Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

gagrice · May 2006

There's got to be a better way to mitigate the effects of high gas prices on the economy.

People could drive less. The roads are packed all day. I don't think anyone is at work.

boaz47 · May 2006

I think historical this country gives lip service to political correctness on things like the environment and conservation until we reach a economic crisis. Then political correctness falls to the wayside. The price at the pump may be discomforting and people may complain but they don't seem to care as much as they did when we thought gas was running out, like in the 70s. Because we as a culture are consumers and are willing to work to pay for what we consume even if it seems excessive to our foreign cousins. Because we have the ability and capacity to do so. Go to a dinner party and the conversation hardly ever turns to the plight of our poor european cousins paying higher fuel prices because of high taxes. If anything we as a culture believe they are foolish to not vote their leaders out, even if it is more difficult to vote them out than it might be here.

what we over look when we propose higher fuel taxes is higher costs on every thing we buy. Higher taxes to the average consumer makes it harder for the lower income person to survive so they often find is easier to go on welfair. A reaction very common in parts of Europe. Higher fuel taxes and fuel prices drive up the cost of food. Do we as a nation care that in Japan a Cantelope costs $38.00 each? No we only care what it cost us. De we care if they pay twice or three times what we do for beef? No we only care that we pay less.

There is simply no way a program like CAFE can work without lowering our life style to that of other countries and that is simply something most Americans can't support. At least that is how I see it.

gagrice · May 2006

The latest wrinkle in the CAFE standards will be E85. Most of the vehicles offered for E85 are at least 10 MPG under the CAFE 27.2 MPG standard. So you can buy a FFV to circumvent the CAFE rules and just run regular gas in it.

boaz47 · May 2006

Yes, GM used to get CAFE credits for making Multi fuel vehicles. Just making them allowed them to get credits on what their bigger vehicles used. Just my opinion but that is why I believe the Japanese made a brilliant manufacturing move when they conned CARB into dropping their zero emmisions demands and settled for Hybrids. Thirty years ago CARB demanded zero emmisions vehicles from the manufacturers by the year 2000. The manufacturers countered with the suggestion that they couldn't do it in the time allotted but they could produce a Hybrid even back then. As 2000 approached GM, Ford, Toyota and even Honda were working frantically on Electric cars. GM had the EV-1, Ford had the Think and Toyota had a whole fleet of Rav4 electric cars operating in New York. Just as soon as Honda and Toyota decided to market the hybrids CARB and CAFE dropped their demand and the manufacturers dropped electric cars. Now the common thought by CAFE is that zero emmisions aren't practical and no one is pushing for it. CAFE is rule by committee and a Committee is only as smart as their dumbest member. CAFE has to have a lot of fools on it.

gagrice · May 2006

CAFE has to have a lot of fools on it

Amen and CARB likewise!

rockylee · June 2006

If Supreme Court rules EPA must regulate emissions, Big 3 would have to invest heavily in alternative fuels.

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060627/AUTO01/606270378/- 1148

Rocky

rockylee · June 2006

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/UPDATE/606260404/- 1148/AUTO01

Rocky

nippononly · June 2006

to see how the Supremes rule on this thing. Either way, though, I don't think it will have much impact on fuel economy requirements for cars. Remember, the EPA is just a division of the government, and it operates under the heavy thumb of whoever is in the administration. Under Dubya, EPA has reneged on just about every duty it has for the last six years, and reversed decades of progress on protecting the environment.

But if the Supremes rule that EPA DOES have this authority, it will strengthen the positions of the state governments like California's (and a dozen others so far) that want to regulate CO2 emissions themselves. That's a good thing.

gagrice · June 2006

as the primary "greenhouse" gas causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

I think the Supreme Court will side with the Appeals court. If they can control CO2 they can tell you when to breathe and when not to. It is way to basic and foolish. I am surprised they agreed to take the case. Too bad it is such a political football. If we want less CO2 open up the gates for more diesel cars. They put out less CO and CO2 per mile driven. Kyoto is a flop and even the progenitors in Japan cannot live up to their own stupid idea. Britain is waffling when Tony Blair said it was unrealistic to try and achieve.

nippononly · June 2006

hehehe, yeah, and DOZENS AND DOZENS of other nations are forging ahead with what is admittedly a small first step that must be followed after 2010 by much more drastic action.

Diesels sound nice until you consider other pollutants. We need to reduce use, etc etc.

The Supremes only have about what, two months until their yearly break? So this should be decided by then. As you and I BOTH say, this is merely a political exercise, but I hope it helps out California's latest legislation and litigatory battle.

gagrice · June 2006

I think CA is all wet on this one, as well as most of their legislation. If you notice Japan is welcoming diesel cars in hopes of getting closer to their Kyoto commitments. It will not happen with gas and PZEV cars. If you noticed the EPA ratings. Mileage goes down as emissions ratings go up, with the same engine. It takes more gas and creates more GHG getting a car to burn cleaner.

You know as well as I do asking people to try reducing use is futile. Even with gas over 3 bucks a gallon I see no decrease in traffic or the way people drive. It is crazy out on the roads.

nippononly · June 2006

everything you say is true. And yet, somehow, we have to get Americans to start conserving in every aspect of their lives sometime soon. How to do it, how to do it?

Hybrids: GHG emissions go down even as smog-forming emissions go down. Shocking! In fact, there is no strictly linear inverse relationship between emissions and GHG generation as you imply, even for gas-powered cars. PZEV vehicles are popping up everywhere, and their EPA ratings aren't plummeting at the same time. Usually they stay the same or go up.

Hopefully, alt fuels aren't too far down the road, so we can take the next step and further this goal. Hybrids will be good for a 10-20-year timeframe though, as an interim step.

rockylee · July 2006

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=wwi

A MUST READ, some might like it Walt has to say on CAFE standards.

Thanx

Rocky

nippononly · July 2006

why exactly that is a must-read. The guy is one of the "usual crowd" not fond of government regulation in any form (hence the wonderful discussion of privatizing social security). He mentions that fuel economy was increasing before the implementation of CAFE, leaving it to the reader to assume, I guess, that it would have kept increasing on its own if the mean ol' government had not stepped in. Of course, that ignores the fact that even with the regulations in place, fuel economy fleetwide has fallen since 1980.

And of course he hauls out the old safety argument (as they always do) that SUV proponents love SO much, which totally fails to take into account all the other factors involved in safety. We could have saved the 1300 to 2600 lives he mentions if only we had had uniform bumper height regulations in place from the beginning - instead we have had almost two decades in which SUVs can get so monstrously large that they can roll right over the top of the Toyota Corollas they hit, thereby increasing the mortality rate of accidents.

What about the design of the roads and highways?

What about the non-existent standards for driver ability to get a license?

What about, what about.....

There are so many factors involved all of which the government either took the wrong direction on or did nothing about, that to hold up the supposed lesser safety of smaller cars is almost to produce a red herring.

Besides, nobody said cars had to be smaller and lighter to produce better gas mileage. This is just what the auto industry wants you to think, so you don't notice the fact that they have made no major innovations in powertrain efficiency since the early 80s (the widespread adoption of fuel injection), except for hybrids, which are not widespread yet.

rockylee · July 2006

I found it very interesting and agree with most of what he had to say, but not all.

Rocky

gagrice · July 2006

nobody said cars had to be smaller and lighter to produce better gas mileage.

I agree with you overall. I am still not convinced small cars are safe enough to be allowed on the Interstate Highways and Freeways. Cheap and tinny has extended its ugly head even to my favorite form of transportation the PU truck. I am not at all pleased with the thin sheet metal used in my 2005 GMC PU truck. And as was said in the article when the automakers build lighter tinnier cars the fatality rate goes up. In spite of the much over hyped crumple zones. We live in a society that likes big SUVs and PU trucks. This latest gas price will only slow big vehicle sales for a bit. As soon as people realize they can afford higher gas prices they will buy what they want, bigger vehicles. Those that opt for small to conserve are at a disadvantage on the highways of America. I don't see it changing for at least 20 more years.

Now with CAFE giving the domestics a real prize with the Flex Fuel mileage advantage, I look for truck sales to jump. One poster on the E85 thread tried to buy a Flex Fuel car. The Chevy dealer said the Impala FFV is not available to the general public only the fullsize FF PU trucks. So if you are so inclined to be part of the ethanol government debacle you have to buy a truck. You will help out GM & Ford by giving them a 33 MPG CAFE gift.

nippononly · July 2006

"As soon as people realize they can afford higher gas prices they will buy what they want, bigger vehicles"

Well, let's not forget there are many people for whom it's not all just about the money. For them (me too, can you tell? :-P) conservation is its own reward, a good goal to have in its own right.

But putting them/us aside, it is in the interests of the federal government to reduce gasoline use in the automobile fleet, for two reasons, the security one (Ooohhh, importing more than 1/3 of our oil from the bad bad terrorist Middle East) and the economic one (RECORD, HISTORIC, EPIC trade deficits we have had for many years now).

But CAFE in and of itself is clearly never going to get us anywhere. Time to get more creative and flexible with our approach to the problem.

gagrice · July 2006

conservation is its own reward, a good goal to have in its own right.

I agree. My motivation to conserve is my cheapness. Nothing ever came easy and I don't want to waste it. It seems to me these entities that are set up by our wonderful Congress rarely succeed in what they were meant to accomplish. EPA made a big splash with removing lead from our gas. They knew that sulfur in gas and diesel was also harmful. Yet they only did what they thought would appeal to the masses. The return on what they have accomplished since their inception is not earth shaking. Then CAFE standards are set and most of the automakers spend their money trying to circumvent the standard. Little if any gain in 30 years.

There are ways to save fuel and have clean air. The government is not willing to put forth the effort. Plus they don't want to lose any tax revenue caused by innovative conservation.

Conserving is a mindset. America does not like the idea. Only a few are willing to conserve. No one likes to sit in the house at 85 degrees as I am right now. We are too tight to turn on the AC for more than an hour or two a day. My wife is cheaper than I am. When they had the rolling black outs here in CA. She would read by candle light to conserve. Most people will not give up the modern high energy using conveniences. That includes the vehicles they drive.

boaz47 · July 2006

So true, and I might add, because the very people serving monitoring and proposing CAFE are responsible to the public. CAFE, CARB and the like can "never" succeed if the people they serve don't see a need for them to succeed. CAFE and CARB both are simple ways of allowing people not to think about their own actions. If people where buying cars because they were more fuel efficient than the competition's cars then the manufacturers would have to get in a race to see how far that would take them. But if we get the government, totally responsible to lobby groups, to set a standard everyone can meet there is no reason to enter into such a race. Better to dump CAFE and try something else.

rockylee · October 2006

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061011/AUTO02/610110436/1148- /AUTO01

Rocky

gagrice · October 2006

Good article. Europeans like to talk about global warming. They are not big on spending money on cars like the hybrid that may address the issue. This statement says a lot about future vehicles. We are loading cars down with so much emissions crap that 0-60 in 12 seconds will seem fast.

"The industry has to determine what the market will accept. It would be the road to ruin if the motor industry spent a fortune on products which were fine in terms of emissions, but nobody wanted to buy them," he said.

tpe · October 2006

We are loading cars down with so much emissions crap that 0-60 in 12 seconds will seem fast.

Are the PZEV cars being sold in California significantly slower than their non-PZEV counterparts?

gagrice · October 2006

The PZEV have lower mileage ratings than the non PZEV. I would imagine they are less power. I don't know of any V6 or larger cars that are PZEV. I think the 5 cylinder VWs are the best out there.

tpe · October 2006

http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/all-rank-06.htm

I'm guessing all the vehicles rated at 9.5 are PZEV. GM's 3.8L and BMW's 2.5L made the list. I don't see any mileage difference between the same vehicle depending on whether it gets a 9.5 rating or an 8 rating. I don't know about about power.

gagrice · October 2006

I was referring to the previous years for a given engine. The difference between the 9.5 and 8 can be the fuel in the non CARB states. Toyota for example does not seem to be able to get SULEV with non CARB gas. Yet others have including VW. It looks like the GM V6 will only be SULEV in CARB states.

nippononly · October 2006

They usually have 3-5% less power than their non-PZEV counterparts.

tpe · October 2006

My understanding is that the only difference between PZEV and SULEV is that the PZEV needs to prevent evaporative emissions and have a longer warranty on its emission components. I'm not an auto engineer but it doesn't seem like this should cause much of a power loss.

nippononly · October 2006

Yes, tpe, I am using PZEV interchangeably with SULEV in my remarks there. And you are correct that SULEV refers strictly to a tailpipe emissions standard, while PZEV also means zero evaporative loss from the fuel tank and a 150K-mile emissions performance warranty. The PZEV tailpipe emissions standard is the same as SULEV.

However, the additional engine management controls and/or hardware in the exhaust stream reduce the power of SULEV/PZEV cars from the rating of their 45-state counterparts (and the 45-state versions have higher emissions, sometimes several orders of magnitude higher).

tpe · October 2006

Thanks for the info.

rockylee · November 2006

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061104/AUTO01/611040349/1148-

Rocky

tpe · November 2006

If European cars are averaging 161 grams of CO2 per kilometer that tells me they are getting 35 miles per gallon. Considerably better than the US. Why the EU would want to adopt our failed approach is beyond me.

rockylee · November 2006

Agree....I think diesel technology is something further to explore as long as they can keep it clean via use of alternative fuels like food grease.

Rocky

rockylee · January 2007

CEO Zetsche says heavy-duty '07 Dodge Ram will be first pickup to meet 2010 diesel rules.

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070124/AUTO01/701240351

Rocky

rockylee · January 2007

CEO Zetsche says heavy-duty '07 Dodge Ram will be first pickup to meet 2010 diesel rules.

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070124/AUTO01/701240351

Rocky

nippononly · January 2007

did you post not once, not twice, but thrice (:-P), but you posted about emissions standards in a CAFE thread?

I was amused to see the Prez last night push for a 5% increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, after he has fought it for so long. And now, 5% seems so little.

tpe · January 2007

I was amused to see the Prez last night push for a 5% increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, after he has fought it for so long. And now, 5% seems so little.

I'm not a big fan of the current administration but I do try to be objective. How much did CAFE standards rise during the Clinton/Gore administration? We know the answer is zero, but maybe that was due to a Republican controlled congress. That's the beauty of our system. It's always possible to blame someone and also avoid accountability. With that said I do believe that both parties now seem to be on the same page when it comes to reducing fuel consumption. So maybe something will happen. Unfortunately CAFE still remains a pretty lame mechanism for achieving the desired results.

rockylee · January 2007

I posted similar articles but from 2 different sources. Each had a different "spin" to them and is how I justified doing that.

Rocky

rockylee · January 2007

Congressman seeks papers used to create Bush's proposed changes to CAFE standards for automakers.

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/POLITICS/70126037- 6/1148/AUTO01

Rocky

rorr · January 2007

Not a big surprise.

Congressman represents the Dearborn area.

Dearborn is home to Ford. Ford is suffering huge financial hits. Proposed changes to CAFE will likely further hurt those automakers whose bread'n'butter are large thirsty vehicles.

I'd think Dingell would have been run out of town if he WASN'T fighting the changes to the CAFE standards.

rockylee · March 2007

From left, Rick Wagoner, chairman and CEO of the General Motors Corp.; Jim Press, president and COO of Toyota Motor North America; Alan Mulally, president and CEO of the Ford Motor Co. and Thomas LaSorda, CEO and president of the Chrysler Group of DaimlerChrysler listen to testimony during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on Capitol Hill Wednesday.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070314/UPDATE/703140456

Rocky

rockylee · March 2007

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070314/UPDATE/703140462

Rocky

rockylee · March 2007

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070314/AUTO01/703140429&them- e=Autos-Green-tech-hybrids

My god we have to many Whack jobs in this country. :mad:

Rocky

nippononly · March 2007

That's an odd little remark you made there Rocky.

I saw something related to this today in our local paper, but with a very different perspective:
"Automakers have had 30 years to do something, protest now too little, too late".

Me, I don't think CAFE will work, the automakers will just find a new loophole, the concept is fundamentally flawed. But I am very much behind the sentiment at the heart of raising the CAFE standard to 40 mpg by 2017. Yes, I know it's not what everyone wants, they all want to go everywhere ever faster and with ever more luxury and creature comforts. But when something that many people like creates a societal nuisance, even a long-term hazard, we have to legislate away from peoples' preferences sometimes. The tobacco industry being a very good example of just that.

Footnote: it's funny that Honda, easily in the 1-million-plus club with GM, Ford, and Toyota here in the States, wasn't invited to the hearings. Oh, and they just happen to have far and away the most efficient fleet among the Big 6 automakers...

;-)

rockylee · March 2007

Well Honda, is in Barbara Boxer's well Boxers.

Honda, also has the slowest most boring FWD

fleet of cars out of the Big 6

So lets raise the CAFE standards but we government don't want to put money behind it. I'm sorry this will fail and could cost thousands of job losses. Let the progression happen naturally but my god don't mandate it in such a short period of time. I'd love to see the air cleaner and cars become more fuel efficient but it's going to take battery technology to come along to meet those demands so cars don't become cracker boxes and boring.

Rocky

nippononly · March 2007

"Honda, also has the slowest most boring FWD fleet of cars out of the Big 6"

Oh man, you must be thinking of Toyota, because I KNOW you're not thinking of the company selling 30K Civic SIs per year (for less than the price that Pontiac dealers are asking for a Solstice), not to mention the S2000.

Or the company selling the subcompact universally rated number one for handling and general "sportiness" in its class.

Nah, you couldn't be thinking of Honda. ;-)

And no, let's not raise CAFE standards, let's kill that stupid law that has NEVER worked, and start annual incremental gas tax increases until we reduce miles driven in the U.S. or affect drivers' car choices, one or the other.
And use every penny of the new tax revenues to fund alt-fuel research and provide tax breaks to the companies that would be hardest hit by an increased gas tax. Not to mention, build fuel delivery infrastructure for whatever we think it will be - biodiesel, hydrogen, whatever.

rockylee · March 2007

Nippon, I love your enthusiasm but taxing gas will only hurt the working poor and middle class. So it's okay for the Mercedes drivers to drive as much as they want because they are rich and will not notice the tax ? I'm not sure this is the right solution. You will only hurt the poor and middle class as they will be tied down at home because they can't take their family on a vacation as it will cost to much in gas.

Honda, has a few sporty cars like the TL, Civic, S2000, NSX, but the rest of the fleet might as well be numb appliances that while efficient, reliable, and offer good customer service if you believe that to be true :surprise: I experienced different results but oh well I'm not everybody else.

Then sure Barbara Boxer's Honda, might be your car. I do feel honda, is on their way down as they have lost some of their elite "energy" they once had but who knows the new accord does look promising.

Not to mention, build fuel delivery infrastructure for whatever we think it will be - biodiesel, hydrogen, whatever.

Well why don't we take that $100 billion we will spend in Iraq, and use it for alternative fuel R&D ????? :confuse:

We'd have battery's with more range than a NASA Shuttle

Rocky

xrunner2 · March 2007

And no, let's not raise CAFE standards, let's kill that stupid law that has NEVER worked, and start annual incremental gas tax increases until we reduce miles driven in the U.S. or affect drivers' car choices, one or the other.

Keep CAFE and do necessary changes to make it work. Eliminate loopholes. Believe that it did work OK in the first decade it was enacted.

More gas taxes might not be fair for the poor people.

Another idea would be to institute a progessive State vehicle tax based on some combo of vehicle weight, engine HP and vehicle pounds per HP. This would provide incentive for people to wisely choose their next vehicle. Some states in US do tax vehicls by HP already. It would be a yearly tax paid at one's State DOT or Secretary of State office. You would get a sticker to put on your license plate.

People would pay according to their size and HP. This is similar in a way to US income tax. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. The bigger the weight and/or HP of your vehicle, the more you pay. Very fair.

As example, an owner of a Chevy Aveo might pay $10/year, an owner of a Honda Accord 4 cyl might pay $100/year and an owner of a Suburban might pay $1000/year. The rate would be an exponential, not linear, function.

This plan still allows a free marketplace of all types of vehicles. But, you have to pay for the "priviledge" of driving a behemoth or a very high HP car.

This taxing would induce people to pick more fuel efficient vehicles. Tax money would be designated specifically for the State's road maintenance/building budgets.

nippononly · March 2007

I like your idea of a state vehicle tax a lot - I would take it one step further to mimic the European system, by taxing the displacement of the engine as well. Therefore, buying the base model might cost you $100 in tax, while buying the 5.7L "HEM-ay" (cough and spit in a manly way) might cost you $5000 (or more in future) in taxes at the time of purchase.

Rocky I hear you, but I have two responses: (1) no matter what we do to fix the problem of excess foreign oil consumption, it will hurt everyone more than it hurts the rich. That is the privilege the rich have in pretty nmuch every walk of life. (2) You will NEVER, NEVER get the war budget to pay for alt-fuel R&D and infrastructure development (but you may have been kidding or speaking light-heartedly about this one). If you can even get the troops out of the middle east, the money will be withdrawn from the DOD completely, it is needed too much in other areas.

xrunner2 · March 2007

Therefore, buying the base model might cost you $100 in tax, while buying the 5.7L "HEM-ay" (cough and spit in a manly way) might cost you $5000 (or more in future) in taxes at the time of purchase.

Guess we could have taxes paid only at time of purchase, but what about those who lease? Like the idea of yearly taxes to spread out the revenue year by year and to also require that buyers of used vehicles to also be prudent in choosing smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. Perhaps to help out poorer people, many who buy used, there could be formula so that as vehicle ages, the yearly tax diminishes somewhat. So, a new Suburban might be taxed at $1000 per year but would slide to $500 per year for 10-year old and older.

Not that anyone who bought a 2007 Bugatti would drive on the street, but if they did, what should they pay per year in "priviledge" taxes for all that HP, displacement and lbs per HP?

How does maker of Bugatti handle a CAFE?

gagrice · March 2007

CA already taxes you on the valuation of your car. It is basically the same as you are proposing. I think a weight to HP tax would be preferable. When a tuner adds 100 HP to his Civic he would get taxed at the higher rate. I think you would find that an Accord V6 has a lot more HP to weight than a Suburban. With a lot smaller capacity for hauling people and stuff.

Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles