Options
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ok, don't you wish it was just CAFE and not that?
Here's the real CAFE story:
"In a change of policy, the government will now regulate fuel economy for individual models, based on vehicle size. This results in different standards for different manufacturers."
Government Raises Fuel Economy Standards For 2011
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Someone needs to jerk the governments chain. The whole concept of CAFE leaves the consumer out of the equation. I am not going to buy a car neutered by government regulations if I can help it. While I would love to have a large SUV that gets 30 MPG, I am not going to give up performance or utility to achieve the goals of a bunch of misguided government lackeys.
I am more for an increased gas tax, which allows the consumer maximum discretion both over vehicle purchases and the amount of driving they do, than I am for a bigger better CAFE.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Mountains and Molehills.
Certainly the unemployment rate is the only factor that should be taken into account in terms of the timing of the gas tax. It should start out with a modest bump, with regular, small but frequent increases. If we set $4 gas as our target price floor, we have already shown (last summer) that it will be enough to begin to get people to conserve, and also to make changes in their vehicle buying habits. Then automakers can quit crying foul, they can make what they like and see what people will buy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I have no further choices except to drive fewer miles, change jobs, move domicile, etc.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Ove the 30 yrs that the current system has been in place it hasn't stopped the vehicle makers from making SUVs for those than want them, trucks for those that want them, midsizers for the bulk of the population and small cars and hybrids for those that want them. In addition it has saved billions of gallons of fuel and it's kept upwards of $25 to $50 Billion in our pockets that hasn't gone to oil companies and Saudi princes.
So where is the 'bad'.
Becuase look at what this latest revamping of CAFE has done to the product plans of the D3. It has for all intents and purposes decimated GMs plans for Zeta, it's Trucks, and it's Muscle/Sports car program. Like it or not, those are the vehicles they know how to do best, and that earn the company positive buzz among car buyers, something GM could use every ounce of. It also has hurt Ford vis-a-vis their global RWD program, but since Ford is a little better at making smaller vehicles than GM (But still not as good as the Euros and Japanese) they were hit less hard by it. I think this was the plan all along, and that the haters of big V8 vehicles in Washington just bided their time to put something like this into action.
Your memory has failed you... for shame
Tata owns Jaguar and Land Rover, thus their inclusion on the list as the "manufacturer" (or, the parent firm).
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
Did you miss the fact that it was the price of fuel that jumped over $4 a gallon last year that was the real cause of the D3 getting out of SUVs and trucks. The new CAFE regs that you're worried about aren't going to take full effect for 11 more years!!!!
It was the price of fuel and the shift of the US buying public since 2001 that put the D3 where they are now. CAFE had nothing to do with it. The old CAFE regs from the early 80s were still in effect all through this decade as GM fell apart. In the 90s GM made $Billions in profits with the same CAFE rules in place. All of a sudden this decade GM is a rotting hulk losing $Billions with the same CAFE rules in place. Nothing changed in CAFE while this transformation took place.
CAFE is the easy excuse that losers search out in order to place the blame for their own incompetence. You can't make $Billions on one hand then lose $Billions on the other hand under the same rules then place the blame on the rules.
The cut backs you noted were decided by the managment when they finally recognized that they had made a horrendous error by emphasizing BOF vehicles too heavily.
The vehicles you noted as being the strengths of the D3 are in fact their weaknesses. The muscle cars do create a buzz in enthusiast circles. Agreed. But when those 12 enthusiasts buy their vehicles the vehicle maker is left with a near empty plant that can't be filled because the huge majority of the population has no interest whatsoever in these dinosaurs. The D3 can't make profits by being specialty boutique builders of low volume muscle cars. That was a luxury for a different time in the 70s when they dictated the market. Now the buyers dictate the market.
In the meanwhile over the last 25 or 30 years we've saved billions of gallons of fuel not burned up and kept $25 to $50 Billions here at home instead of donating it to Big Oil, Saudi princes, Venezuelan dictators and Iranian terrorists. All the while during those years especially in the 90s GM was raking in $Billions in profits.
Now what was bad about CAFE again?
kdh: A gas tax just takes more money from my pocket with nothing gained in return.
Well, you are to be applauded for being ahead of the curve, but you DO still benefit in that the higher gas tax stops gas price spikes from happening as often and as high as they will with unchecked consumption. And even with a Prius, gas price spikes DO affect you, what with all the miles you drive for work.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wrote about my experience 2 summers ago in an earlier post. I was visiting one of the caverns in Virginia and they had a small auto museum next door. They had models from the beginning of the era through the 40's and 50's. The interesting thing is some of the cars built in the 20's and 30's got 20+ mpg. I'm sure that was at a constant speed on flat land but it leads me to believe that maybe we have gotten all we can get out of the internal combustible engine. I would think we would be farther along 80 to 90 years later.
The Zeta-based cars are not body-on-frame. They use a rear-wheel-drive layout, but they also use unibody construction. Same with the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger and Challenger.
kdhspyder: The vehicles you noted as being the strengths of the D3 are in fact their weaknesses. The muscle cars do create a buzz in enthusiast circles. Agreed. But when those 12 enthusiasts buy their vehicles the vehicle maker is left with a near empty plant that can't be filled because the huge majority of the population has no interest whatsoever in these dinosaurs. The D3 can't make profits by being specialty boutique builders of low volume muscle cars. That was a luxury for a different time in the 70s when they dictated the market. Now the buyers dictate the market.
The Mustang was selling over 100,000 units annually. It has only recently dropped in sales because Ford is getting ready to unveil a new one and the market for ALL vehicles is down (Toyota is offering incentives on the Prius).
The Pontiac G8 is a sedan; it's not a "muscle car." It can be used as a family hauler.
The G8 flopped because: a. GM hasn't bothered to promote it; and b. it is being sold as a Pontiac, which is a dying brand.
It should have been sold as a Chevrolet, which would have given it a much larger dealer body and immediate tie-in with Chevy's trucks and the Corvette, not to mention the upcoming Camaro.
kdhspyder: In the meanwhile over the last 25 or 30 years we've saved billions of gallons of fuel not burned up and kept $25 to $50 Billions here at home instead of donating it to Big Oil, Saudi princes, Venezuelan dictators and Iranian terrorists. All the while during those years especially in the 90s GM was raking in $Billions in profits.
Making vehicles more economical only makes them cheaper to drive, as long as gasoline prices stay low (which they did until very recently). Gasoline use continued to climb. It was only within the last year that gasoline consumption actually dropped.
The average annual mileage per vehicle in the U.S. climbed from under 10,000 miles in the early 1970s to over 12,000 miles by 2006 (the latest year for which I could find figures). Even that trend is deceptive - there are more vehicles per household. So more people are driving, which results in fewer miles being added to an individual vehicle every year, but still ups the overall number of miles driven (and amount of gas burned).
The total number of miles driven had continued to increase until the double whammy of $4-a-gallon for unleaded and the collapse of the housing bubble reversed the trend last year.
kdhspyder: Now what was bad about CAFE again?
It didn't work, and it also caused some unintended side effects (namely, the shift to trucks and SUVs after the death of large, rear-wheel-drive passenger cars).
The DOT did a Vehicle Miles Travelled study from the late 70's through 2001. As you noted the average driver drove just under 10000 miles at the beginning. By 2001 the average driver was driving about 14000 miles annually. But again as you noted there are far more drivers on the road now.
New vehicle production in the late 70s was 10 MM units annually. Before the recent crash it was running at 16 MM units annually.
The average fuel economy of the fleet pre-CAFE was 12+ mpg. Now in 2007 it's 25 mpg. If CAFE had not be instuted there would have been no 'stick' to force the vehicle makers to offer more fuel efficient vehicles. As shown by their recalcitrance to push fuel economy over the last 25 yrs, the D3 have never been on board until the last 12 months.
If there was no CAFE we likely would still be driving the vehicles of the 70s getting 12+ mpg. However we benefit from CAFE by the fact that now the fleet which is probably three times as large as in 1970 is also twice as efficient.
In this last statement is the genius of the whole concept that the detroiters and naysayers refuse to understand.
The math is clear.
1970 10 MM units x 10000 mi driven / 12 mpg = 8 Billion gallons used for that MY
2007 16 MM units x 14000 mi driven / 25 mpg = 9 Billion gallons used for that MY
The number of vehicles has increased by 60%; the miles driven has increased by 40% but the fuel used has only increased by 12%. That's success.
IF...CAFE had never been implemented our increased population and increased number of drivers and increased distances driven would mean that in 2007...
16 MM units x 14000 mi driven / 12 mpg = 18.7 Billions of fuel that would have been used with no CAFE regs in place.
But that's only one year. Nearly 10 Billions of gas saved. CAFE has been in effect for 25 years!! 20 years have been at current levels.
If we consider that the total US market is 2/3 USED and 1/3 NEW each year that means that the savings are tripled. In fact there are about 250 MM units on the road now in the US. All of these 250 MM units are more efficient due to CAFE.
Clearly the numbers support the continued success of CAFE, whether the D3 hate it or not. It's been good for the country.
I totally disagree. I don't see how you can say CAFE did much of anything. It was the oil embargo of 1973 that got people to looking for better fuel economy. Then the super high gas prices of the early 1980s catapulted the high mileage imports into the arena raising the overall average mileage. The two largest auto maker were still building and selling mostly gas guzzlers. My 1988 GMC PU was a 3/4 ton 4X4 that got about 14 MPG. My 2005 GMC hybrid PU which was a 1/2 ton 2WD got 15-16 MPG. I don't consider that an improvement. CAFE is and has been a total waste of tax payers money. Just like all the rest of the programs Congress has cooked up to pad the pockets of their lobbyist friends.
That is pure conjecture.
The swing to smaller vehicles began in 1965. Imports were increasing in sales, and intermediates were displacing full-size cars even before the first fuel crunch in late 1973. Even compacts experienced revived sales in the early 1970s (after declining throughout most of the 1960s). People were seeking improved fuel economy even before the first fuel crunch.
kdhspyder: If there was no CAFE we likely would still be driving the vehicles of the 70s getting 12+ mpg. However we benefit from CAFE by the fact that now the fleet which is probably three times as large as in 1970 is also twice as efficient.
This is not supported by sales trends at that time. People were moving from larger cars to smaller ones even before the first fuel crunch. Note that the Vega, Pinto and Gremlin debuted during 1970, or three years BEFORE the Arab Oil Embargo hit in late 1973. Detroit felt the need to respond to increasing small car sales. The swing to smaller cars was well underway by the late 1960s (we'll ignore the quality of Detroit's responses).
kdhspyder: Clearly the numbers support the continued success of CAFE, whether the D3 hate it or not. It's been good for the country.
I've read the Congressional debate surrounding CAFE, which gives insight into the intent of the law. The goal was to REDUCE oil consumption and cut oil imports. Gasoline usage is at record levels, and oil imports have increased since the late 1970s (when CAFE went into effect). Clearly CAFE has failed in its original mission.
You cannot tell me that this has not been worthwhile. That's HUGE money staying here in this country every year. It may not stay in your pocket because of your choice of vehcles but when you consider 250 MM vehicles on the road as a nation we benefit enormously.
Your two examples indicate the recalcitrance of the D3. But because of this refusal to adjust by embracing fuel economy they find themselves in the condition they're in. Karma.
It's not conjecture. We ( all three of us ) have lived through these times. We know that the D3 have fought tooth and nail to find ways not to comply with CAFE or to stop it ( they succeeded for 15 yrs ) or to find loopholes through it. I understand the marketing reasons for this especially with low fuel prices in the 90s and the seeming endless supply of oil. But the national good was ignored as was their corporate health. Gagrice's two trucks are perfect examples of the D3's refusal to get with the program. This refusal to look into the future has killed two out of the three largest vehicle makers in the world.
The swing to smaller vehicles began in 1965. Imports were increasing in sales, and intermediates were displacing full-size cars even before the first fuel crunch in late 1973. Even compacts experienced revived sales in the early 1970s (after declining throughout most of the 1960s). People were seeking improved fuel economy even before the first fuel crunch.
Began. But there was no serious effort by the D3 to participate. When fuel dropped back to $1 a gallon all through the 90s the D3 abandoned all efforts to compete in the fuel efficient small cars in favor of the quick buck with SUVs and trucks ( Cavalier and Sunfire vs Civic and Corolla ).
kdhspyder: If there was no CAFE we likely would still be driving the vehicles of the 70s getting 12+ mpg. However we benefit from CAFE by the fact that now the fleet which is probably three times as large as in 1970 is also twice as efficient.
This is not supported by sales trends at that time. People were moving from larger cars to smaller ones even before the first fuel crunch. Note that the Vega, Pinto and Gremlin debuted during 1970, or three years BEFORE the Arab Oil Embargo hit in late 1973. Detroit felt the need to respond to increasing small car sales. The swing to smaller cars was well underway by the late 1960s (we'll ignore the quality of Detroit's responses).
It's supported by history and actual data over the last 25 yrs. This is the job of major companies and governments, to look into the future and see what is likely for the company's health and survival and for society's welfare. In the late 70s and 80 and all through the last 15 yrs the D3 have ignored the signs and fought to return to the 70s. It has killed them in the end. If there were no CAFE throughout the last 25 yrs we'd still be driving the technology of the 70's ( Gagrice example again ) in all our vehicles not just trucks.
kdhspyder: Clearly the numbers support the continued success of CAFE, whether the D3 hate it or not. It's been good for the country.
I've read the Congressional debate surrounding CAFE, which gives insight into the intent of the law. The goal was to REDUCE oil consumption and cut oil imports. Gasoline usage is at record levels, and oil imports have increased since the late 1970s (when CAFE went into effect). Clearly CAFE has failed in its original mission.
This was uncharted territory back in the 70's. Like now much of the rhetoric is political to catch the attention of the populace and the news; "Independence from Mideastern Oil Producers". But in a less emotional and cooler analysis the lawmakers had to face the real possibility that oil might run out at some time. No one except a few visionaries, considered harebrained alarmists, thought that Peak Oil was anything more than a theory. But DOT did commission the VMT study to which I referred in the other post in order to study driving patterns and thus fuel consumption from the late 70s to 2001.
The EIA now publishes an annual report on usage and supplies. It's clear now that we are walking a dangerous line between doing as we please and potentially parking our vehicles for extended periods for lack of petro-fuel.
The numbers I mentioned from the VMT study combined with the CAFE numbers clearly show how much money we've saved over the last 25 yrs. It's hundreds of $Billions.
The reasoning for the new CAFE 35 in 2020 is not to 'Free Us from Middle Eastern Oil" as the headlines might have read in the 80s. The only way to do that is to stop using petro-fuel for vehicles. Electric power and bio diesel are the only ways to 'free us'.
What CAFE 35 recognizes is that for the next 30 yrs or so we will still be using petro-fuel primarily to power our vehicles. But soon that fuel will be so scarce that we ( each of us or the various governments ) will have to ration out the supplies to each user. When that rationing occurs who will be the first to agree to park their vehicle for a week or a month or to retire it forever? Somebody will have to do without.
Right now our population is 305 MM people. There are about 250 MM 'eligible' drivers and there are about 250 MM vehicles on the road right now. In 2030 we will have a populatin of about 400 MM people. At the same rate of 'eligibles' there be about 325 MM drivers at that time. Even if our individual VMT don't change from the current 15000 annually that still means that we will need 30% more fuel in 20 years then we use today.
Or.... all the vehicles can be 35% more efficient across the board.
This is a national security and public safety issue primarily; i.e. keeping us all driving, keeping the military fueled, protecting our economy and keeping us all from killing each other at the pump.
The idea that we would all be driving around in 12 mpg vehicles without CAFE ignores trends that were underway before the first fuel crunch. Small cars were growing in popularity BEFORE 1973. People were seeking more economical cars before the first fuel crunch.
You need only to look at the sales trends from the middle of the 1960s. Big cars were declining in market share. The growth was in small, imported sedans, ponycars (until they got too big and powerful by chasing the muscle car market - then sales collapsed, which further proves the point) and intermediates.
Many people were demanding smaller cars before the first fuel crunch. A lot of them were already upset about the "economy" of the standard-size Detroit cars.
kdhspyder: It's supported by history and actual data over the last 25 yrs. This is the job of major companies and governments, to look into the future and see what is likely for the company's health and survival and for society's welfare. In the late 70s and 80 and all through the last 15 yrs the D3 have ignored the signs and fought to return to the 70s. It has killed them in the end. If there were no CAFE throughout the last 25 yrs we'd still be driving the technology of the 70's ( Gagrice example again ) in all our vehicles not just trucks.
This ignores the impact that the imports have had on the market since the 1970s. They were the main drivers of technological changes in the market, and their presence was completely independent of CAFE.
kdhspyder: But the national good was ignored as was their corporate health. Gagrice's two trucks are perfect examples of the D3's refusal to get with the program.
Many people who bought large cars simply switched to large trucks, because CAFE killed them. Are GM, Ford and Chrysler supposed to not make a type of vehicle just because some people think it uses too much gas?
Both Toyota and Nissan entered those markets, too - also note that, as of last year, Toyota sold MORE trucks, SUVs and large vehicles (meaning Camry and above) than smaller cars (and that includes the Scions).
kdhspyder: This refusal to look into the future has killed two out of the three largest vehicle makers in the world.
What killed Chrysler was Daimler looting the company, and skimping on new models to the point that they were hopelessly uncompetitive (Sebring and Avenger).
What killed GM were several factors: a refusal to get serious with the UAW about bringing labor costs (including work rules) into line with the transplant operations; a refusal to realize that the old Sloan "stairstep" model of branding was dead; and a refusal to realize that it was behind the competition in critical areas of interior quality and control of noise, vibration and harshness (what we call "refinement").
A Prius clone or a Cobalt that gets 40 mpg would be nice, but neither would have saved GM or Chrysler.
Big pickups and SUVs kept GM alive to this point. Without them it probably would have gone under in the early 1990s (GM almost filed for bankruptcy in 1992-93).
Making more fuel-efficient vehicles wouldn't have saved GM. Note that Toyota is offering incentives on the Prius, and the Fit is piling up on dealer lots, too (my local Honda dealer has at least six, along with three of the new Insights). Even if the Cobalt and Aveo were as good as the Civic and Fit, they wouldn't be enough to keep GM in business.
CAFE can only ensure that the manufacturers make vehicles that obtain a certain mileage figure. It can't ensure that said vehicles will be attractive, refined, fun or desireable. A look at a 1976 Chevette or 1982 Cavalier - both built in response to CAFE - should be proof enough of that one...
kdhspyder: The numbers I mentioned from the VMT study combined with the CAFE numbers clearly show how much money we've saved over the last 25 yrs. It's hundreds of $Billions.
The rationale for CAFE keeps changing. Originally it was supposed to end the dependence on imported oil and reduce gasoline usage; when it didn't do that, the rationale was that without it we'd be using even more gasoline, because otherwise every new car would only get 12 mpg.
That ignores trends that have been underway since the 1960s, so now CAFE is supposed to save us money. That would certainly be nice. Except, of course, that the technology needed to make vehicles that get 35 mpg and provide the same levels of comfort, refinement and safety may drive up the price of vehicles to the point that no net savings will be realized. So those savings are hardly guaranteed.
kdhspyder: But in a less emotional and cooler analysis the lawmakers had to face the real possibility that oil might run out at some time. No one except a few visionaries, considered harebrained alarmists, thought that Peak Oil was anything more than a theory.
Were they the same ones who said that we would be paying over $5 a gallon for unleaded by this time? I paid $1.99 a gallon last night...
kdhspyder: But soon that fuel will be so scarce that we ( each of us or the various governments ) will have to ration out the supplies to each user. When that rationing occurs who will be the first to agree to park their vehicle for a week or a month or to retire it forever? Somebody will have to do without.
Rationing has nothing to do with "shortages" and more to do with making sure the politically connected get what they want at the old price. If the price goes higher, people will have to adjust. If they can't afford, they will do without it, or drastically reduce their use of it.
Last year provided the perfect example. Gas prices rose, and gasoline usage dropped, as did the number of miles driven...all without any change in CAFE. If gasoline does become scarce, it will become more expensive, which, in turn, will encourage pumping more difficult-to-access reserves, more use of alternative energy sources and more conservation measures (carpooling, trip consolidation, use of mass transit, etc.). As shown by the past year, CAFE is completely irrelevant to those trends.
I don't have any trust in the 'goodness' of industry to do the right thing for society. Industry should not have improving society as it's first goal, profitability should be the first goal. As such the D3 were ( in the short term ) absolutely right to try to maximize profits and ignore CAFE as much as possible. That's capitalism.
But for the long term health of the various companies and for the betterment of society industry 'should' be looking long term. Obviously they haven't. But luckily for us the government has a longer view.
We will need at least 30-40% more fuel available to us by 2030. It's got to come from somewhere or a lot of us will have to do without. The petroleum industry says that the easy oil, the low-hanging fruit, is all but gone. While there's plenty left it's all in remote areas where it's going to cost a lot to bring it to the pump.
Or we all can do without to some amount or other. Again who's going to volunteer to be the first to sit at home or to take mass transit?
Your shortterm view on the price of fuel today is indicative of the very common 'forest and trees' syndrome. It's what got the D3 in the mess they're in presently. Absent the economic crash this year I viewed fuel prices as increasing by $.50 a gallon annually out into the future. I don't see anything except the current lack of business demand around the country that dissuades me from this long term outlook.
At some time we will recover and we will start back to work with minimal unemployment and our appetite for fuel will take off again, with booster rockets. At that time $4 and $5 per gallon fuel prices will return. Then we will again be facing annual increases of $.50 a gallon as fuel gets tighter and tighter.
So I ask again, 'Who will volunteer to be the first to park their vehicle, stay at home or take mass transit?' With a larger population, more drivers and more vehicles on the road we must have 30-40% more fuel for our needs....or we can drive vehicles that are 30-40% more efficient. Will industry do this on its own? Not until it sees demand and money to be made. With a 5+ yr design cycle and multiple products involved by the time industry sees the demand it will be too late for society. That's where government steps in.
1. Make the national fleet more efficient by 2030 to keep everyone driving
2. Mandate fuel rationing
3. Mandate against single person vehicles
4. Mandate against drivers of certain ages ( none >75 or <18 )
Allowing industry to 'react as demand dictates' is as bad as 'let the markets decide' in our financial crisis. When the crisis hits it's too late.
I implied no such thing, and please note that the Vega, Pinto and Gremlin all debuted in 1970, BEFORE CAFE was enacted. The domestics were attacking the small car market before CAFE was enacted. (Whether they were good efforts is another matter, but there is no evidence that CAFE has resulted in the production of GOOD vehicles.)
Even Ford had made the decision to downsize the original Mustang to create the Mustang II prior to the first fuel crunch. The market was moving to smaller vehicles before the Arab Oil Embargo. That doesn't mean that people were going to immediately abandon Cadillac Fleetwood Broughams and LTD Broughams, but it shows the direction the market was already heading.
kdhsypder: The two examples of half-azzed efforts to bring smaller more fuel efficient vehicles to market, the Chevette and Cavalier, show this lack of involvement.
You claimed that higher mileage vehicles would have forced the production of more attactive and economical vehicles, and thus prevented GM and Chrysler from reaching the point of bankruptcy.
The Cavalier and Chevette prove that mileage standards cannot force a company to make attractive cars - only economical ones. That is not enough to prevent bankruptcy.
kdhspyder: But for the long term health of the various companies and for the betterment of society industry 'should' be looking long term. Obviously they haven't. But luckily for us the government has a longer view.
Except that GM and Chrysler are still basically bankrupt, which means that CAFE didn't do much good in preventing that one, and Toyota now can't sell Priuses without incentives, so merely making high-mileage cars is obviously not enough to boost sales.
kdhsypder: We will need at least 30-40% more fuel available to us by 2030. It's got to come from somewhere or a lot of us will have to do without. The petroleum industry says that the easy oil, the low-hanging fruit, is all but gone. While there's plenty left it's all in remote areas where it's going to cost a lot to bring it to the pump.
Which will initially be reflected in the price...and please note that there is no proof that all of our additional energy needs will be met with petroleum.
kdhspyder: Your shortterm view on the price of fuel today is indicative of the very common 'forest and trees' syndrome. It's what got the D3 in the mess they're in presently. Absent the economic crash this year I viewed fuel prices as increasing by $.50 a gallon annually out into the future. I don't see anything except the current lack of business demand around the country that dissuades me from this long term outlook.
The price of gasoline was declining before the current economic crash. It was based on a commodity bubble and the resulting speculation, not any true shortage in supply.
kdhspyder: At some time we will recover and we will start back to work with minimal unemployment and our appetite for fuel will take off again, with booster rockets. At that time $4 and $5 per gallon fuel prices will return. Then we will again be facing annual increases of $.50 a gallon as fuel gets tighter and tighter.
I recall similar predictions in 1975 and 1982...didn't work out that way. Gasoline was supposed to hit $3 a gallon by 1985 (in 1980s dollars).
Although I don't doubt that gasoline will eventually hit $4 a gallon.
Of course, if, in 1980, someone had told me that, in 2009, a brand-new Civic would cost $20,000, and a decent house would cost between $180-200,000 in the area where I live, I would have said, "No one will be able to afford one!"
Because I made the common mistake of forgetting to account for increases in income and purchasing power.
The Cavalier and Chevette prove that mileage standards cannot force a company to make attractive cars - only economical ones. That is not enough to prevent bankruptcy.
./.
Except that GM and Chrysler are still basically bankrupt, which means that CAFE didn't do much good in preventing that one, and Toyota now can't sell Priuses without incentives, so merely making high-mileage cars is obviously not enough to boost sales.
Except that the D3 fought against complying with the CAFE standards of the 80s other than to field a minimally capable team. They made no serious effort frankly until the last two years. Instead of embracing the opportunity they fought it tooth and nail. Money was to be made in fuel efficient products; Camry, Accord, Civic, Corolla, Sonata, et. al. The D3 opted not to compete except marginally to keep a balance with their real money-makers the SUVs and trucks.
My contention with them is that instead of keeping a balanced product portfolio that could have reacted quicker to the sudden switch of buyer preferences since 2003 the three of them were left in the dust gasping. Now that they have religion it's frankly too late for two of them.
The CAFE standards were not a tool to force the manufacturers to make good fuel efficient vehicles. Whether they did or not was a managerial choice. What CAFE did do was to save us $Billions and keep us from using billions of gallons of fuel over the last 25 years. In that it served its purpose perfectly. If the D3 chose not to participate they did so at their own risk of ruin. Obviously.
The price of gasoline varies every year in a very regular curve. Gas Buddy historical chart 5 yrs. Gas prices reach their annual peak just after 4th of July here and then decline through Christmas. Then they begin going up again after Jan 1st. 'Til these last 9 mo's it was only upward, upward, upward. This curve will resume when business recovers.
Who paid the salaries of all those fat car civil servants?
You cannot tell me that this has not been worthwhile
I most certainly can. It has only cost US money. Higher prices for vehicles and another wasteful agency. You cannot show any statistical data that proves it was CAFE and not the consumers own desires to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. The CAFE average has not gone up since 1986 so who paid the wages of all those deadbeats in the agency? Fuel economy increased even when CAFE was relaxed.
from 1986-1988 the fuel economy rose even as the price of fuel fell and the CAFE standard was relaxed due to pressure from US automakers
I do NOT believe the outcome or the usage of fuel in this country would be any different without CAFE. We are just on opposite ends of the political spectrum. You believe in big government telling US every move. I believe in as little government as we can get by with.
Don't forget Corvair. A wonderful little car once GM worked the bugs out. If not for that hack Nader it would have evolved into one of the best of the era. If Nader had treated Honda with the same lopsided misinformation attacks it would have never gotten off the ground as an auto maker. The early Hondas were pure CRAP. I know I bought one of the early Accords in 1977 from a Honda motorcycle dealer in Minnesota.
We are in agreement. CAFE is purely a waste of tax payers dollars.
In this case CAFE has more than paid for itself.
Your two truck examples are the very reason why CAFE is needed. Without the stick we'd be relying on the D3 to give us their best efforts. Well they have shown over and over again that they won't give us their best efforts unless forced to do so ... and then they'll do it dragging their heels. You're pollyanna-ish if you think the D3 and the other would have given us 30 and 40 mpg vehicles of their own accord. In this I'm much more of a realist.
Regardless of political leanings, and yes I am a card-carrying NY liberal, the math cannot be refuted.
That looks like a typo that I'd make. Those fat cars do burn a lot of gas.
With $4 a gallon gas prices still semi-fresh in our minds, do we still need CAFE? Is it time to junk it and let what's left of the market decide?
I am the realist. It is fantasy to think that CAFE had any real influence. Just more Big Brother bullying US. We could have saved the billions paid to the 1000s of non essential CAFE people. They did nothing from about 1985 until 2007. Yet you can bet the agency grew and grew and grew. And the math is FUZZY at best.
OMG!!! Alan Greenspan somehow just popped up in an auto thread on Edmunds.
This has been our mantra for the past 30 years as espoused by Greenspan. 'The markets are perfectly efficient and will resolve all imbalances. Let the markets decide.' However in front of Congress he admitted that he was wrong, ergo the financial mess we're in right now. He admitted that more regulation was needed to prevent excesses and bubbles. Then two weeks later he changed course 180 deg and suggested nationalizing BoA and Citi.
CAFE is a good piece of regulating legislation in that it keeps the vehicle makers on course to continue offering more fuel efficient vehicles. They will NOT do it on their own.
This site is an auto enthusiast site peopled by many with influences from the detroiters. The detroiters have hated CAFE since its inception thus the prevailing sentiment on this site is pure hatred.
However in the general population if you pose the question 'Do you favor legislation requiring the vehicle makers to make more fuel efficient vehicles?' The overwhelming response is 'DUH??? Why are you asking such a stupid question, of course I am.' How do I know this? I meet the general buying public every day. 95+% are not auto enthusiasts, they couldn't give a hoot. Most don't even know this site exists.
But nearly every one of them is in favor of being offered better choices to use less fuel. It's a huge selling point. If it's got to be mandated, Right ON!!! That goes for all colors in the political spectrum,
The NHTSA is part of the DOT. It serves a lot of purposes across the nation. The CAFE Dep't can't be 1000's of people...and certainly they're not fat cats. The NHTSA is one of the smallest agencies in the DOT.
Well, you didn't hear it from me. I wouldn't even buy a beater from John Galt Motors. *shrug*
Whether they fought the standards is irrelevant. The standards were in place; they had no choice but to meet them. Which they did by producing such wonders as the Cavalier and Dodge Shadow. Which proves that the standards, in and of themselves, were not enough to prevent the eventual bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler.
You asserted that stricter CAFE standards would have saved GM and Chrysler. This does not hold up when examined what has actually happened over the past three decades.
kdhsypder: They made no serious effort frankly until the last two years. Instead of embracing the opportunity they fought it tooth and nail.
They downsized their full-size cars and intermediates, brought out new subcompacts (Chevette, J-Cars, Escort, Omni/Horizon) and adopted the "aero" look for the Taurus/Sable and Thundebird/Cougar.
We can argue about how good these vehicles were, but the bottom line is that all of them represented significant investments and efforts. The idea that the domestics did "nothing" until recently does not hold water.
kdhspyder: Money was to be made in fuel efficient products; Camry, Accord, Civic, Corolla, Sonata, et. al.
Not when you are saddled with a UAW contract that basically requires the company to use three times the workers that Toyota and Honda do to build the same number of vehicles, and are responsible for lavish worker retirement and health care benefits. I would like to see proof that the UAW was willing to make the significant concession (not just window dressing) before the past five years.
kdhspyder: My contention with them is that instead of keeping a balanced product portfolio that could have reacted quicker to the sudden switch of buyer preferences since 2003 the three of them were left in the dust gasping. Now that they have religion it's frankly too late for two of them.
A Cobalt as good as a Civic would certainly be nice, but it wouldn't have saved GM, given that sales of everything are now on the floor.
kdhspyder: The CAFE standards were not a tool to force the manufacturers to make good fuel efficient vehicles. Whether they did or not was a managerial choice.
Which is what I've been saying, and further proves that stricter CAFE standards would not have saved GM and Chrysler, contrary to your assertion.
kdhspyder: What CAFE did do was to save us $Billions and keep us from using billions of gallons of fuel over the last 25 years. In that it served its purpose perfectly.
Except its purpose was to reduce gasoline consumption and oil imports, and it did neither. Now it was supposed to save us money, even though, until recently, we had been using more gasoline than ever, and any real savings have been because the price of gasoline has been dropping, relative to income, since the early 1980s.
kdhspyder: The price of gasoline varies every year in a very regular curve. Gas Buddy historical chart 5 yrs. Gas prices reach their annual peak just after 4th of July here and then decline through Christmas. Then they begin going up again after Jan 1st. 'Til these last 9 mo's it was only upward, upward, upward. This curve will resume when business recovers.
Interesting stuff, but it hardly proves that we are in store for $5-a-gallon for unleaded because of shortages. Nor does it prove that last year's price spike was caused by any real shortage, as opposed to a commodities bubble.
Also note that most of the financial bad news didn't hit until September (after Labor Day), which means that the drop in gasoline prices occurred prior to the recent financial panic. The price drop therefore cannot be explained away by simply saying that we are using less because of the recession. (Also note that the price drop was much more dramatic than the usual seasonal fluctuations.) Nor does it look as though prices will automatically rise once the economy improves.
I asserted no such thing. Your prior sentence is accurate. 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.
********************************************************************************- - ****************
Fighting CAFE was one of many sins of the managements.
'nothing' was too harsh perhaps. What they did was 'minimal' and 'ineffective'.
No one single vehicle such as a super Cobalt would have saved GM simply because GM's entire product portfolio was out of balance. It was too heavily weighted toward SUVs and trucks. This statement is still accurate..
kdhspyder: My contention with them is that instead of keeping a balanced product portfolio that could have reacted quicker to the sudden switch of buyer preferences since 2003 the three of them were left in the dust gasping. Now that they have religion it's frankly too late for two of them.
********************************************************************************- - ****************
Except its purpose was to reduce gasoline consumption and oil imports, and it did neither. Now it was supposed to save us money, even though, until recently, we had been using more gasoline than ever, and any real savings have been because the price of gasoline has been dropping, relative to income, since the early 1980s.
That was the rhetoric of the time - but misinterpreted. Apparently still so. I've seen this faux-argument very often on the D3 boards.
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.
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 the absolute usage of fuel would have dropped to 4 Billion gal annually....IF our population had not grown and IF more vehicles weren't being purchased and driven each year and IF each of us ( on average ) didn't decide to drive more miles each year.
This is a huge error in logic because it ignores that we now ( 2006 ) have a national fleet that has grown 60% to 16 MM units annually and we all drive more more miles each year, from 10000 mi to 15000 mi. Thus there's 60% more vehicles being sold and driven every year and we all drive 50% more miles than we did in the late 70's. Of course we are going to use more fuel.
CAFE was not intended to stop progress and growth it was intended that each of us use less petro fuel. In that regard it has done so perfectly - on average.
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.
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.
Obama's NHTSA Nominee Draws Flack From Environmentalists For CAFE Stand (Green Car Advisor)
What's clear is that CAFE regulations work. The Department of Transportation is estimating that the new CAFE standards for the 2011 model year will save 887 million gallons of fuel with a resulting cut in carbon dioxide emissions of 8.3 million metric tons.
The administration will have to ensure that its top transportation officials have their eyes on that bottom line -- as well as the troubled automobile industry's financial bottom line.
It echos what I've been saying over and over herein.
We know, you believe whatever the government tells you. Not all of US are as gullible. If any of it was true. What did CAFE do from 1986 till 2007 besides collect their fat pay checks, while eating dunkin donuts and swilling Starbucks?
Measure most of those cars today.
I learned to drive a stick in my cousin's 1981 Accord. That same physical car today in Honda's lineup? The Fit. The Accord has grown to the same class (full-size) as the Crown Victoria. The Civic and Corolla are much bigger than their namesakes of 30 years ago.
Honda, Toyota, and later Hyundai didn't make money by simply selling efficient cars... they made money by selling inexpensive-to-build cars. Your choices were limited to color, trim level, and some option packages. At the same time, GM had badge-engineered the J-car to all 5 divisions and you could still custom-order one almost any way you wanted. The Americans finally caught up to that build practice and now make money on their cars too.
Ford clears $15,000 on every Lincoln Navigator they can sell without an incentive. That's why they still make them. The money is in vehicles that are cheap to build, not necessarily fuel efficient.
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
Your blindness and anger keep you from seeing the good in life. This is something that really works and really does save us Billions of dollars every year.
I guess we just disagree. What I see is a country that went from prosperity in 2006 to total disarray in 2 years of Democrat control of Congress. They control CAFE. To stick your head in the sand and say that their are no people involved in the CAFE regulations and enforcement is being blind. The gains if any do not outweigh the cost to the economy. Those that cannot see your agenda of wanting to destroy the domestics for your own personal gain are also blind. Everyone has an agenda. Yours is selling more Toyotas. No matter what the cost to the Nation.
I've shown you the numbers on how much money has been saved every year. I've also looked up the budget of the DOT for Bush's last year, remember this is a rule that has Executive Branch oversight. It appears that there is NO money anywhere in the DOT budget for CAFE unless it's buried somewhere in an obscure line item. If it is then it's miniscule. It's no where near the money being saved every year by us the driving public.
The extention of CAFE to 35 mpg is a Bush proposal ( Republican ), not a Congressional initiative. Since you came late to this discussion which actually began two years ago I don't know if you were aware of WHY Pres. Bush pushed to extend CAFE.
We're paying for it now and we will be long after you and I are pushing up daisies.
Just like CAFE - when gas prices are low, the constituency to raise the fleet mpg fades. Then $4 a gallon gas comes along and people scramble to get Geo Metros back on the road and they yell at Detroit and DC.
Which proves my point that CAFE is a joke and a waste of tax dollars.