Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

kdhspyder · April 2009

LOLOL... except that you forget to mention the 'second half of the story' as Paul Harvey used to say. The PT Cruiser was a raging success in the marketplace for several years after it debuted bring ADM's and huge profits to Chrysler. GM was so smitten by it that it designed the HHR.

So not only did it NOT cost the taxpayers money, the CAFE office had nothing to do with the design and sales and marketing of the PT Cruiser. So it couldn't have 'cost' us anything. It was a brilliant vehicle for a short time that made Chrysler huge profits.

Who cares what classification it fell under, it made money. That's innovative thinking that has been sorely lacking these last several years. Your objections to everything are getting thinner and thinner and thinner.

Now the PT Cruiser somehow cost the US taxpayers money? Seriously now don't you find it hard to stretch logic this far? Was this Obama's fault too?....( chuckle, chuckle ).

grbeck · April 2009

kdhspyder: I implied that their intransigence in fully embracing a more balance product line between smaller fuel efficient vehicle and highly profitable SUVs and trucks was a large part of what did in GM and Chrysler. This was a bad management decision in the 80s and 90s among many others. It in fact caused a large part of an two entire generations to avoid detroit products.

Except that we had CAFE, and it didn't result in a broader product portfolio. The logic seems to be that we need stricter CAFE standards to encourage the domestics to build a broader product portfolio, yet we had CAFE and it was getting progressively stricter during the late 1970s and 1980s, and it didn't result in a broader product portfolio (the domestics had been making subcompacts since the early 1970s).

The product portfolio did become broader at Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW and Mercedes, as they rushed to build more...trucks and crossovers and SUVs.

kdhsypder: That was the rhetoric of the time - but misinterpreted. Apparently still so. I've seen this faux-argument very often on the D3 boards.

It's in Congressional Record. Legislators give speeches on the floor of their respective chambers to have their views on the record for future generations. They meant what they said, and what they said was that CAFE was designed to reduce gasoline usage and dramatically reduce oil imports. It's pretty hard to misinterpret what I read.

kdhsypder: If in the late 70s each driver drove about 10000 mi annually with a fleet average of about 12.5 mpg thus each driver on average used 800 gal annually. Easy math. If there were 10 MM new units sold each year at that time ( there were ) then the new vehicle fleet each year used 8 Billion gallons of fuel. Easy math.

You are assuming that without CAFE all of those vehicles would still be getting 12.5 mpg. There is nothing to support that contention.

kdhspyder: Your contention is that CAFE has failed because it should have caused the usage of fuel to be less than 8 Billion gallons annually. Since we now use 9 Billion gallons for each new model year you see this as a 'failure'.

Well, that was the intent of the original law...

kdhspyder: When I was an average driver in the late 70's driving 10000 mi at 12.5 mpg I used 800 gal annually.
In 2006 as an average driver of 15000 mi in a modern 25 mpg vehicle I used 600 gal annually.

Only problem is that the pressure for better mileage was building before CAFE, and there is no proof that these gains are the result of CAFE.

kdhspyder: CAFE works, whether the detroiters like it or not. The new CAFE 35 in 2020 will accomplish the same benefit; i.e. spreading out a scarce resource over an ever-increasing population. Clearly stated now, this is the sole goal of CAFE.

CAFE only "works" because supporters keep changing its objective when it fails to accomplish the latest one. Originally it was supposed to reduce gasoline usage and reduce the need for imported oil; when it failed to do that, it was supposed to save us money; when it failed to do that (falling gas prices did that), it is now supposed to...well, I'm curious to hear the newest reason.

kdhspyder · April 2009

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. 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.

That was never a 'purpose' of CAFE but they certainly would have been better off if they weren't so intransigent.

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. In the meanwhile the national fleet did achieve a doubling in fuel economy as planned by the regulations. We moved on without the D3 and we as a group bought more transplants and imports.

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. 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.

The math is clear CAFE both saved us fuel not used and it saved us money.

It did reduce gas usage, I'm a prime example as I noted. In the 70s I used to drive vehicles that got 12-13 mpg on average. 25 yrs later I drove a vehicle that got 30 mpg. My fuel usage was cut from 8 gallons per 100 miles driven ( GPC ) to 3 GPC. In the late 70's I paid $.80 or so for fuel, in the 90's it was about $1.00 and for most of this decade it's been over $2.00. I've personally saved tens of thousands of dollars because of CAFE....thank you very much.

'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.

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

Unfortunely that view of corporate-benificence doesn't pass the litmus test of actual facts. We have been demanding better and more efficient vehicles. Obviously by the growth of the transplants and imports this is the direction we the buyers have taken. 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.

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

stever · May 2009

"The auto industry, tired of being seen as the bad guy whenever fuel economy and emissions regulation is on the table, is wasting no time lining up in support of tomorrow's White House announcement on development of a national carbon emissions and fuel efficiency program."

Are Automakers Finally Seeing the Light? Will Government and Greens See it Too? (Green Car Advisor)

tach · May 2009

By Bob Gordon
President and Co-founder
The Auto Channel

Louisville KY May 19, 2009; President Obama, our fearless(we hoped) new leader, the guy who said Yes We Can apparently just cant when it comes to our antiquated and destructive energy policy! His "new" energy policy could have been authored by our former administration.

Yes I am angry, upset and feel betrayed, apparently taking on the oil gang is just too tough, even for a street kid from Chicago.

When President Obama was campaigning for our votes and hearts, he called for doubling fuel economy standards by 2027 to a combined fleet-wide average of 50 mpg. (Click for original article)

Although The Auto Channel editorial board thought that his goal was way short of what is actually needed to free ourselves and our children and grandchildren from our oil masters, we applauded his then big step vision, while hoping that he would soon see the light and benefits of a realistically reached gasoline free society.

In an energy policy speech Senator Obama used an analogy of the 1960s U.S. effort to place a man on the moon in 10 years as the same impetus needed to put in place a sane and prudent energy policy for our oil held hostage country.

"When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win - he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do." the then junior senator from Illionois said in a campaign speech in Las Vegas.

That was then and this is now.

Mr. Obamas new energy policy announced today would force car companies to raise the CAFÉ average from 25 MPG to 35.5 MPG a goal that is not only easily attainable but truly worthless if we are to become energy independent, and worst of all it takes the air out of the tires of a (formerly) growing groundswell for a worthwhile and meaningful mobile energy policy and deflates it with todays minimalist demandsno wonder the car companies and status quo-niks are praising it..

Unlike President Kennedys call for a bold collective action by American industry and its citizens to reach a goal, Mr. Obamas new energy policy is more of the same old pandering to those that were not only opposed his election, but will continue to benefit from this impotent vision of our countries energy future.

This "new" wimpy energy policy has squandered two opportunities, to both energize our citizens and force our owned automobile industry to cut the crap and once again design and build cars that create a passion and desire to buy a new car.

So we believe that this bla energy policy will be responsible for a double loss...it will allow the status-quo to continue with very minor improvements and it eliminates a once in a lifetime opportunity to create an automotive revolution by forcing car companies to build cars that people really want to buy, hey another 10 MPG is not a viable reason for any intelligent person to give up a perfectly serviceable and paid for personal vehicle to buy another.

Our country's car buyers are poised waiting for real benefits and a reawakened passion for a new car, but this "new" energy policy misses the point! If our car companies offer cars that people want to buy, we can not only keep our existing auto plants open and American auto workers employed, but will enjoy a renaissance of auto manufacturing here in the U.S.

More than ever we are in dire need of a new and far reaching energy policy that makes it mandatory to use alternative fuels, not only to eliminate our dependence on oil, but provide our creative auto designers and engineers with new platforms on which to build cars and trucks that we will all have the "hots" for, this new found desire will help take our wonderful country and the world to the nirvana of sustainable energy.

Oh well and I really thought President Obama had the intelligence and chops to force the needed changesah maybe next time, maybe next time.

Let us know what you think - bgordon@theautochannel.com

benjaminh · May 2009

Sounds a bit extreme to me.

It's a first step. It's a significant step. Obama has made major progress. We've had the same mpg standard since 1985. And heck, that was set back in 1975, I think, when Obama was about 15 years old!

If Obama gets elected to a second term, I assume some of the things that guy is advocating will be done then.

In the meantime, the internal combustion engine has a lot of great things about it. It obviously has some costs and problems too....This new standard will increase the number of hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles on the road.

tach · May 2009

Going to the moon was also extreme...if today's announcement was positioned as a minor first step to allow car companies to continue to build and market gasoline powered autos and phase in the alt fuel models, I wouldnt have been so harsh...

But using our President's own words: "When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win - he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do."

Well I believe we needed a statement that excites, inspires and reflects landing on the moon not getting half way there and floating in space.

This half way announcement may take the air out of our tires and even though we may meet the 35.5 MPG average in 5 or 6 years...so what.

benjaminh · May 2009

tach: You may have a point. Look at these numbers. They show that some companies are already close to the standard for 2016! Toyota is already at 36, and Honda is right behind at 35. They need to get to 39 in 8 years. Sounds like to easy a bar to pass over. Mercedes Benz, at 26, is going to have a harder time....

(below if from the Fox news website today):
"Thanks to a recent turn to more fuel efficient vehicles, most of the major automakers are already above the current CAFE for cars of 27.5 mpg, and well on their way to 39 mpg, but some are much closer to the mark than others. The following is a list of the 2008 figures for the top 10 best-selling automakers:

Toyota 36.4

Honda 35.1

Hyundai 33.8

Kia 33.4

Nissan 32.2

Ford 30.0

General Motors 29.8

Chrysler 29.5

VW 28.8

BMW 27.4

Mercedes-Benz 26.4"

benjaminh · May 2009

I think a 2008 5 speed manual Accord with a 4 cylinder would be rated about 33 or 34 mpg under the CAFE rules (the old EPA test from 1975), although the new test says that its combined city/highway is a more realistic 25.

In that same Fox article it says that a Ford Fusion would count as a 31 mpg car under CAFE, even though its current EPA sticker gives a combined city/hwy of 23.

What's interesting is that Honda earned a 35 CAFE score before the Insight was introduced. That car alone when added them into the mix might push them close to 39. And everyone knows Honda has large and powerful cars, esp. with the Acura brand. This seems like proof that by 2016 we'll still have large and powerful cars mixed in with the efficient ones.

In other words, I think maybe tech was right. This standard is not very impressive by the standards of a moon shot at all...

It is an improvement, but maybe not a terribly big one. My guess, however, is that Honda and Toyota will try to get way over the mark years early. They could probably do it by 2012 if they really tried...

Again, still a lot of work for MB and BMW.

benjaminh · May 2009

But now that I think of it, that CAFE number was probably only for cars, and left out trucks, suvs, vans, etc. With those factored in it may take some work after all...

nippononly · May 2009

in several articles that there will still be a separate standard for trucks and SUVs of only 26.6 mpg or something? If so, Obama's big announcement is completely worthless.

gagrice · May 2009

I would be tickled with 26 MPG combined. I thought it was just my 99 Ranger that got horrible mileage. I blamed it on the 3.0L Flex fuel V6 and auto transmission. My Well man came to work on my system yesterday. He has a 2000 Ranger identical to mine with a stick shift. The best he ever gets is 15 MPG. He does have 300k miles and is on the second engine. If we had a 4 cylinder diesel we would have more power and rarely get under 30 MPG. Not something our tax and spend government would like. CAFE and the latest from Obama is all a smokescreen to appease the greenies that are yelling.

fezo · May 2009

Trucks get an easier number to hit but it's better than what they have to hit under the previous CAFE numbers.

I'd like to know if they closed some of the loopholes that allow things that are clearly passenger cars to be counted as trucks.

kdhspyder · May 2009

I don't believe so. Minivans are still 'trucks' as is the HHR. Most crossovers are considered 'trucks' although they are on car frames.

kdhspyder · May 2009

the major GM fan site. The world just ended.

This is not a joke...in the same forum on the same subject....the Communists, the Socialists and the Facists have taken over the auto industry. Our world as we know it is at an end.

The net effect is this....and it is pretty significant..
Auto's must get 42 mpg on average under CAFE meaning that they must have a combined EPA rating of about 33 mpg.
Trucks must get 26 mpg on average under CAFE meaning that they must have a combined EPA rating of about 21 mpg.
Source:New FE regs
Yesterday, we heard that, much to the automakers' delight, the new CAFE standards create a national standard and incorporate California's strict emissions rules to raise the national fleet mpg average to 42 mpg for cars and 26 mpg for light trucks for an overall average of 35.5 mpg by 2016. Current CAFE standards require an automaker's fleet of cars to average 27.5 mpg and trucks must get 24 mpg.

Right now the only vehicles meeting these statndards are
..the small economy cars
..the compacts
..the hybrids
.......Fusion, Camry, Altima, Prius, Civic, Insight II
..the crossovers and minivans
..the hybrid BOF SUVs
..GM's hybrid trucks

That's it.

All the full sized trucks, all the midsized trucks, all the non-hybrid BOF SUVs, all the large cars and and all the luxury non-hybrid autos miss the boat. They have one model life to improve. This includes all V8 vehicles and most V6 autos.

As an indication of some high volume vehicles that must move in a hurry....
All non-hybrid Camrys, Accords, Malibus, Fusions, Sonatas are nowhere near the new standards.

I think what we will see in 2015 is an entirely new spectrum of vehicles from all makers.
Every midsized auto will be a hybrid of some sort as will every crossover SUV.
I wouldn't be surprised to see ZERO full sized or midsized BOF SUVs being offered at that time.
Trucks will be a problem. None except GMs two hybrids are anywhere close to the standard.
Large luxury autos? Nowhere near close to the standard.

kdhspyder · May 2009

Update from Jalopnik...
UPDATE: The Obama Administration contacted us to tell us the originally reported numbers of 42 MPG for cars and 27 MPG for light trucks were wrong. Instead, they're requiring an average of 39 MPG for trucks and 30 MPG for trucks. We've made the proper adjustments but even with these different numbers no one meets either requirement.

benjaminh · May 2009

Yes, the revised standard of 30 for trucks seems a significant change. 26 mpg was a much easier standard, creating in effect a loophole. The loophole gets smaller at 30 mpg. But remember, that 30 mpg is under the inflated and easy testing standard of the 1970s. I think the equivalent number today is a EPA combined city/hwy score of 22. A 4 cylinder Ranger beats that by getting 23, which would equal 31 for CAFE. But a full size V-8 F-150 gets only 17 in the new test, which would probably be about 23 for CAFE.

My current Accord 4 cylinder 5 MT has a combined epa city/hwy score of 25, which equals about 34 under the 70s test used for CAFE. As a comparison a Civic manual gets 29 under the current standard, which should about hit the 39 needed for CAFE.

I wonder how close the Accord will come in the next generation, due out c.2013?

benjaminh · May 2009

Can you give a link to that GM site?

benjaminh · May 2009

"For BMW AG, the German maker of high-powered luxury cars, meeting the target "will be a big challenge," particularly if the U.S. doesn't offer more incentives to encourage consumers to buy diesel vehicles, said Friedrich Eichiner, BMW's chief financial officer. "Consumers don't want to step back" and drive smaller vehicles, he said.

The new rules allow for slightly different targets, depending on each vehicle's size and the mix of cars and trucks each company offers -- a measure of flexibility auto makers hailed.

The different targets mean companies that produce many fuel-efficient vehicles like small cars will have to aim higher than others that sell lots of trucks and SUVs. For example, Honda Motor Co. estimates that based on its current vehicles sold in the U.S. it will have to hit fuel economy two miles per gallon above the new average."

benjaminh · May 2009

needs to bring back the 2002. If it really was about the size of the original 2002 in terms of its body and its engine, but with a modern valvetronic 4 cylinder engine, it should hit the standard easily.

I can't really figure out how they would sell a 5 series V-8, however....A 6 cylinder 5 series that was a hybrid could probably get close. For BMW and others it looks like more of their cars will become hybrids....

kdhspyder · May 2009

It's here

ingvar · May 2009

I can't really figure out how they would sell a 5 series V-8
Rich people gonna pay gas guzzler fine and enjoy the ride. New retirements will bite middle class, who drives camcord, altima, mustang & etc with v6

kdhspyder · May 2009

Yes. I agree that every vehicle above compact size in the near future will be a hybrid of some sort or another. Even some of the compacts may be hybrids like the new Insight II and the recently announced small Toyota.

Ford's EcoBoost turbo charged engines will allow it to use smaller engines replacing bigger engines. However even an Ecoboosted V6 will not make the grade.

Chrysler is 10 yrs behind the curve although it's lucky that it was given the rights to the GM 2-Mode in its divorce from Daimler.

Ford and Toyota are in very sticky situations, especially Ford since it has such a heavy presence in trucks, in that they don't have any hybrid options for trucks. Unless the two have something buried in some deep dark lab someplace and like Frankenstein they're just waiting to throw the switch, then jumping a big V8 from 16 mpg combined to about 22-24 mpg combined is a monumental task in 6 yrs.

If they do accomplish it then it begs the question...."Where the hell was this advancement all these last 30 years?'

gagrice · May 2009

The Obama administration's sweeping fuel-economy and emissions initiative announced Tuesday reopens a fierce debate over tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety.

The government says no tradeoff exists, because nothing in the new rules would force automakers to sell more small cars, which are more dangerous in crashes than larger ones. But some safety experts think otherwise.

"The deadlines are so tight that downsizing will be a tempting compliance strategy" for automakers, says John Graham, the former rulemaking chief in the Office of Management and Budget.

No compromise on emissions, just safety.

The plan resolves a long-running dispute between the government and California, which sought a waiver from federal law to impose its own tough standards on emissions. That could have led to a patchwork of different state regulations.

Obama said a series of lawsuits tied to California's efforts would be dropped. California would save money by avoiding the need for a special state compliance program.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who attended the announcement, told reporters the weekend negotiations on the plan were "very intense."

"Then all of a sudden it all clicked and it came together," he said. "It really was a huge battle and the president has brought everyone together and now we're marching forward in the same direction."

So we are the victims of the GW myth. Is a revolution just around the corner?

nippononly · May 2009

Don't worry gagrice, it has been said many times here at Edmunds and it's very true: Americans love their large vehicles, and they will continue to insist on them.

I hope we see lots more use of carbon fiber and aluminum, materials that will certainly make cars more expensive but also wondrously lighter. The current fleet is a herd of pigs. VW has just announced plans to reduce the weight of the next-gen Touareg from almost 5100 pounds to about 4500 using only changes in materials to accomplish it. Obviously once they hit that goal they still have a LONG way to go, but ALL the automakers need to get started down this path post haste.

larsb · May 2009

Gary says, "So we are the victims of the GW myth. Is a revolution just around the corner?"

Puh-Leeze, Mr. Dramatic. The warming is not a myth. That polar ice ain't melitin its own self.

Who is the victim, here, again?

California will be better off not being required to go off on it's own Emissions Crusade. This is a good thing if the guvmint makes it possible for Cali to not have to do it's own thing.

benjaminh · May 2009

Thanks kdhspyder. That's an interesting site.

I was just at the Saturn dealer yesterday, wandering around while they did an oil change next door on my Accord. I really liked the look of the Saturn (Opel) Atras, and I thought was a shame that these were leaving the market. But then I read on that site that Buick is likely to get the next generation Astra, which looks even better, soon....

gagrice · May 2009

Actually Obama should have made you happy. He is going to use the CA emissions for HIS new standard. I should have said MM GW is a myth as that is far from proven. The ice in the Arctic has melted in the past. There were palm trees up their at one time. So you cannot blame that on my SUV.

zaken1 · May 2009

So you are saying that, because the polar ice melted thousands or millions of years ago from natural causes; it cannot melt today from any other type of cause? Or am I missing something???

larsb · May 2009

Oh, SNAP !!!

gagrice · May 2009

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.

nippononly · May 2009

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.

stever · May 2009

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)

stever · May 2009

"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)

benjaminh · May 2009

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.

nippononly · May 2009

Now we need the last piece of the puzzle: what is the current standard in EPA numbers?

kdhspyder · May 2009

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.

gagrice · May 2009

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.

grbeck · May 2009

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.

stever · May 2009

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.

kdhspyder · May 2009

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.

gagrice · May 2009

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.

kdhspyder · May 2009

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.

stevedebi · October 2009

"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.

stever · October 2009

"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)

KCRam · October 2009

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

stever · October 2009

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.

KCRam · October 2009

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

stever · October 2009

My dad stuck to his '53 Buick Special. I don't remember him ever driving this. :shades:

See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com

stevedebi · October 2009

" 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.

Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles