Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And since gas prices and therefore profits rise with every increase in "gasoline shortage" as a result of inadequate refining capacity, is it in their best interests to build more refineries anyway?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"General Motors may build a Buick luxury car that is sized and priced below the LaCrosse.
Executives are rethinking GM's U.S. product plans in light of new federal regulations requiring an average fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2020, company insiders say. The small Buick could be one outcome.
The vehicle would be based on the Buick Excelle sedan that debuts in China by early next year.
'I definitely think there might be a market for a luxury-crafted smaller car for Buick,' says a senior GM source.
GM would have to resolve where in North America to build the car. Also, executives are considering how to position it against other GM brands with compact sedans.
The Toyota Corolla-sized Excelle is based on GM's new global rear-drive architecture, called Alpha, being developed in Germany."
Watch out BMW 1 and 3-Series!
BINGO!!!! This is what the '70's fuel crisis was about. Signs after signs saying "NO GAS"
Nippon: As far as 18-20 MPG trucks and SUV's, well I will stick up for them in this regard; they, along with their minivan/van/station wagon ancestors have been a staple of American society for over 60 years. We do this because ultimately it is cheaper than owning and operating a second or third or maybe even fourth car or moped to do all the things we need them to do. That is what the UTILITY stands for.
Having said that, what we really need to do is change the way we think about driving. For example:
Leave for work 10 min. earlier and do 65-70 instead of 75-80.
Carpool if you can
Go IN instead of using the drive-thru
Public transportation
(listen to me, I sound like a greenie :surprise: )
And yes, consider keeping the SUV an extra cycle and purchase a more economical vehicle for commuting. Then, switch off your purchases; SUV, then car.
All of this, of course requires that we make a commitment to change how we think about the driving part of our lives.
Leave for work 10 min. earlier and do 65-70 instead of 75-80.
Carpool if you can
Go IN instead of using the drive-thru
Public transportation
(listen to me, I sound like a greenie )
And yes, consider keeping the SUV an extra cycle and purchase a more economical vehicle for commuting. Then, switch off your purchases; SUV, then car.
All of this, of course requires that we make a commitment to change how we think about the driving part of our lives."
Now you're talking! I agree with all your points, and I think as gas prices rise even more, more and more people will be forced to take some of these suggestions into account. And next time they buy a vehicle they will think about the lifestyle changes they have made, and maybe they will make one more by choosing a different type of vehicle next time.
But because many won't, and because it is in our interest NOT to export all our wealth to Nigeria, Venezuela, and the Middle East, we still need SOME type of regulation or market incentive to get people to reduce the amount of gas they consume in their cars.
And because CAFE is still based on the original EPA testing regimen of the 1960s and because too many models are exempt from it that are used for family transport, the new CAFE 35 won't go far enough in the right direction. But I do believe in the automakers' ability to innovate and design compliant vehicles that Americans want. We just have to push them past the whining phase first. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The new CAFE 35 is not an enviro-goodie pushed on the blueblooded conservative patriots by some lefty pinko subversive group. That rant belongs in the 'Dems = Satan' forum here.
CAFE 35 is a necessity according to Dubya and his advisors to force the entire population to move into more efficient vehicles. If it means taking you out of your Sierra or limiting the amount of fuel you can put into it then the President's plan will have worked. This has nothing to do with any Dem, any enviro group, GW, or anything else except GWB and what he sees occuring down the road.
No, but it is a dumb, ineffective idea, regardless of which group or politician is pushing it. The standards don't kick in until another decade...if oil supplies are really getting tight, prices will rise and consumers will adjust accordingly, all long before any increase in CAFE takes effect.
If oil supplies get tight, prices go up, which means that people will use less of it. Last year the number of miles driven by Americans DECLINED...so it looks as though the relationship between price and use still holds true, even without any government intervention.
In view of this, perhaps the federal government should have spent its time on something more productive...like fussing over whether athletes are injecting THEIR OWN bodies with steroids. Oh, wait, they did, so....never mind.
Well it matters how we get to 35mpg. Plug-in hybrids may not be so good according to the following: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-02-25-plug-in-hybrids-pollu- tion_N.htm
Simple. Research and development costs money. Given the choice, companies would rather spend as little as possible on it. If no one else is doing it, they dont' have to do it because they're still competitive. And the market has doesn't have that kind of impact...all they can do is buy or not buy.
Then there's the fact that American car companies STILL haven't figured out how to make a profit on small cars...
"Which is why we let the market work and keep foolish rationing schemes out of the picture. If gasoline is really that scarce, let the price increase, and people will conserve it on their own. "
Ok, how much less gas can YOU live with? Or are you expecting "someone else" to do it? Me, I can't really burn any less gas, because I drive 100 miles a day. No I can't get a job closer to home, they don't pay enough to live on. No I can't move closer to work, because housing is too expensive there. No I can't take mass transit because there is none available. Many people CAN'T cut their gas usage. They have to just eat it. Incidentally, there are NO high-MPG options for highway travel: hybrids aren't designed for it. Quite frankly they suck on the highway. But the "free market" has not addressed this much, have they? Nope, not really. Why? They don't have to spend the money because no one else is doing it.
Businesses are out to make a profit. They've got a right to, even though American car companies can't seem to figure out how. They're not going to spend money on R&D that they don't have to, unless someone forces them to. That's just life.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Anyway back to cars, and I DO like the idea of that smaller Buick...Buick and Caddy (and Saturn) seem to be the worthwhile GM makes. Efficiency is a good thing, and it saves us consumers money at the pump on top of all the enviro-nut-benefits.
The problem is the government. Yeah, we'll all be driving much more efficient vehicles (I'd like to see more high-efficiency options for highway travel though...I have a 50 mile commute in each direction, and no I can't do anything about it, so I'm sure people will make dumb suggestions that I'll have to counter). But the government will still be driving the President around in a caravan of 12 4-MPG-highway Suburbans. I want to see the motorcades populated with more fuel-efficient vehicles. Maybe Escape Hybrids...then they'd be putting the money in the ol Presidential mouth
But I don't know how popular these will be if fuel does hit $6 to $10 a gallon. How masochistic must an owner be to want to run a daily driver that has a 35 gal tank that gets 12 mpg and costs $200 - $300 to fillup once a week?
If oil supplies get tight, prices go up, which means that people will use less of it. Last year the number of miles driven by Americans DECLINED...so it looks as though the relationship between price and use still holds true, even without any government intervention.
Actually it's not a dumb idea at all. The President and Congress moved quickly because they, the one's with the data and analysts, see what the risks are of not doing anything. Let's take two scenarios...
A) Fuel continues to stay in tight supply driving prices up causing us, the smart human beings we are, to react by buying more efficient models using today's technology - instead of staying with our relatively less economical models. This has been happening since the end of 2003 already. Over 1 million buyers annually have traded their BOF vehicles or kept them parked at home as they've bought more efficient vehicles. In total midsized SUVs, small trucks, large trucks and large SUVs are down at the 6 top BOF sellers. What these buyers have done essentially is trade out of their 17 mpg vehicle for something more efficient like a crossover ( 22 mpg ), midsized auto ( 26 mpg ), hybrid ( 40+ mpg ) or small compact ( 35 mpg ). That's what's available today.
As you correctly note people react and either buy efficiency or drive fewer miles.
5-8 yrs from now fuel is really starting to hurt and there are spot shortages so the majority of the population begins to move en masse to the higher efficiency vehicles but without any impetus the options still are based on 2007 technology; i.e. 22 mpg-crossovers, 26 mpg-midsizers, etc. There's a significant saving but it's still not enough. In 15-25 years our population will be 30-40% bigger than it is now and there will be as many as 50% more drivers on the road than today. What the data gatherers and analysts see that we the individuals don't see is the long term consequences of this growth.
If the best vehicle you can opt to drive in 2020 is a 20 mpg lambda or Highlander or a 45 mpg Prius but we need 50-60% more fuel than we have what do you think the consequences will be? Chaos and riots are a possibility. Class struggle is a possibility. A severely injured economy is almost a certainty. If you are given 15 gal per week per driver how much latitude do you have to do anything other than work? For example those that have boats can sink them at sea, call the Coast Guard and collect the insurance. They'll never be able to use them again. Alright that's illegal.
Now if fuel in 2020 is $7-$10 a gallon because our internal demand far exceeds our avaiable supply one could move from a relatively inefficient 2010 model getting 20 mpg to a new 2020 model crossover getting 30 mpg or a 40 mpg midsized auto. Those are far better choices than a 22 mpg crossover or a 26 mpg midsizer which is all we have today. At least we ( and the 50% additional drivers that will be on the road with us ) may not have to ration our fuel supply between us in such draconian ways that we have to fight each other tooth and nail ( and gun and knife ) for every drop of petro-fuel.
Oh...China and India.
I'm sure that having lots of data and employing lots of analysts on something guarantees that the correct result will be reached. After all, lots of data was gathered, and lots of analysts were employed, on projects that resulted in...the Edsel, the Aztek and the 55 mph speed limit.
Well, that certainly settles the case in my mind on the value of data and the work of analysts.
kdhspyder: 5-8 yrs from now fuel is really starting to hurt and there are spot shortages so the majority of the population begins to move en masse to the higher efficiency vehicles but without any impetus the options still are based on 2007 technology; i.e. 22 mpg-crossovers, 26 mpg-midsizers, etc.
Here is where your scenario falls flat. If fuel supplies have been getting tight for years, what makes you think that there won't be any "impetus" for even further gains in mileage down the road? Are buyers really going to ignore fuel economy issues if the price of gas virtually doubled (or even tripled) while they owned the last vehicle? Will companies be that stupid to ignore buyer desires?
Do you think that any car company is going to be stupid enough to sit back and rely on 15 or 20 mpg SUVs when gasoline is heading for $5 a gallon? That people are going to continue to buy those SUVs when they are faced with gasoline prices that have doubled within the past few years, and are still going up?
kdhspyder: If the best vehicle you can opt to drive in 2020 is a 20 mpg lambda or Highlander or a 45 mpg Prius but we need 50-60% more fuel than we have what do you think the consequences will be?
Where is it written that, without CAFE, in 2020 we will be driving the same type of vehicles, getting the same type of mileage, that we do now? Most vehicles on the market today were developed with an expectation of relatively cheap gasoline. The exceptions are the Prius and the Civic Hybrid. Gasoline prices were actually FALLING during the late 1990s.
If prices continue to escalate, I'm sure that the market (i.e., individual new vehicle buyers) will reward those manufacturers who make fuel efficient vehicles, and punish those who don't.
kdhspyder: Chaos and riots are a possibility. Class struggle is a possibility.
Well, that is why I don't believe in gun control, but I'm sure that our moderators will note that is another subject entirely...
kdhspyder: If you are given 15 gal per week per driver how much latitude do you have to do anything other than work? For example those that have boats can sink them at sea, call the Coast Guard and collect the insurance. They'll never be able to use them again. Alright that's illegal.
If we let the price rise to market levels, we don't need to ration gasoline. Rationing comes in when people who think they know better (i.e., usually "activists" who seem to think that they or the group they represent are entitled to something, or politicians) and don't like the results of the free market (i.e., prices rising to their natural level, which is based on good, old-fashioned supply-and-demand). Rationing is the result of capped prices, which inevitably results in shortages.
Which is why we let the market work and keep foolish rationing schemes out of the picture. If gasoline is really that scarce, let the price increase, and people will conserve it on their own.
If prices go higher, then people can figure out on their own how to pay for it. If people decide they want to continue to use their current levels because they can afford to do so, then that is their choice, and nobody else's business.
Some people can't afford it? Well, then, they can walk or ride a bike. In many cases the exercise would be beneficial.
Since when do people have a "right" to any amount of gasoline? Did I miss that provision in the U.S. Constitution?
kdhspyder:
Higher gasoline prices will ensure that vehicles get improved mileage. Even more importantly, higher gasoline prices will ensure that people want to buy those vehicles. CAFE can't ensure that people will want those vehicles, unless there is a provision in there mandating that everyone who can must buy a new vehicle, and the old gas guzzlers must be scapped instead of being sold as used vehicles.
Sorry, but unless CAFE is going to change the laws of physics, those 30 mpg crossovers and 27 mpg trucks will not have the same capabilities as today's comparable vehicles. Look at what the original CAFE did to full-size cars - it eliminated them from the market. That is why people turned to trucks and SUVs - they do what the old full-sizers USED to do (particularly haul trailers and very heavy loads). THAT is what will happen.
CAFE will just make today's trucks and SUVs capable of really heavy duty work more valuable as used vehicles, unless gasoline prices really skyrocket, in which case the demands of the market will far outpace any increases mandated by CAFE. And CAFE will be moot.
Which is why I think automakers WILL change their vehicles faster than CAFE will update the standard, but only because the new CAFE is spurring them on. CAFE always lags the market reality with regard to gas prices. I suspect it will here too.
And today's vehicle mix SUCKS. If I seriously want to buy a car with high fuel economy today, the best I can do is high 40s, and then I have only two choices? The best I can do in a non-hybrid is high 30s and I only have maybe two choices there also? Maybe 18 or so if I want a truck? Totally pathetic. If the CAFE 35 regs get the automakers to wake up and give those who want high fuel economy more choices, then I am all for them. But I don't believe they will accomplish their stated objective (reduced dependence on foreign oil) any more than they ever have. They need to find a way to cause people to drive less, to accomplish that.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well they resisted and lost 5-8 years of technology, sales and good public image. OK now they all have found religion ( even flap-jaw Lutz ) but none was in favor of increasing fuel economy standards. Even Toyota. They originally fought it. That of it self tells you what they intended to do...nothing. When it became apparent that the President wanted it and Congress was going to pass something they got a watered-down version passed.
Which is why we let the market work and keep foolish rationing schemes out of the picture. If gasoline is really that scarce, let the price increase, and people will conserve it on their own.
If prices go higher, then people can figure out on their own how to pay for it. If people decide they want to continue to use their current levels because they can afford to do so, then that is their choice, and nobody else's business.
Some people can't afford it? Well, then, they can walk or ride a bike. In many cases the exercise would be beneficial.
Since when do people have a "right" to any amount of gasoline? Did I miss that provision in the U.S. Constitution?
Wow. That sounds like the very basis for a gigantic class struggle. Will you feel safe driving and filling up when fuel reaches such a level that large segments of the public are priced out of individual transportation? Not only will those who can't afford the fuel to drive not drive but they can't even work if there's no mass transit available. Well as you'd say they have no Constitutional 'right' to work. They can always stay at home. THIS is the chaos that might arise and that the Feds don't want to see occur.
I'm sorry your last 3 paragraphs are just factually wrong.
Higher gasoline prices will ensure nothing as regards to improved fuel economy. It takes foresight on the part of the manufacturers and/or governmental intervention. I don't just believe in Corporate beneficence in a for-profit organization. They did in fact fight having to increse fuel economy standards. You cannot get away from this fact.
The 27 mpg Highlander is at least the same or better than the 22 mpg Highlander
The 35 mpg Hybrid Camry is far far better than the I4 Camry. Ditto the Altima hybrid.
I expect the diesel Accord and Jetta TDI to be at least equal if not better than the gasser versions of each.
A diesel Tacoma vs a gasser Tacoma....gagrice want to chime in here?
That whole idea of CAFE eliminating the dinosaurs from the fleet of the 60's isn't a bad idea. If you're saying that keeping the 11-12 mpg large cars was a better option than the development of the Taurus/Camry/Accord of the 80's well then we are in strong disagreement. Those big vehicles had to die and the sooner the better. The growth of the SUV/CrewCab truck was an unforseen consequence of a loophole and ultra low fuel prices. If fuel prices hadn't plummetted after the spike then the SUV craze wouldn't have gotten off the ground. But even these vehices get better fuel economy than the large car fleet of the 60's and 70's. That's a good benefit of the original CAFE.
This 2020 goal of CAFE 35 isn't intended to solve all problems by 2020. It's to solve the situations that are going to occur later in the 20's. At some point the vehicles with 2010 technology will be retired during the 20's. That's when population growth and lower petro supplies are really going to collide. I don't want to have to trust in the goodwill of any corporation to give me a 75 mpg vehicle in the next 15 years when fuel is $6-$10 a gallon. It's in their best interest to spend the least amount of money to gain the most profit and keep increases as incremental as possible.
And Sequoia, Tahoe, and Expedition should slide nicely into the new exemption category with a minimum of fuss too, I would think.
I don't expect gas to be at $6/gallon for at least five years yet, and maybe more. $10 gas is only a possibility in the 2020 timeframe, I would think. As so many here have pointed out in other threads, there are plenty of people that would be willing to gas up a 15 mpg, CAFE-exempt Tundra or Suburban, even at these elevated prices, although the SUV portion of this mix will probably shrink, I admit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Companies have been able to expand current refineries. It was cheaper than building a new one. Many refineries have closed over the last 20 years. Why? Profits were not very good for a long time. There was a glut of capacity. It has taken several years of good margins to turn things around and make the idea of a new refinery a possibility. I would suggest reading up on the oil industry and refineries. You can start at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery or theoildrum.com or rigzone.com
“ I think a shortage of labor as you stated, would be nothing but a short term problem.”
I don't think so. The number of people expected to retire in the next ten years is going to hurt the industry. The low prices of the 90s also hurt the industry. A lot of experience left never to return. Oil jobs pay a lot but they suck when it comes to hours worked. I worked as a mud logger. The 16 hours on and 16 hours off gets real old after just a few months. Not that many people want to go were the drilling or oil exploration is at. And, drilling is a tough job. I have a lot of respect for the folks that actually get the work done. How would you like to work as a derrick hand, 100 feet in the air when the wind chills are 60 below? There is also the danger.
"We do not drill more for the same reason we do not use more of the cleanest energy of all. (Nuclear energy) That reason: Liberal Eco Nut Jobs!"
You are forgetting the economics. It is always about the money.
“I fail to see how a average size man can fit in one of those little ugly cars? I'm 6-1' and 190-lbs and have a hard time getting out of my Monte Carlo.”
They are cute little cars.
Housing prices have been distorted since 2001 by the credit-fueled housing bubble. You can not use the past few years as a measurement of what constitutes "normal" appreciation for the housing market, even in the New York metropolitan area.
I don't think it's dumb moves. It's just that this has become a VERY expensive part of the American fabric. I don't think management wants to get rid of it for that reason, but they have no choice when they up their product prices 1-3% a yr., but Blue cross keeps asking for12-15%. Yes, universal healthcare could very well be the solution to this.
They agreed to those benefits because there were four major players (GM, Ford, Chrysler and AMC), they controlled 90+ percent of the new-vehicle market, so if costs rose for one, they rose for all.
Shortsighted, yes, but not suicidal.
Universal healthcare for retirees is already available in this country - Medicare. The UAW does not want to go that route, because government benefits aren't nearly as generous as what is provided under the company plans.
If the UAW really believed in universal health care, it could simply have told the Big Three during last year's contract negotiations, "Let's cancel the company plans for retirees and move them into Medicare." The companies would have clapped for joy. But note that this did not happen...because UAW retirees would have been in open rebellion over such a move.
bpizzuti: No one's doing anything to solve that travel problem either...that's the "free market" supposedly putting that into play.
Based on what you've told me, there is obviously a demand for housing where you work. But there is a housing shortage, which suggests that something is preventing it from being built. Is it rules, land use regulations or NIMBYism? Those are not examples of the free market in action. But they are preventing the needed housing from being built, either through new construction or conversions (warehouses to apartments, for example).
bpizzuti: Oh, someone mentioned that they don't think companies dictate what consumers buy...well they do, because they are the ones that decide what's available on the market, not the consumer. The consumer can only select from what's available.
Or the consumer can choose "none of the above" and keep the old vehicle.
For example, GM recently introduced a new line of full-size SUVs and trucks (the GMT-900 platform). These vehicles were vital to its recovery. Everyone agrees that they are excellent vehicles, that do what they were designed to do.
But sales have been only "okay," and the company has resorted to offering incentives to keep them moving. These incentives cut into the profit margins of a crucial product.
If GM really controlled the market, and dictated consumer desires, would it be allowing this scenario to occur? I highly doubt it.
Meanwhile, the Prius is outselling the Ford Explorer. Ford is rushing the Fiesta into production for the American market. Ford is moving away from V-8s. Sounds as though the market is moving the companies, rather than the other way around...
The change won't be instantaneous. Ford has to tool up for the Fiesta. It has to bring those new engines with the EcoBoost system to market. But don't confuse market lag with dictating what the market wants.
There are many countries where much of the population does not have $ for gasoline, while others drive. So I don't see why U.S. citizens are going to act different if that were to occur. You make no case. Is it modified U.S. genetics? As far as employment goes, these trends will occur gradually over years giving people time to adapt. I work in a department where 2 blue-collar workers don't have cars. How do they get by? they live within 2 miles of work and either bike, walk, or on really bad weather days take a cab.
If gasoline gets really high then I'm fairly sure we will adjust the layouts of our cities. I lived in old industrial cities in New England and it is not that hard to convert mills to dwellings. I guess it would be easier still to convert some floors of office buildings to residential.
And wages and/or real estate prices will adjust such that businesses can get employees. The people who wrote they can't live near where they work because of economics, are not going to lose their job en-masse, as the business can not function without the workers. Now if they can replace those workers then obviously there is a way people are affording to live close to work.
Societies have and will continue to adjust, whether there is or isn't gasoline for transportation.
You're a bit naive aren't you? Wages are THEORETICALLY supposed to adjust like you're talking about. Problem is, they don't in the real world. You familiar with NY State at all? you know where prices have been skyrocketing but pay has been staying flat? Remember, businesses are out to make money, which means they're not going to pay more than necessary. Incidentally, THEIR prices go up too, which means they're willing to pay LESS due to having less gross income after those expenses. They don't adjust, they expect their employees to adjust. If their employees can't adjust, then they can always outsource to India or something. Matter of fact, the big offender in this area of NY, IBM, has already started doing so rather than give in to the necessity of paying their workers enough.
Yeah, international trade is straying a bit, but considering India and China, two of the primary targets of outsourcing are also two of our primary competitors for limited amounts of gasoline, thereby driving prices up....well that's kind of interesting, isn't it? We send them jobs, and in thanks, they help cause our gas prices to go up. That's supply and demand though...less supply, more demand. We helped create it with our wonderful outsourcing ideas.
And Sequoia, Tahoe, and Expedition should slide nicely into the new exemption category with a minimum of fuss too, I would think.
See, this is where I think we should start calling a spade a spade.
I think that there should be several categories for CAFE regs.
First, trucks: Half tons haul 1/2 ton, 3/4's, 3/4 ton. And so on. Very simple. This may be a way to save weight on the smaller trucks so they get better gas mileage. I think we could live with a 1/2 ton truck getting 24 mpg hwy, while a true 1 ton dually gets 18 to 20.
SUV's: If it's traditional BOF, it's a "truck". These will get CAFE charged against their pickup counterparts (1/2t vs.1/2t, and so on).
If it's a platform (unibody), it's a car. If it hauls 6 or less, it counts against car CAFE measurements, if it seats more than 6, it gets it's own car/utility category.
Set the standard like this:
Sub-compacts+ micros (smaller than a Civic or Corolla) 45 mpg
Compacts; 40 mpg
Mid/sized; 35 mpg
Large/ 6 pass CUV; 26 mpg
Sm. truck/SUV; 24 mpg
Med. truck/SUV; 22 mpg
Lg. truck/SUV; 20 mpg
If we can set the bar higher, do it. And if the car makers can't (or won't) meet the requirements, pay the guzzler tax.
Put another way, it forces them to build cars that the marketplace didn't want back when gas was $1.25 a gallon, so that when the price of gas goes up to $4.00 they are more ready than they would have been.
Research and development cost money...but declining sales cause even bigger losses.
And companies don't decide to do something based solely on what other companies are doing...they make those decisions based on market trends (which can show up when a company has a new, hot vehicle - that is how companies base their decisions on the actions of other companies).
The market has been trending to smaller vehicles for a few years now. The hottest segment among SUVs is the CR-V, Escape, RAV4 segment. Sales of really small cars (Fit, Yaris) are growing. In response, Ford is bringing out the Fiesta (and building it in Mexico so that it will make money on it).
So, yes, the market DOES have that kind of impact. If customers are "not buying" a company's product, that is the market speaking, and that sends a pretty strong signal to said company that something is wrong and needs to be addressed with different products.
bpizzuti: Then there's the fact that American car companies STILL haven't figured out how to make a profit on small cars...
And how exactly is increasing CAFE going to change this? American companies didn't make money on small cars in 1973 (before CAFE and the Arab Oil Embargo.) Congress passed CAFE in 1975, and, over 30 years later, the American companies STILL don't make money on small cars.
bpizzuit: Ok, how much less gas can YOU live with?
I'll "live with" as much gas as I can afford to buy.
bpizzuti: Or are you expecting "someone else" to do it?
No, I expect them to use as much as they can afford. That is their decision. But how much I use is none of their business, and I'm not submitting to any silly rationing schemes because they deserve a "fair share". If prices go up, they can act like adults and figure out how to cope with it.
bpizzuti: Me, I can't really burn any less gas, because I drive 100 miles a day. No I can't get a job closer to home, they don't pay enough to live on. No I can't move closer to work, because housing is too expensive there. No I can't take mass transit because there is none available. Many people CAN'T cut their gas usage.
When referring to "housing" are you only referring to owner-occupied houses, or are you including apartments, too (i.e, renting)? Not everyone has to have a house. Apartments work just fine. Every urban area I've seen has plenty of them, and often prices are reasonable. WIth the recent housing boom, rents in many areas have LAGGED increases in house prices, meaning that smart-money people rent instead of buying.
What you are referring to is a real estate problem caused by a variety of government actions - strict zoning, land use controls - coupled with plain old supply-and-demand, and a credit-fueled housing bubble, to drive up prices of owner-occupied housing in certain areas.
Increasing CAFE will do nothing to address that issue.
bpizzuti: Incidentally, there are NO high-MPG options for highway travel: hybrids aren't designed for it. Quite frankly they suck on the highway. But the "free market" has not addressed this much, have they? Nope, not really. Why? They don't have to spend the money because no one else is doing it.
No, there isn't enough demand from customers because gas prices have been at historic lows in relation to income as recently as 2000. The market is working just fine - just not in the way you want it to. People reacted rationally by purchasing larger, more powerful, more luxurious vehicles. Companies reacted rationally by brining that type of vehicle to market.
Even today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, gasoline prices have only recently passed their March 1981 peak. But that was still enough to cause a decline in number of miles driven and a shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles.
bpizzuti: Businesses are out to make a profit. They've got a right to, even though American car companies can't seem to figure out how. They're not going to spend money on R&D that they don't have to, unless someone forces them to. That's just life.
If businesses are losing money - as GM, Ford and Chrysler are - please explain where they are supposed to suddenly devote more money to R&D. Did the law mandating an increase in CAFE include a provision to give government aid to those companies? Did it require engineers, designers and suppliers to work for free? Did it mandate that their ledgers be written in black ink, so that banks and other financial institutions would lend them more money?
The problem I see with CAFE is related to size. As you have said there is a large group of vehicles that will not be affected by the standard. And a larger group that have already gotten the CAFE seal of approval. All the GM and Ford FFVs are in the 35 MPG rated ballpark. Problem solved, sort of. The truth is those 15 MPG PU trucks are now getting 12 MPG with E85. So the two conflicting laws, Energy Bill & CAFE standards are contributing to worse mileage. Has anyone even seen the rating chart for the CAFE standards? If it is linear a Prius should be rated 134 MPG compared to a GMC Sierra FFV.
But I don't know how popular these will be if fuel does hit $6 to $10 a gallon.
Will not matter that much to business. They write off the cost of fuel. So it just means less profit. Less tax revenues from those businesses. Do you think all those dentists that bought Hummers to get the tax write-off are worried about $6 per gallon gas. I don't think so.
About that diesel Tacoma. I have just about given up hope of any high mileage diesel vehicle being sold in the USA. I can probably make this Sequoia last for many years. In spite of the third rate electronics it is a decent vehicle. It would be so much better with a V6 diesel. That's life. Maybe when gas gets to $6 per gallon I can go out on the highway without having to fight the traffic. Driving used to be a pleasure. It could be again with about 50% less people on the roads.
For those stuck with long commutes. I feel for ya. Better get a Prius, HCH or Jetta TDI. You can get 50 MPG on the highway with the VW TDI in spite of what you read on the EPA economy site.
The CAFE bill just like the last two Energy bills are a joke on the American tax payer.
There were loopholes in the current CAFE - for example, Chrysler got the PT Cruiser counted as a 'truck' instead of a car for CAFE...I'm sure they (car companies) will figure out how to work this new system too...
And how exactly is increasing CAFE going to change this? American companies didn't make money on small cars in 1973 (before CAFE and the Arab Oil Embargo.) Congress passed CAFE in 1975, and, over 30 years later, the American companies STILL don't make money on small cars. "
It's not...the companies have to make changes and start looking to make money. Considering they haven't so far, maybe they DO need some arm-twisting. Other companies manage to make money on small cars, American car companies should be able to also. Subaru makes the Impreza here and makes a profit on them. American car companies have historically stayed away from small cars because somehow they can never make them profitable. That's been part of the problem...they wanted to stick with what they DO make a profit on (big gas-suckers) rather than figure out how to make a profit on more fuel-efficient vehicles.
"When referring to "housing" are you only referring to owner-occupied houses, or are you including apartments, too (i.e, renting)? Not everyone has to have a house. Apartments work just fine. Every urban area I've seen has plenty of them, and often prices are reasonable. WIth the recent housing boom, rents in many areas have LAGGED increases in house prices, meaning that smart-money people rent instead of buying.
What you are referring to is a real estate problem caused by a variety of government actions - strict zoning, land use controls - coupled with plain old supply-and-demand, and a credit-fueled housing bubble, to drive up prices of owner-occupied housing in certain areas. "
When I refer to housing I'm referring to all of the above. I don't live in an urban area: I live in an area with a housing shortage. Housing of all types, apartments included. The shortage is such that motels advertise their rooms as studio apartments now. A one-bedroom apartment for $1200/month is considered cheap.
And this directly affects gasoline usage, because if people have to travel that much because the salary/COL ratio is off, as it is in several areas of the country, that means people have to travel more in order to work, that increases gasoline usage and demand, which decreases supply, which increases prices. Fixing that might actually have MORE impact than CAFE standards, come to think of it....about 75% of the employees in my company commute an hour to work. A surprisingly large amount of people do it these days.
"If businesses are losing money - as GM, Ford and Chrysler are - please explain where they are supposed to suddenly devote more money to R&D. Did the law mandating an increase in CAFE include a provision to give government aid to those companies? Did it require engineers, designers and suppliers to work for free? Did it mandate that their ledgers be written in black ink, so that banks and other financial institutions would lend them more money?"
Maybe they need to do the arm-twisting to get them to be competitive. If our car companies were so, they could be profitable, but they've just been tooling along fine on subsistence lately. No I don't know why, but I really don't want to see the American car industry go under.
I know, and the Forester is considered a truck. My system would put and end to that BS
CAFE 35 is law, automakers are making statement that they are scared and will have to radically change their product planning going forward, but then they back way off. GM made dramatic statements about how their V-8 program was dead dead dead, then all of a sudden it was no, wait, maybe it isn't exactly dead, no more like reduced in scope, no wait...
After all the whining and dramatic posturing is over, the automakers will go out and meet the new regs for cars, jump through the loopholes for the trucks, and we will be right back in 1990 again. Only this time, hopefully, with a few more choices for fuel-sipping cars.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That's not a "theory." It is the way the new-vehicle market has worked in the past, and will work in the future.
Unless top management is either completely clueless or wants to run said company into the ground. One can rationally assume, based on the past, that higher gasoline prices will spur interest in better fuel economy, and smart companies will meet that demand.
You seem to think that companies dictate what the market will buy, instead of customers dictating what the companies should produce.
I think the performance of GM, Ford and Chrysler over the past decade should have laid that theory to rest.
kdhspyder: Well looking at the recent past, the comments from GM and the Germans indicated that Toyota's and Honda's move toward ultra-efficient hybrids was a waste of time and money. Size and power sell not fuel economy, or words to that effect.
Judging by GM's profits (or, I should say, lack thereof) and declining market share, any company that looks to GM for guidance is in for a very rude awakening.
As for the Germans - in this country, they sell to the top of the market. The rich can afford $6 per gallon gas. The rich do not, however, constitute the heart of the American automobile market. BMW and Mercedes can afford to ignore, to some extent, the drive for greater fuel mileage. People do not buy a Mercedes SL or BMW 7-Series to brag about the mileage.
Their buyers can afford to take that attitude, and I, for one, am happy for them. Envy, busybodism and pettiness are a waste of time.
kdhspyder: Well they resisted and lost 5-8 years of technology, sales and good public image. OK now they all have found religion ( even flap-jaw Lutz ) but none was in favor of increasing fuel economy standards. Even Toyota. They originally fought it. That of it self tells you what they intended to do...nothing. When it became apparent that the President wanted it and Congress was going to pass something they got a watered-down version passed.
Just because a company is against government regulations does not mean that said company is not working to increase fuel economy.
Here's an example: I am against shoplifting.
I am also against the amputation of the offender's hand for the offense of shoplifting.
Using your logic as applied to CAFE increases, however, I am in favor of doing nothing to combat shoplifting, and don't think that shoplifting is a concern.
kdhspyder: Wow. That sounds like the very basis for a gigantic class struggle.
No, that sounds like common sense. You keep trying to turn it into a class struggle by insisting that people somehow have the right to a certain amount of gasoline, regardless of their ability to pay (primarily because they don't want to pay the market price).
That is not the way real life works, and not the way the market will function efficiently.
kdhspyder: Will you feel safe driving and filling up when fuel reaches such a level that large segments of the public are priced out of individual transportation?
As I said, I don't believe in gun control, so, yes, I will feel very safe...
kdhspyder: Not only will those who can't afford the fuel to drive not drive but they can't even work if there's no mass transit available. Well as you'd say they have no Constitutional 'right' to work. They can always stay at home. THIS is the chaos that might arise and that the Feds don't want to see occur.
And increasing the mileage of vehicles in 2017, and having no requirement that people buy said vehicles, which means it will be years before they are a significant part of the nation's total vehicular fleet, will prevent this scenario in exactly which way?
kdhspyder: I'm sorry your last 3 paragraphs are just factually wrong.
No, they are correct. You need to read a recent editorial by Csaba Csere in Car & Driver on this very issue. He documents how, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when gasoline prices were rising, the cumulative mileage of vehicles sold in the U.S. actually OUTPACED required CAFE increases. When gas prices eased in the mid-1980s, bigger vehicles bounced back in sales.
I can look up this editorial for you if you wish
kdhspyder: Higher gasoline prices will ensure nothing as regards to improved fuel economy.
Please...I'll find that editorial from Car & Driver so that you can read it and not make this incorrect statement again.
What you fail to understand is that, even with higher prices, we only recently passed the inflation adjusted peak in gasoline prices (which occurred in March 1981).
The price of gasoline in relation to total household income is also at a low figure. Using this measurement, gasoline is still as affordable as it was in 1962.
Despite these figures, and gasoline still being relatively affordable, small car sales increased, SUV sales are tanking, and the number of miles driven by Americans actually declined. All of which prove that your contention is incorrect.
Americans have reacted to a recent runup in gasoline prices by adjusting their behaviors, despite gasoline remaining affordable by historic standards. There is no indication that they will not further adjust their demand if prices continue to rise, and that mainstream companies will not provide products in response to this shift in priorities.
kdhspyder: They did in fact fight having to increse fuel economy standards. You cannot get away from this fact.
Which has nothing to do with Americans demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles, and nothing to do with how the price of gasoline will depress demand and spur development of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Just because a company fights fuel economy standards does not mean it is doing nothing to improve fuel economy. Toyota fought the standards...and brought out the Prius even before gasoline economy was a concern.
They opposed CAFE - so what? They opposed an ineffective, dumb law. Good for them!
And if you listened carefully, many of them hinted that they supported gradual increases in the gas tax to spur conservation and interest in more fuel-efficient vehicles. They offered an alternative solution which would work faster and ensure a demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Maybe you oppose this solution, which is fine.
But you make it sound as though they supported the status quo or doing nothing, which is not true.
You can't "armtwist" a company into profitability via government regulations anymore than you can make a supermodel love you by holding her at gunpoint.
There has to be a demand for a product at a price that ensures the company a profit. CAFE does not ensure the demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles. It mandates that company's produce them. It does not mandate that customers buy them.
Higher gasoline prices will, by making smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles more desirable. And thus make CAFE increases moot.
bpizzuti: Other companies manage to make money on small cars, American car companies should be able to also. Subaru makes the Impreza here and makes a profit on them.
Those companies make money because they aren't supporting an army of UAW retirees who are receiving pensions and health-care benefits through the company. If you want to tell the UAW it needs to dramatically cut health benefits and require retirees to use Medicare to ensure profitable small car production in this country, be my guest.
Note that Ford will source the Fiesta from its Mexican plants.
bpizzuti: When I refer to housing I'm referring to all of the above. I don't live in an urban area: I live in an area with a housing shortage. Housing of all types, apartments included. The shortage is such that motels advertise their rooms as studio apartments now. A one-bedroom apartment for $1200/month is considered cheap.
And this directly affects gasoline usage, because if people have to travel that much because the salary/COL ratio is off, as it is in several areas of the country, that means people have to travel more in order to work, that increases gasoline usage and demand, which decreases supply, which increases prices. Fixing that might actually have MORE impact than CAFE standards, come to think of it....about 75% of the employees in my company commute an hour to work. A surprisingly large amount of people do it these days.
As I said, increasing CAFE will do nothing to solve that problem, and you've confirmed it.
bpizzuti: Maybe they need to do the arm-twisting to get them to be competitive. If our car companies were so, they could be profitable, but they've just been tooling along fine on subsistence lately. No I don't know why, but I really don't want to see the American car industry go under.
They are not tooling along just fine; GM is staggering under a heavy debt load, and Ford is mortgaged to the hilt to finance a turnaround. They have been selling whatever they can (GMAC, Jaguar and Land Rover, Allison) to stay afloat.
Government-regulations aren't going to armtwist them into profitability.
Dumb moves on the part of American auto companies reinforces the theory that maybe they DO want to run those companies into the ground. This is where universal healthcare steps into the mix, and yes, it's related, because it reduces or even eliminates that legacy cost to the automakers (we're one of very few countries where they have that cost).
"As I said, increasing CAFE will do nothing to solve that problem, and you've confirmed it."
No one's doing anything to solve that travel problem either...that's the "free market" supposedly putting that into play.
Oh, someone mentioned that they don't think companies dictate what consumers buy...well they do, because they are the ones that decide what's available on the market, not the consumer. The consumer can only select from what's available.
Exactly. And what's available right now is truly a poor selection.
While I am convinced that CAFE 35 will not accomplish its stated goal, I DO hope that it will spur automakers to offer us better choices.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Here's the quick truth:
$4 gasoline (it's coming soon) will do more to create efficient cars than CAFE ever has.
.
Here's the quick truth:
$4 gasoline (it's coming soon) will do more to create efficient cars than CAFE ever has.
Yep!
My thoughts exactly. There are some wordy dudes around here. I bet they had no problem making their college essays long enough......LOL............
On the Topic:
In Europe, taxes made diesel cars popular. I see that forcing carmakers to improve MPG will work just fine.
The technology is there, but the question remains: how will the consumer react to higher prices for the added efficiency?
me: If history is any indicator, when people were told in the 70's that they couldn't get gas during rationing, or on certain days, yes there was anger, but certainly not anger like you suggest. During the Depression, people had very little and there was not widespread civil discontent. So I don't think that the typical U.S. citizen is going to take up arms if they have to pay another $100/month in gas costs. I think they'll give up their $70 cable, cut back on clothes, pizzas ... or God forbid - get a 2nd job. I think people will do that before taking up arms.
kd: So why can't I drive when Mr. Moneybags up there fills his Escalade/Mercedes with $200 worth of fuel every 10 days so that he and his trophy wife and 3 brats can drive to their lakehouse and use another $800 in fuel for his boat?
me: It again sounds like you have a problem with the system we have, where more successful (or lucky in terms of inheritance or other windfalls) have more money. Am I wrong? If I didn't have making $ as a goal, I wouldn't get up in the morning and put in a very good day's work. I suggest it would be more productive for us to make more money, rather than condone criminal activity by those with a hard-luck story (bad decisions in life - sorry I have no interest in subsidizing them).
I don't have the time for a long post, but I've lived in the Boston area back in the 80's when real estate was very high and worker shortages were occurring. So your situation is not unique, or unknown. The way I handled was to find a new job and move. basically I was telling my employer you're not paying me enough to live and work here. I moved to another area where I make about the same money, don't put up with the Boston traffic, and the rents and housing is about 2/3 the cost. I alone could not change the dynamics of the pay and cost-of-living, but when thousands of people in an area like myself make those same decisions, then the employers are short of workers, and the demand for housing drops. Now if your job can be outsourced well you might have a problem; but there are many sorts of jobs which can't be outsourced (plumber, electrician, doctor, many engineers, lawyer ...)
As long as people are willing to work for that money and drive that far, and the local politicians don't increase housing then yes you're company is going to pay what they are. Or just like many companies did years ago they moved out of high cost areas like NYC, rather than pay high wages.
No.
The taxes are imposed on the fuel and, in some countries, the vehicle, based on various measures. The buyer of the vehicle pays the taxes.
The policies of different European countries did not "force carmakers to improve MPG." They attempted to influence the market to create the demand for more efficient vehicles.
The concept is completely different from that behind CAFE. European countries tried to influence consumer demand. They did not try to tell car makers what to produce, which is the path taken by CAFE.
I meant that outside forces CAN have an impact on what cars are driven.
Cut and dry. Nothing else to be interpreted from the statement. Outside influences other than carmakers and car buyers CAN influence the market. I.E. government incentives, see USA Hybrids. Taxes, see Euro diesels.
I meant that outside forces CAN have an impact on what cars are driven.
You posted this: "I see that forcing carmakers to improve MPG will work just fine."
The European policies worked on consumer demand and ensured that there would be a market for more efficient vehicles. This is completely opposite from the approach taken by CAFE. Simply grouping both approaches as "outside forces" is not exactly helpful.
larsb: Cut and dry. Nothing else to be interpreted from the statement.Outside influences other than carmakers and car buyers CAN influence the market. I.E. government incentives, see USA Hybrids. Taxes, see Euro diesels.
You equated CAFE with European tax policies on gasoline and various vehicles, which misses the point that they act in entirely different ways and that their chances of success are entirely different. This is why people may not believe that increasing CAFE is the best method to ensure the availability of more efficient vehicles.
If anything, European policies, particularly high taxes on fuel, undermine the central contention of the pro-CAFE contingent on this thread - that higher gasoline prices will not necessarily lead to more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Mandating safety makes cars safer.
Applying credits to hybrids made them sell faster.
Applying higher GASOLINE TAXES in Europe gave rise to a diesel push.
Mandating higher MPG will mean that cars will have higher MPG.
Cut and dry. I don't need to write an essay to make a point.
Sarcasm intended. :shades: