. The Sierra hybrid gets ONE mpg better on the highway than the 6.2L engine in the non hybrid. And has a towing capacity of 3400 lbs less. The Sierra with the 5.3L V8 gets BETTER highway mileage than the hybrid and still tows more. GM is toast. Their hybrids are a joke. Even worse than the GMC hybrid I owned in 2005.

    Some people seem to think if you tack the word hybrid on a vehicle it is better. A Toyota man ought to know better after the LS600h debacle and the new HS 250h that is getting trashed in the press.

    Maybe what we really were expecting was Lexus IS performance. Despite its occasional faults, we really like driving the Lexus IS, every one of them yet made, in fact. The HS 250h does bear a resemblance, proportionally, to the IS 250. But that's where the resemblance stops.

    So why is it that during our first drive of the new car, all we could think of was Prius? Maybe it was the continuously variable transmission, a choice that is never fun and just screams, "We love you, EPA!"


    CAFE needs to be put in the museum with the dinosaurs. A totally failed idea.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    The GM 2-Modes are very serious improvements. They're equally as important as the 2004 Prius was, maybe even more so.

    Regarding CAFE I've explained the numbers to you at least 3 times and you still don't understand the concept. No hope here. We move on.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,784
    "Puh-Leeze, Mr. Dramatic. The warming is not a myth. That polar ice ain't melitin its own self."

    I can't resist. News articles say that this year's arctic ice was the 3rd lowest ever - not mentioning that it has been increasing since 2007 (that "lowest ever"). Antarctic ice is also increasing. So no, "that polar ice ain't meltin' its own self".

    But I don't think CAFE was ever designed to counter climate change, only to encourage fuel economy - it was instituted after the oil crisis of '73, IIRC, to encourage conservation as much as anything else, always a good thing in my opinion.

    I do not think it has outlived it's usefulness as a general indicator on the sticker of the car. If you see a low number on a huge SUV, it can be compared to a high number for a compact car. Yes, YMMV, but that is to be expected.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,129
    "For years - and years, and years -automakers in the U.S. insisted that their studies showed that Americans didn't value fuel economy and preferred those fuel-swilling (and profitable) SUVs and pickups over gas-sipping compacts.

    But that's not so, says former General Motors economist Walter McManus"

    Say it Ain't So! Detroit Ignored Fuel Efficiency Demands, Says Ex-GM Economist (Green Car Advisor)

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    I think it's more marketing than anything else. Americans respond to clever advertising.

    For example, station wagons aren't profitable, but anything based on the existing truck frame is. So in the 90s, the automakers slowly discontinued wagons, marketing the truck-based SUVs as "this is so much BETTER than a wagon!" Then when fuel prices increased, the move was to car-based SUVs... "this crossover is so much BETTER than your big guzzling SUV!" And with the new CAFE rules, we'll see/hear in a few years "this sleek wagon is so much BETTER than that oversized crossover!"

    Then somebody (like me) will point out that the 1979 Ford Fairmont wagon my grandfather owned had more cargo room, far better visibility, and exceeded 30 mpg highway with both the 2.3L I-4 and 3.3L I-6 engines (Grandpa had the I-6).

    Back To The Future, anyone?

    kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,129
    And don't forget the minivan KC. Wagons almost didn't recover from their run before the Crossovers came out. My '97 wagon occasionally will hit 30 mpg on the highway.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    To an extent. Minivans became the "mom mobiles" for a reason... the dads who used to pilot the Ford Country Squires and Chevy Kingswood Estates of the world were not going to switch to a 4 cylinder front-wheel-drive minivan built from a K-car... they were the ones who went for the Tahoes and Expeditions. Those dads were not giving up their V8s or towing ability when dragging the family cross-country Griswold-style.

    kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,129
    My dad stuck to his '53 Buick Special. I don't remember him ever driving this. :shades:

    image
    See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 3,784
    " Then somebody (like me) will point out that the 1979 Ford Fairmont wagon my grandfather owned had more cargo room, far better visibility, and exceeded 30 mpg highway with both the 2.3L I-4 and 3.3L I-6 engines (Grandpa had the I-6). "

    Yeah, but a lot of them came like my '78; with the 302 (5L) V8 engine. Actually, I got around 23 MPG on the road with that car, a sedan rather than the wagon.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,129
    I still have a little trouble wrapping my head around this.

    "Stronger mileage and greenhouse-gas standards will boost variable profits and sales in 2020 for the auto industry worldwide, with the Detroit 3 seeing the biggest financial benefits. The Detroit 3's variable profit gains would garner more than half of all increased profits."

    Detroit 3 To Profit From Higher CAFE Standard (AutoObserver)

    image

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    Hmmmm. That report didn't seem to say why the big 3 would earn more profits....But, I can see that with cars rapidly becoming more efficient and more advanced that "planned obsolescence" (even if it's planned in part by the gov't) might accelerate. If your 2020 Accord somehow gets 40 mpg hwy, you might want to ditch your 2012 that gets only 33 long before it wears out...? Wait, that's not big three, but you get the idea.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,687
    It would be nice to see fuel efficiency standards ramp up to a level where they were similar to those already in place for years in Europe and Asia....

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    By 2025 you should get your wish--if we all live that long! As you've probably heard, the feds are planning to push CAFE mpg from c. 35 in 2017 (which is really only 26 combined in the new, more realistic epa calculation) to c. 50-60 mpg by then. My rough in the head calculation is that a 50 mpg CAFE, which is maybe about 38 mpg in the new system, will give almost all of us smaller cars with smaller engines. A lot more hybrids too. In other words, new cars will look closer to what they are in Japan and Europe in about a dozen years.

    Maybe we'll have to start eating better and exercising more to fit in our smaller cars...?
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    if man is still alive, if woman can survive, they may fiiiiiind~
    at their local Honda dealer

    A 2025 Civic that's about the size of a 1998 Civic. But it will get maybe 50 mpg on the highway, even without a hybrid, because it might have something like a 1.2 liter 4 cylinder VTEC-i3 engine with direct injection that's maybe even a turbo. Just a guess.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,687
    A future to look forward to indeed! :-)

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    LaHood on 2025 fuel standards: 'We want to get it right'
    David Shepardson/ Detroit News Washington Bureau

    Washington — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today he is optimistic regulators and automakers can reach agreement on new fuel efficiency standards for the 2017-2025 timeframe.

    In a Detroit News interview today on the sidelines of an event on Egypt, LaHood pointed to the May 2009 ceremony in which automakers backed a big jump in corporate average fuel economy requirements, or CAFE standards, for the 2012-2016 model years.

    "Our people are very professional at this. I think we proved that with the last CAFE standard. We got it right because we had every car company standing in the Rose Garden with the president," LaHood said. "We want to get it right this time and when we hit the target we'll let everybody know what it is."

    The White House told U.S. automakers last week it was considering requiring a fleetwide average 56.2 mpg for cars and light trucks by 2025 — a move that could add at least $2,100 to $2,600 to the price of cars. But regulators say owners would recoup the higher upfront costs in 2.5 to 3.5 years via fuel savings.

    From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/AUTO01/106280401/LaHood-on-2025-fuel-standar- ds---We-want-to-get-it-right-#ixzz1QgAC8cp7
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    LaHood on 2025 fuel standards: 'We want to get it right'
    David Shepardson/ Detroit News Washington Bureau

    Washington — Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today he is optimistic regulators and automakers can reach agreement on new fuel efficiency standards for the 2017-2025 timeframe.

    In a Detroit News interview today on the sidelines of an event on Egypt, LaHood pointed to the May 2009 ceremony in which automakers backed a big jump in corporate average fuel economy requirements, or CAFE standards, for the 2012-2016 model years.

    "Our people are very professional at this. I think we proved that with the last CAFE standard. We got it right because we had every car company standing in the Rose Garden with the president," LaHood said. "We want to get it right this time and when we hit the target we'll let everybody know what it is."

    The White House told U.S. automakers last week it was considering requiring a fleetwide average 56.2 mpg for cars and light trucks by 2025 — a move that could add at least $2,100 to $2,600 to the price of cars. But regulators say owners would recoup the higher upfront costs in 2.5 to 3.5 years via fuel savings.

    From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/AUTO01/106280401/LaHood-on-2025-fuel-standar- ds---We-want-to-get-it-right-#ixzz1QgAC8cp7
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    LaHood declined to comment on the 56.2 mpg figure.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency want to complete a draft of the standards and send it to the White House Office of Management and Budget by the end of July.

    LaHood said the goal is another Rose Garden ceremony with automakers.

    The figure would require average an annual increase in fuel efficiency of 5 percent, but regulators have told automakers they will "backload" some of the steepest increases to the later years — when electric vehicles may be in wider use.

    From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110628/AUTO01/106280401/LaHood-on-2025-fuel-standar- ds---We-want-to-get-it-right-#ixzz1QgAb9Zi1
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,682
    56 is a very high standard. But, keep in mind that 56 would be as calculated in 1975, which was more of a steady state driving at slower speeds without AC. I'm not sure, but I think in today's numbers a 56 would be more like a 46. And given that we already have a Hyundai Elantra that gets 40 mpg on the highway here in 2012, getting to 46 in a dozen years doesn't seem that bad....
Sign In or Register to comment.