Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

nippononly

keep quiet about it??!! How about ardently trumpet that there isn't a problem for a half dozen years, until enough people have called him a fool that he reverses himself completely?

In five years Explorer has gone from far and away the #1 SUV to being topped by the CRV (new #1 SUV) and RAV. Buyers may be coming to their senses despite the lack of leadership from Washington.

rockylee

Bush's carbon footprint may be even less than yours.

That's laughable. The guy fly's in Jet's weekly. He's dumped more carbon gases into the enviroment than my whole family combined.

-Rocky

gagrice

In my opinion you are under a false assumption that SUVs are a problem. Saving energy is a good thing. Going overboard is not. How does driving a Prius into a 6 car garage attached to an 11k square foot home being environmentally sound?

gagrice

That is part of any President's carbon footprint. Even your beloved Bill Clinton. I am referring to his personal residence in Crawford, TX. Compare that to any Democrat running for President and you will start to see the true picture, and who is and who is not doing their part to save the planet.

His Texas ranch captures rain and wastewater for landscaping. Solar panels line the roof and an underground geothermal system provides heating and air conditioning.

There's even a protected forest that is home to the rare golden-cheeked warbler.

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer.

Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern.

The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example.

And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

nippononly

I am not assuming it, but I don't believe it can be judged "true" or "false" either. It is strictly a matter of opinion, and mine is that SUVs are a problem. In many ways.

But I only used the Explorer as an example because it was such a dramatic one. You could also look to the shift towards smaller cars that has occurred in the last two years as further proof that consumers may now be coming to their senses....

gagrice

I don't think it has anything to do with coming to their senses and every thing to do with the price of gas. It is the same knee jerk reaction as back in the 1970s when gas went crazy. People bought diesels and smaller vehicles. As soon as the price of fuel went down the bigger cars emerged with stations wagons diminishing and SUVs flourishing. For myself I would own a small diesel PU or car for running errands. I would have bought a big diesel SUV if I found one I liked. I did not and the Sequoia seemed like the best in the class.

You mention the Explorer. I think you will see the larger Expedition outselling the Explorer in the future. Especially when gas prices go back down a bit. I do think that an Explorer with a small diesel engine would yield as high as 35 MPG highway. It would not burn up the street accelerating. It would be fast enough for most people. I think the mindset is we have to have CAFE standards of 35 MPG with 0-60 times under 7 seconds using unleaded gas. I just do not see it happening in a family sized vehicle.

rockylee

That is part of any President's carbon footprint. Even your beloved Bill Clinton. I am referring to his personal residence in Crawford, TX. Compare that to any Democrat running for President and you will start to see the true picture, and who is and who is not doing their part to save the planet.

I applaud Dubya, for being green at home.

I do not know how "green" the democrat candidates are as that issue isn't at the top of my priority list.

-Rocky

gagrice

Democrats would like US to believe they are environmentalists. They give Republicans and GW Bush in particular a bad time for blocking certain "Green" legislation. If you study most of the legislation he blocks it has the same thrust. It would cause economic hardships for Americans. I am sure you know that it would not be the wealthy that suffered under any of these new laws. CAFE is just such an example of why Democrats are at odds with Republicans. Makes no difference whether it is GM or Toyota. You can not get energy where it does not exist. What the Democrats would like is to force Americans into small econobox cars with very little Power. Those cars exist and do not sell well. Can you remember the Yugo??????

You of all people want a car that is fast from 0-60 MPH. I can tell you that if given the opportunity the Democrats will stop you from having the car of your dreams. Either by direct means with CAFE, or by raising the taxes on gas as they have in the EU. If you are fine with $8 per gallon gas that is what we are headed for.

PS
If any president is given credit for making an environmental impact it would have to be Richard Nixon...

kdhspyder

Especially when gas prices go back down a bit. I do think that an Explorer with a small diesel engine would yield as high as 35 MPG highway

Unfortunately I think we've seen the last of $2/ gallon fuel. I sincerely believe that fuel, all fuel, will hit $4/gal before it hits $2/gal. This is just normal market movements since we are now using more than we can bring in. By 2020 I'd be surprised if fuel wasn't $10/gal and at sometime during the next 12 years we aren't subject to some form of rationing.
...even/odd days
...a miles-driven limiter
...a quantity-available-for-purchase limiter
...young and old driver limitations ( 20 min / 75 max )
...some cities barring petrol-powered vehicles within the city limits
...an imposition of 'hybridization' on all vehicles
...$2 /gal excise tax, in addition to $6 or $8 or $10 market prices.

The vehicle makers are making the right first step in eliminating a lot of the 'truck-based' commuter vehicles...
..the Explorer is reported to going to a 'crossover' structure, add a hybrid option and it's a 30 mpg vehicle;
..the GM lambda's are already larger and more efficient than either the TrailBlazer or Envoy. They will get the 2-Mode system soon and BLAM ! they're 30+ mpg vehicles.

When diesel is finally cleaned up enough to bring into anybody's house ( state ) then it too will be a big part of the solution for the heavier vehicles.

I can see by 2020 that
...all midsized utility vehicles are either wagons or crossovers using some form of electro-mechanical booster;
...what few large SUVs remain are diesel powered, possibly with a hybrid boost.
...all trucks are diesels
...small commuter cars are even smaller, lighter than they are now, some with very efficient hybrid systems,e.g. IMA;
...the Corolla, Civic, Cobalt, Focus ( which are now almost the same size as the 90s midsizers ) are the prime vehicles in the market at 35 to 50 mpg with or without a hybrid and/or diesel booster;
...the Camry, Accord, Malibu, Altima, Fusion and the like all are hybrids/diesels getting 35-40 mpg on average.

None of these situations are outlandish. Most of the required technologies are here already or could be soon.

nippononly

that even as we have been chit-chatting here in the last couple of months, gas prices have been creeping UP at exactly the time (post-Labor Day) when they traditionally go down. We are back at $3/gallon in my area. Oil is now at $85/barrel today. There is talk in California of a state gas tax of $0.10/gallon as a start at increasing gas taxes to combat global warming.

These are all economic incentives/disincentives (depending on your perspective! :-P) to reduce gas consumption. All reasons to think that maybe CAFE will be made obsolete by market forces and non-CAFE government regulation?

kdhspyder

Democrats would like US to believe they are environmentalists. They give Republicans and GW Bush in particular a bad time for blocking certain "Green" legislation.

I believe that both parties, Bush and Pelosi, are playing to their respective constituencies. It is a political issue after all.

But underlying the rhetoric I think both have been given the same data and same studies. We don't have enough supply to cover our usage over the next 10-20 years.

CAFE is the current solution and many in the auto industry hate it because it puts all the responsibility and all the blame on the manufacturers and allows their customers to do what they want with a clear conscience. 'I can't help myself I just love my [ insert name ] too much.' The manufacturers correctly state that they are only responding to consumer preferences, ( well they also encourage those preferences for profit reasons ).

The vehicle manufacturer's reply, such as stated at the Traverse, Mi meetings this summer, is 'Put the responsibility on the consumer. Impose a fuel tax to be painful enough to discourage certain vehicles.' When the consumers hurt enough they will normally switch to more efficient vehicles that don't hurt as much at the pump....then we'll build those vehicles to satisfy that demand. The problem with a massive fuel tax that will hurt us where it hurts most is that it will take nearly $1 Billion per day out of our economy - after tax - and give it to the Federal Govt ( whichever party is in power ) to use as it sees fit. For most normal drivers this equates to about $1500 annually - after tax. Which necessity do you want to do without in order to feed the pump and the Fed Govt?

The theorists state that we can't wait for the market to make its decision because the leadtime on vehicle development is too long, normally 5-10 years. If we are hit with a sudden supply shortage in say 2012 and 50% of the population is still driving 16 mpg 'trucks/SUVs' we are all screwed. There is a real risk of unrest in the streets ( I remember gas station killings of line jumpers ) if a buyer is only allowed 15 gal for his 25 gal fillup. In this scenario a lot of people will be scrambling just to get to work. Vacations? Boating? Entire industries may dry up if everyone is required to stay at home due to lack of fuel.

kdhspyder

These are all economic incentives/disincentives (depending on your perspective! ) to reduce gas consumption. All reasons to think that maybe CAFE will be made obsolete by market forces and non-CAFE government regulation?

The biggest benefit I see to CAFE if imposed soon is that the usage of petrol-based fuels will be reduced in order to allow us to keep driving our 'normal' amount.

I don't think in its current structure CAFE is near to being fair since it only penalizes the manufacturers. Some shared responsibility is necessary.
For example a fuel usage ( carbon usage ) carrot and stick based on a 'nominal average':
2012 : 28 mpg and increasing 1 mpg each year.
$200 Fed Purchase Tax - or tax credit - per EPA Combined mpg for each vehicle. Specifically in 2012...
...a truck with an EPA Combined value of 16 mpg would cost the buyer $2400 in tax;
...a crossover with a 25 mpg value would cost that buyer $600 tax;
...a 32 mpg auto would gain the buyer an $800 credit;
...a 45 mpg hybrid would gain that buyer a $3400 credit;
...an upper cap of $10000 credit but no lower cap.

The fact that the nominal average is moving upward each year gives the buying public an incentive to encourage the vehicles makers to move with the average. Say one maker does not improve its vehicles fuel efficiency but 3 of its competitors do. In 5 years the 16 mpg truck that hasn't changed will cost those buyers $3400 in taxes but if the competitors can offer 20 mpg trucks - then buyers of those vehicles will only be reponsible for $2600 in taxes.

My guess is that in the beginning such a system would generate more revenue than it gave back in credits, that is until fuel hits $5 or $6 a gallon. Soon it would be revenue neutral. In the end as fuel reached $10 a gallon it might cost the Fed Govt a net outflow as the public flocked to fuel sippers.

gagrice

We don't have enough supply to cover our usage over the next 10-20 years.

I think you would be hard pressed to come up with any scientific data to back up that theory. Maybe we should just limit every family to one gallon of gas or diesel per day. That is about as useful as more taxing to get people to cut back. I say let the market dictate what happens. Too many doomsday scenarios floating around. There is a reason all the automakers including Toyota are fighting the 35 CAFE standard. It is a stupid idea. If the Feds and States need to raise taxes to fix the roads and bridges so be it. Trying to tax people into submission is something the Soviet Union would do.

kdhspyder

Actually there are several studies presented in the last 6 months all indicating the same thing. The last was just last month. Before that the President's Joint Task Force appointed back in 2001 made their recommendations to the Administration back in Aug.

It's number one conclusion is that there is plenty of energy sources out there. It's just that they are very very very difficult and expensive to develop. What we have now in production is approaching its peak. In this regard the Chairman of Shell just within the last 4 weeks said that Shell expects us to reach peak oil in 5-10 yrs I believe.

Now Canada has maybe the greatest reserves of oil on earth in the tar sands of Alberta but it's very very very expensive to get to market.

Citations available upon request. This is the reason that both the conservative Republican Administration and the liberal Democratic Congress are both pushing for some means to reduce fuel usage. Frankly we won't do it on our own. We have to be forced to do it.

CAFE is a good idea if it was balanced. I mean how bad can it be if you are 'forced' to drive a 25 mpg Sequoia iso a 16 mpg vehicle; if I 'have' the option of an 85 mpg Volt iso my old 48 mpg Prius. How can that be bad for the country? It's certainly far better than giving the Feds $1 Billion a day extra to use for whatever.

gagrice

If Congress was serious about saving fossil fuel they would ease the restrictions on NoX for diesel cars. That would save 35% right off the bat. They are just not interested in doing anything in DC but playing politics with the voters. The only reason they do any lawmaking at all is to point at the other party and say "look they hate kids" or "look they are sleeping with the oil companies".

PS
I wanted a full size SUV that gets 30 MPG. Can't buy a new one in CA. I am not going to pay over list for a used Mercedes diesel. Besides I did not like the transmission. So my only choice was a gas guzzler. So I bought just about the biggest gas guzzler on the market. I am going to use up all the oil and the rest of you can peddle your bikes in the dark.

stever

Not a truck but "This could be the leading edge of a Bluetec invasion."

Mercedes-Benz Diesels Back in California With Launch of Bluetec E-Class

gagrice

If I was buying a car, I would look hard at the E320 CDI. I would probably go for the 2005 as it was still the old inline 6 diesel. The new one has so much crap it will probably be a nightmare to maintain. I think the E is one of the best looking sedans on the market.

rockylee

Steve,

that looks impressive on paper pal. Lemme know when more data about that ride becomes available. Impressive !!!! :shades:

-Rocky

m6vx

$200 Fed Purchase Tax - or tax credit - per EPA Combined mpg for each vehicle. Specifically in 2012...
...a truck with an EPA Combined value of 16 mpg would cost the buyer $2400 in tax;
...a crossover with a 25 mpg value would cost that buyer $600 tax;
...a 32 mpg auto would gain the buyer an $800 credit;
...a 45 mpg hybrid would gain that buyer a $3400 credit;
...an upper cap of $10000 credit but no lower cap.


So, if I have two vehicles like:
1) a truck that I drive 30,000 miles/year (2400 tax)
2) a hybrid that I drive 1,000 miles/year (3400 credit)

I get a 1000 credit, and I'm being green?

Loopholes, there's always loopholes!

kdhspyder

Good point..

But let's add some common sense. At $5 or $6 or $8 a gallon where fuel is likely to be soon enough you'd likely opt to drive your hybrid more often unless you need a truck.

Would you willingly drive your truck 32000 mi a year just because, thus spending $12000 or $15000 on gasoline :surprise: :surprise: when you could drive your 50 mpg vehicle more often and spend only $3500 - $5000?

If you have the extra 10 Grand - after tax - to burn up well then congratulations.

BTW to make the disassociation perfectly clear.. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING GREEN ...this is about not spending extra money on fuel to maintain our national wealth. Nothing more.

volvomax

CAFE is the current solution and many in the auto industry hate it because it puts all the responsibility and all the blame on the manufacturers and allows their customers to do what they want with a clear conscience. 'I can't help myself I just love my [ insert name ] too much.' The manufacturers correctly state that they are only responding to consumer preferences, ( well they also encourage those preferences for profit reasons ).

You are right and wrong here.
The motor co's hate CAFE because it forces them to produce cars that people don't want in sufficent numbers to make up for selling the cars people DO want. These small cars are generally a money loser. So, the motor companies end up paying the tax that the end users should pay.
Also, the motor companies don't control what people buy.
They wish they did but they don't.
the market has spoken,and it likes bigger cars and SUV's over smaller ones. It always has in America.
Even $3 gas won't change that. Adjusted for inflation, the price of gas isn't any higher than it has ever been,and is lower than it was during the 79-80 gas crunch.
Plus, the people who typically buy the bigger cars are better off than they have ever been, so the percentage of income spent on gas has gone down for the most part.

The vehicle manufacturer's reply, such as stated at the Traverse, Mi meetings this summer, is 'Put the responsibility on the consumer. Impose a fuel tax to be painful enough to discourage certain vehicles.' When the consumers hurt enough they will normally switch to more efficient vehicles that don't hurt as much at the pump....then we'll build those vehicles to satisfy that demand. The problem with a massive fuel tax that will hurt us where it hurts most is that it will take nearly $1 Billion per day out of our economy - after tax - and give it to the Federal Govt ( whichever party is in power ) to use as it sees fit. For most normal drivers this equates to about $1500 annually - after tax. Which necessity do you want to do without in order to feed the pump and the Fed Govt?

Well, since the market(you people) are unwilling to change voluntarily, and since it would be corporate suicide for the motor co's to voluntarily stop producing big cars,some kind of tax is in order.
I don't like a gas tax, because it unfairly hits people with less income.
I would prefer a tax on engine size, the bigger the engine, the bigger the tax.
Conversely, if you buy a car with an engine under 2.0 litres, you geta tax credit.

kdhspyder

That's why I like the tax/credit on fuel usage ratings over engine size. With a tax or credit dependent on engine size there is no incentive to provide an ultra efficient 1.5L or 1.8L. The 1.5L will always get a break vs the 1.8L since it's smaller.

The first order of business is to change our outdated fuel economy method from an MPG metric to a GAL per [...]( 100 mi or 1000 mi ) metric. Our current system is sneakily counterproductive. Take the new Yukon/Tahoe 2-Modes.
The city driving rating jumps from 14 mpg to 21 mpg ..a nice 50% improvement!!! But we only save 1/3 of the fuel used priorly.

By moving to a USAGE metric the fuel used is measured exactly. The fuel spent or saved is calculated precisely.

Now rate the vehicles on fuel used per 100 mi driven and asses a tax or a credit based on those criteria. A 2.4L that is more economical than a 1.8L should get a greater credit.

kdhspyder

the market has spoken,and it likes bigger cars and SUV's over smaller ones. It always has in America.
Even $3 gas won't change that. Adjusted for inflation, the price of gas isn't any higher than it has ever been,and is lower than it was during the 79-80 gas crunch.
Plus, the people who typically buy the bigger cars are better off than they have ever been, so the percentage of income spent on gas has gone down for the most part.

I'll have to disagree here. Everyday I see the effects of $3/gal fuel. People are ignoring the large and medium BOF vehicles. Since Katrina these vehicles have tanked month after month after month such that almost every maker is killing them off in favor or crossovers which are lighter and more efficient.

Now send the price of fuel to $5 or $6 or $8 a gallon such that Mr/Mrs BOF/Luxo-truck will have to spend $5000 or $6000 or $8000 to drive their normal 15000 miles and we may never see a large BOF SUV sold again. You'd have to have a lot of disposable income to set it on fire like that.

volvomax

I'll have to disagree here. Everyday I see the effects of $3/gal fuel. People are ignoring the large and medium BOF vehicles. Since Katrina these vehicles have tanked month after month after month such that almost every maker is killing them off in favor or crossovers which are lighter and more efficient.

I don't know what you are basing that on.
Certain big SUV's are doing poorly, yes.
However, GM is doing well w/ the new Yukon/Tahoe trucks.
The mid size utes are selling as well as ever.
Big pickups are down, but they aren't family veficles anyway.
If the price of gas jumps to $5-8/gallon we are all going to have issues,not just the big SUV buyers.

nippononly

I wish I had the link, but I don't....HOWEVER, I was reading an article just recently (could it have been Automotive News?) which quoted sales and marketing folks from all of the domestics saying that yes, they had seen lots of folks switching from full-size to midsize SUVs, from BOFs to crossovers, and many switching back to cars of the midsize and large variety.

They also mentioned that there has been a trend this year of people moving from midsize cars to compact cars.

Many folks trading in their old rides are either downsizing or moving to crossovers that maximize fuel economy while retaining interior space. I am sure spiky gas prices have caused that. Now gas prices are going up again. Will we see $4/gallon in the next five years? Who knows. But it is making people move fuel economy higher on their priority lists I think. This is a country that loves to let market forces dictate social change. Hence all the protests to CAFE. Gas might move up in price enough to create the needed effect all by itself. But a little gas tax sure would go a long way to speeding that along...

kdhspyder

I don't know what you are basing that on.
Certain big SUV's are doing poorly, yes.
However, GM is doing well w/ the new Yukon/Tahoe trucks.
The mid size utes are selling as well as ever.
Big pickups are down, but they aren't family veficles anyway.
If the price of gas jumps to $5-8/gallon we are all going to have issues,not just the big SUV buyers.

OK here are the numbers

Only the two large SUVs at GM & Ford are up in sales over last year:
Suburban/Yukon XL ..up 12.7% vs 2006 and about even with 05.
Expedition .. up ~15% vs 2006 .. but down 20% from 05 and down 60% from 04

The other BOF SUVs are down across the board.

TB/Env .. down 26% vs 2006 and down almost 45% vs 2005
Tah/Yuk/Esc .. down 10% vs 2006 and down 5% vs 2005
Durango .. down 30% vs 2006
Sequoia .. down 25% vs 2006 and down abt 45% vs 2005

The only different one is Toyota midsizers due to the addition of the FJ.
4R/470GX/FJ .. even with 2006 and up abt 30% over 2005

The trucks are a different story altogether.
The F-Series is down, down, down.
940K ( 04 ) to 900K ( 05 ) to 790K ( 06 )to about 725K this year.

The Ram is up very slightly over last year.
The Sierra and Siverado are down very slightly vs last year and down about 10% vs 05.
The Tundra is up dramatically over all the last 6 years.

I see it every day in our stores that the BOF SUVs are living day-to-day on the whim of fuel prices. $4-$5 a gallon next summer? Who's going to want to spend $120-$150 to fill up one of these every 4 days.

kdhspyder

..and cross-reference another thread. The Yukon/Tahoe 2-Modes.

The current ICE vehicles get about 16 mpg Combined according to the new EPA values which on a 24 gal fillup would take the driver about 382 miles. The 2-Modes with a 21 mpg Combined value would take that driver 501 miles on the same 24 gal. This is what we need across the board in order to extend our current fuel supplies.

Before banning them altogether or pricing them out of existence how about extending this technology to every BOF SUV being made?

volvomax

So, basically the domestics are down.Which is to be expected. the newer doestics seem to have some strength though.
But, the imports are doing fine.
If your analysis were correct, ALL suv's,even the imports would have to decline.
Plus, this is a bad year for ALL car sales,not just SUV's.

kdhspyder

My contention is that large BOF SUVs like the..
.. Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade/Sequoia are down strongly
.. 4R/GX470/Explorer/Durango/TB/Envoy are down even more
.. trucks have to some extent become a 'necessity' so except for Ford they are stable this year but down overall.

Trust me on this 4R and Sequoia sales are in the tank right now, down 17% and 30% repectively vs last year. It's only because of adding a new vehicle that they are up over 2005.

Yes this year is a bad year for all vehicle sales but the public is ignoring the bigger vehicles more.

rockylee

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/.ee9fdb7

-Rocky

nippononly

Click and Clack (the Tappet Brothers) have weighed in on the subject:

http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/assets/files/0160.pdf

To quote the NPR car gurus: "Every single time (the auto industry) have resisted safety, environmental, or fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull feathers".

and

"The truth is, we could achieve a CAFE standard of 35 mpg in FIVE YEARS if we made it a priority."

I tend to agree with this one: "Do we really want to send our kids to fight and die in the desert so that we can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten?"

rockylee

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071105/UPDATE/711050439/1148- /rss25

-Rocky

nippononly

A challenging and meaningful fuel economy target!

gagrice

You notice all the target dates are long after they are out of Congress or the White house. What about just upping it to 32 MPG by 2010? You will not see any of them pushing anything that will lose them votes in 2008. Hillary might as well have made it 75 MPG. No sweat for her. It reminds me of the ZEV mandate in the 1990s in CA. What a joke that ended up being. Cost us and GM a couple billion.

rockylee

I might end up voting for a republican if she get's nominated. :sick:

-Rocky

nippononly

Nah, they mostly have ramp-up schedules. Those headlines are just the targets, ie the end standard when the proposed standard will rise no further without new legislation.

gagrice

To me promising the masses they will get a car that gets 55 MPG is like a "Chicken in every POT" politicizing.

I would say the average individual is happy with the mileage they are getting. They keep buying new cars with more HP and the MPG has not gotten much better. I think that Toyota and Honda would build smaller engines and smaller cars if they thought the American buyer was interested. Look at the size of the new Accord. Makes our old Lexus LS400 look like a Mini!

tpe

Look at the size of the new Accord. Makes our old Lexus LS400 look like a Mini!


Yes but for a car of that size and power it gets incredibly good mileage. For people that wish Honda would have kept the Accord smaller and less powerful and instead focus on higher mpg, well, Honda does that too. It's called the Civic. The Civic is yesterday's Accord. The automakers are still producing small vehicles with small engines. So if that's the kind of vehicle you're interested in then it's available. I don't think it makes sense to get bogged down by the fact that the names are changing.

If higher CAFE is enacted the primary way that the manufacturers will achieve this is simply by pricing their least efficient vehicles at a point that reduces sales and doing the opposite with their most efficient vehicles. This is essentially the same as the suggestion for a tax on engines based upon their efficiencies.

volvomax

If higher CAFE is enacted the primary way that the manufacturers will achieve this is simply by pricing their least efficient vehicles at a point that reduces sales and doing the opposite with their most efficient vehicles. This is essentially the same as the suggestion for a tax on engines based upon their efficiencies.

WRONG.
Auto makers don't make a profit on the cheap stuff.
They make it on the expensive cars.
That is why they are resiting CAFE.
Not because they can't achieve the target, but because achieving the target will cost them too much money.
An engine tax is better because it places the penalty on the person buying the car.

tpe

From the buyer's perspective it's the exact same thing. What does it matter whether you pay $40k for an SUV and then get hit with a $5k tax or whether you had to pay an extra $5k on the sticker price with no additional tax? Either scenario is going to result in the same, reduced number of sales of these profitable vehicles. In both cases the buyer is the one paying the penalty. The auto manufacturing is still suffering from reduced sales but at least in the second case he gets to make a bigger profit per vehicle rather than the government taking this additional money.

Regardless, they're both bad ideas because it only addresses the vehicle purchase and not how the vehicle is used. The goal is reduced fuel consumption, which is vehicle efficiency multiplied by miles driven. An effective approach has to address both sides of the equation. Let's say a person buys a low mpg truck and only uses it on a limited basis when he needs this utility, maybe putting on it 3,000 miles per year. Now let's say someone else buys this same truck and uses it as his daily driver, racking up 15,000 miles per year. Should these two people be penalized the same?

volvomax

From the buyer's perspective it's the exact same thing. What does it matter whether you pay $40k for an SUV and then get hit with a $5k tax or whether you had to pay an extra $5k on the sticker price with no additional tax? Either scenario is going to result in the same, reduced number of sales of these profitable vehicles. In both cases the buyer is the one paying the penalty. The auto manufacturing is still suffering from reduced sales but at least in the second case he gets to make a bigger profit per vehicle rather than the government taking this additional money.

Only problem is, there wouldn't be any additional profit.
Whatever they would make on the big car would get eaten up to sell the small one.
Motor co's would be punished for building what people want to buy. Instead of people having to pay for their own choices.
The tax collected could be used to fund alternative fuel programs.

tpe

The tax collected could be used to fund alternative fuel programs.

My understanding of this suggestion was that the taxes collected would be used to provide tax credits to those that purchased fuel efficient vehicles. This is what the auto manufacturers would be doing. They'd be using these excess profits to allow them to sell fuel efficient vehicles at a lower cost. Apparentlly you feel that the government would be able to perform this task more cost effectively than the private sector. A novel concept.

li_sailor

...we finally have a Politics topic!

Where's that sign-up sheet.........hey.....where'd everybody go?

stever

Must be something in the air - even saw Highender checking in today bragging on his new biodiesel Jetta TDI. Good to see you too, and I know where to find Jipster as well. It'll be like old home week (complete with the host throwing dishes, lol).

Politics

volvomax

First of all, it is not private enterprise's job to set public policy, or collect taxes.
In case you hadn't noticed, most auto companies don't have any "excess" profits.

If you truly want to change how people behave, you have to punish/reward them directly.

stever

"A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out planned federal fuel economy standards for many sport-utility vehicles, minivans and pickups.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the standards, which were to go into effect next year, didn't properly assess the risk to the environment and failed to include heavier SUVs and trucks, among several other deficiencies the court found."

Court tosses impending federal fuel economy standards (USA Today)

nippononly

The court basically said the new 24 mpg standard already set previously was a joke. It totally failed to take into account "the threat posed by carbon dioxide emissions". NHTSA is supposed to rewrite them much tougher as quickly as possible, to take effect in the same window as the previous set was.

I remember when the Bush administration first touted those new truck CAFE standards as taking environmental protection seriously, while most of the folks I know just laughed and laughed at a stance taken to so blatantly let carmakers off the hook for a few more years...

boaz47

This is just why CAFE doesn't work. It is too political and always will be. The rest of the world is behind the US in Nox and particulant control but they want us to focus more on CO2. Maybe they have a point but Particulents are a big problem as well. Any success CAFE has is much like showing off the WWF championship belt. The results were predetermined. While CAFE may not be as obtuse as CARB and their old EV or Zero emissions mandate they failed at it is still pretty lame considering the almost negligible effect it has had on increasing the fleet fuel average over the last twenty years. Any private company that took that long to do something would have been out of business long ago.

KCRam

CNNMoney.com - 57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago

Very interesting article about where we've been in fuel economy in light of today's signing of the energy bill that increases CAFE to 35 mpg by 2020.

We have clearly traded fuel economy for everything else... creature comforts, more room (reflecting our increased appetites?), and safety items - all of which increase weight.

And that increased weight requires more power to get it moving... coupled with our "need for speed" and the resulting horsepower wars, we now have compact cars with double the horsepower of 20 years ago, and a resulting significant drop in fuel economy.

So where do we go from here?

Would you relinquish some of the creature comforts and 0-60 times to save at the pump?

kcram - Pickups Host

stovebolter

It really isn't a problem to make a car that can get better economy than the CRX, it's just difficult to sell one. Take the Honda Insight - it weighed only a little more than the CRX, had the same seating and a bit extra storage space, and could get EPA ratings (pre-2008) of 60/66 mpg - but Honda didn't sell enough to continue the model.

That said, I find it amazing just how bloated today's cars have become - there are only a few four seaters available that weigh less than 2500 lbs. I would be willing to trade creature comfots, space, and even some safety for better fuel economy, but I'm definitely in the minority.

I'm convinced that this new legislation is going to backfire. It will probably reduce the number of small SUVs and pickups on the road, but it's going to increase the number of large SUVs and trucks that are too big to be considered for CAFE.