Updated CAFE Standards

[DGthe3]

by the way, I need to remind everyone of the rules. Specifically, the No Politics rule. Keep comments related to your opinion of the government to yourself. Discuss the facts & leave partisanship at the door. If you can't seperate the two, then just avoid discussing the topic on Camaro5. We've closed at least one thread about the new CAFE standard because of political comments already, lets try and keep this one going shall we?

[TOMS1SS]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

A number of cars exceed it right now actually. CAFE is not the same as the fuel economy numbers you see on the window sticker from the EPA. Its actually similar to, if not the same procedure, as whats used to calculate the gas guzzler tax. Generally speaking, its about 20% higher than what we normally think of. So a car listed as getting 23 city/32 highway for example would probably have a CAFE score of about 32 mpg. If its a large sedan that can run on E85, it could easily be rated at 54 mpg, unless they've closed those loopholes (which I doubt)

That said, the real problem with this new standard isn't performance cars, they'll account for something like 5% of GMs sales. Their overall impact will be fairly small. A lot of performance cars aren't that much less efficient than V6 sedans, except for the big dogs like the CTS-V or ZR1 whose numbers barely register. The problem is trucks. Pickups account for something like 25% of GM sales volume, they're not going to be able to afford to have them too far below their CAFE target. Similar story at Ford & Chrysler.

It will be interesting regardless of what loopholes may or may not exist for fuel economy scores. There are currently NO conventional power train vehicles that would sniff a REAL 54 MPG average, hell my Fiesta is only at 41.9 MPG through its first 25,000 miles. Either one of three things is going to happen:

1. The loopholes will close and the 54 MPG will be reduced significantly because simply it isn't something that is realistic straight up without HEAVY, HEAVY use of hybrid and alternate powertrains.
2. The loopholes will remain open and automakers will take advantage. Truck sales will suffer heavily and probably performance cars.
3. The automotive apocalypse and repeat of what happened in the 70s. Can we say Neo-Mustang II and Iron Duke Camaro redux?

Personally I'm betting on 3, its seems most of are hoping against hope that what happened in the 70s. I hear things all the time like reduced curb weight (where is it going to come from?), power train gimmicks (there is only so much direct injection, turbo charging, hybrids and electrical powertrains can do before the average joe gets priced out) but I haven't seen a concrete solution to how the performance car as we know it will be saved....excluding uber expensive cars of course. Its okay, at one point a lot of us thought TPI Camaros, turbo 4 Mustangs and Shelby K cars were the hottest thing out there.... Maybe it won't be as bad and it will be the days of 300hp being the hot thing like 200hp was in the late 70s and 80s.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Reason 2—it forces American companies to invest in research and development that otherwise would not have happened without the original CAFE legislation. This is the reason that counts because it allows Detroit to keep making cars.

I disagree. If that R&D would not have happened without mandate, then clearly the money would have been spent on better investments. If mandated technology was the most lucrative investment, it would not have to be mandated.

Let's not forget that it was under the 1970s emissions and CAFE requirements that American car companies produced about the worst crap to ever roll off any western assembly line in history.

I also do not buy the argument that cars would still be using 1960s technology and getting 10 mpg or less without the mandates. If anything, cars would be better today, because more resources would have been available to develop technologies people wanted instead of being diverted to meet artificial mandates. With fuel no longer 19 cents a gallon, the public was demanding better efficiency in the 70s anyway. Fuel economy would have gone up anyway once prices created a market for more efficient cars. Difference is, automakers would have been designing them to the specifications they thought best met what their customers wanted, not to arbitrary mandated specifications that often did not represent what every car buyer wanted. Car buyers ultimately would have gotten the type of vehicles and technology they wanted without having to pay extra for "innovations" they did not want and would not have been willing to pay for without being forced.

In short, without the first round of CAFE, we probably would have gotten something closer to 20-25 mpg and cars that performed and ran better, as opposed to 27.5 mpg, and cars that were terrible and unreliable. I'd also argue that without it, we would never have had the SUV craze either, and consequently, we may have ended up with a fleet that got better overall mileage without CAFE as a result.

Same thing is happening today. People are demanding efficient vehicles on their own, and several are beginning to reach 40+ mpg. However, 54 mpg CAFE will likely push the envelope far beyond what people want, which will once again result in automakers producing cars that are far smaller and perform far weaker for much more money than what most drivers will find acceptable.

[derklug]

CAFE is a poor solution to what the government wants. If you want energy independance, produce more energy domestically. If you want reduced CO2 emmisions, encourage DI diesels in more vehicles. If you want to run the big 3 out of buisness, set 54.5 mpg standards. Electric cars are a good alternative for city dwellers, but they don't fare well in the vast mid-west. The Volt fills the gap between the electric and the gas car, but at a price point that is impractical for a middle class family. Raise fuel taxes to make gas $6 a gallon, and drop all of the other standards. People will drive less and buy more efficient cars. Enthusiasts will still be able to buy their sports-cars, and won't have to pay a CAFE fine.

[TOMS1SS]

Originally Posted by derklug

CAFE is a poor solution to what the government wants. If you want energy independance, produce more energy domestically. If you want reduced CO2 emmisions, encourage DI diesels in more vehicles. If you want to run the big 3 out of buisness, set 54.5 mpg standards. Electric cars are a good alternative for city dwellers, but they don't fare well in the vast mid-west. The Volt fills the gap between the electric and the gas car, but at a price point that is impractical for a middle class family. Raise fuel taxes to make gas $6 a gallon, and drop all of the other standards. People will drive less and buy more efficient cars. Enthusiasts will still be able to buy their sports-cars, and won't have to pay a CAFE fine.

At $6 a gallon I'd be making probably a $1.25 a mile for my work trips. This might not be such a bad idea after all.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by derklug

CAFE is a poor solution to what the government wants. If you want energy independance, produce more energy domestically. If you want reduced CO2 emmisions, encourage DI diesels in more vehicles. If you want to run the big 3 out of buisness, set 54.5 mpg standards. Electric cars are a good alternative for city dwellers, but they don't fare well in the vast mid-west. The Volt fills the gap between the electric and the gas car, but at a price point that is impractical for a middle class family. Raise fuel taxes to make gas $6 a gallon, and drop all of the other standards. People will drive less and buy more efficient cars. Enthusiasts will still be able to buy their sports-cars, and won't have to pay a CAFE fine.

Agreed.

As much as people hate gas taxes, they are a better solution to importing less oil than imposing some arbitrary fuel economy standard. Either way, people will generally buy more efficient cars, but higher gasoline prices cause other things to happen as well. Alternative bio-fuels, a shift in driving habits, increased usage of mass transit, among other things.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I disagree. If that R&D would not have happened without mandate, then clearly the money would have been spent on better investments. If mandated technology was the most lucrative investment, it would not have to be mandated.

Let's not forget that it was under the 1970s emissions and CAFE requirements that American car companies produced about the worst crap to ever roll off any western assembly line in history.

I also do not buy the argument that cars would still be using 1960s technology and getting 10 mpg or less without the mandates. If anything, cars would be better today, because more resources would have been available to develop technologies people wanted instead of being diverted to meet artificial mandates. With fuel no longer 19 cents a gallon, the public was demanding better efficiency in the 70s anyway. Fuel economy would have gone up anyway once prices created a market for more efficient cars. Difference is, automakers would have been designing them to the specifications they thought best met what their customers wanted, not to arbitrary mandated specifications that often did not represent what every car buyer wanted. Car buyers ultimately would have gotten the type of vehicles and technology they wanted without having to pay extra for "innovations" they did not want and would not have been willing to pay for without being forced.

In short, without the first round of CAFE, we probably would have gotten something closer to 20-25 mpg and cars that performed and ran better, as opposed to 27.5 mpg, and cars that were terrible and unreliable. I'd also argue that without it, we would never have had the SUV craze either, and consequently, we may have ended up with a fleet that got better overall mileage without CAFE as a result.

Same thing is happening today. People are demanding efficient vehicles on their own, and several are beginning to reach 40+ mpg. However, 54 mpg CAFE will likely push the envelope far beyond what people want, which will once again result in automakers producing cars that are far smaller and perform far weaker for much more money than what most drivers will find acceptable.

I was going to answer the Blur's point, but you did a good job there.

Your argument here is perfect.

"If mandated technology was the most lucrative investment, it would not have to be mandated."

Exactly. Companies will invest in what people want to buy. The problem is that people in government think they know what's best for you instead, so they interfere in the market and force companies to sell products that you may not really want, all in the name of "protecting the public".

I think I know whether or not I want a fuel efficient car, or a car with air bags, or back up camera, or whatever. I don't need someone else telling me It's for my own good.

[AZCamaroFan]

less gas being sold, Oil Companies and traders double the price.


"this won't affect the Camaro"

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by Cam#7

Here's a link on new CAFE Standards announced today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43936296/ns/business-autos/

Brilliant timing (you can't make this crap up.)

The arguments... no, attempts at rationalizing the government intervention into the 'mpg game' are just that.

The cost of making vehicles these days... ones that meet government standards, is beyond expensive! Are you not all seeing what I'm seeing? Big companies merging with other big companies (or completely taking them over in some cases). How does a small company have any chance of emerging in a market where you either get bought out or just shut down completely. One day, we'll have 50 different 'brands' but the actual maker will be 1 huge company that is in bed with the government and eats any competition in its way. (hmm.... GE?)

Why are we talking about 2025 anyway? Not a single car manufacturer has a clue what their 2025 model is going to be... or if they will still be around.

/endrant

[TheReaper]

We are all doomed to driving 4 bangers in the future. With a turbo if we're lucky.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Berean

I was going to answer the Blur's point, but you did a good job there.

Your argument here is perfect.

"If mandated technology was the most lucrative investment, it would not have to be mandated."

Exactly. Companies will invest in what people want to buy. The problem is that people in government think they know what's best for you instead, so they interfere in the market and force companies to sell products that you may not really want, all in the name of "protecting the public".

I think I know whether or not I want a fuel efficient car, or a car with air bags, or back up camera, or whatever. I don't need someone else telling me It's for my own good.

That's a dangerous assumption: that companies invest in what people want now. What happened in the auto industry is that imports took over by investing in what people would eventually want. Now, fuel economy is an important concern for many buyers. Just ask our resident dealers what their customers' hot buttons are when it comes to Malibus, Equinoxes, and other 4-cylinder platforms. If these platforms did not exist, and they might not without the original CAFE legislation, the customers wouldn't even visit the local Chevy dealer.

Of course, the new CAFE laws are just stupid. The companies are already trying to compete in a lot of different areas. This just puts stress on the market and forces prices to go up to pay for the research and development necessary for new technology.

Let me make this point very clear. I do not think the new CAFE legislation is good for the auto industry, customers, or even for the environment.

I agree that we don't need someone to tell us how efficient our cars should be. I just wonder if we would be where we are today—with direct injection or such an advanced understanding of forced induction—without the original legislation.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

by the way, I need to remind everyone of the rules. Specifically, the No Politics rule. Keep comments related to your opinion of the government to yourself. Discuss the facts & leave partisanship at the door. If you can't seperate the two, then just avoid discussing the topic on Camaro5. We've closed at least one thread about the new CAFE standard because of political comments already, lets try and keep this one going shall we?

The flaw in this policy is that people who have a legitimate point that is against the government in general that is completely unrelated to party affiliation cannot make their point because it is branded "political".

There's really no point in censoring topics as long as people discuss them in a rational manner and follow a more general set of forum rules that forbit ad hominem attacks and profanity.

Government is completely entangled in the auto industry and a forum about cars that blocks out political topics completely is like a film review forum that forbids discussion related to actors.

I completely disagree with what the EPA is doing to our auto industry. You have to face the reality that only a high volume of really small and low cost cars produced will offset a car like the SS or ZL1. We know from experience that [forbidden discussion here] makes it impossible for domestic automakers to produce these types of vehicles and make a profit. They therefore will eventually have to ship those jobs to places that can produce them at a lower cost.

They still may be able to produce profitable trucks and luxury cars and such here, but the price we pay for the EPAs meddling is a loss in jobs right here.

I don't think this is right, and they are really not thinking this through. Very little of what goes on seems to make any sense.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I agree that we don't need someone to tell us how efficient our cars should be. I just wonder if we would be where we are today—with direct injection or such an advanced understanding of forced induction—without the original legislation.

The original legislation may have actually HURT the desired goals because of the "Law of unintended consequences".

What happened?

In the 70's they added literally hundreds of dollars in rube-goldberg contraptions (vacuum actuators, valves, hoses, etc.) to cars to meet the standards. All cars shrank in size and had anemic performance. Tiny cars felt "unsafe" to many people, coupled with higher prices and reliability issues caused by the maze of crap they had to tack on to meet the original standards and people figured out that they could buy a nice big powerful and safe feeling SUV or Truck instead of a roller skate.

Everybody bought vehicles that were likely WORSE mileage and polluters than they would have otherwise. Because some egghead mandated a certain mileage for cars.

Over a much longer period of time, microprocessor technology matured and allowed the manufacturers to reliably get the economy that was dreamed of in the 70's (through computer controls and also computer aided design) and now that technology is getting perfected along comes a new set of mandates that will cause the companies to throw a bunch of crap onto every car and increase the price and make them smaller and more unreliable to meet the new goal.

What will happen as a result is anyone's guess, but you can bet it will not be what they had in mind when they started this new push.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

The original legislation may have actually HURT the desired goals because of the "Law of unintended consequences".

What happened?

In the 70's they added literally hundreds of dollars in rube-goldberg contraptions (vacuum actuators, valves, hoses, etc.) to cars to meet the standards. All cars shrank in size and had anemic performance. Tiny cars felt "unsafe" to many people, coupled with higher prices and reliability issues caused by the maze of crap they had to tack on to meet the original standards and people figured out that they could buy a nice big powerful and safe feeling SUV or Truck instead of a roller skate.

Everybody bought vehicles that were likely WORSE mileage and polluters than they would have otherwise. Because some egghead mandated a certain mileage for cars.

Over a much longer period of time, microprocessor technology matured and allowed the manufacturers to reliably get the economy that was dreamed of in the 70's (through computer controls and also computer aided design) and now that technology is getting perfected along comes a new set of mandates that will cause the companies to throw a bunch of crap onto every car and increase the price and make them smaller and more unreliable to meet the new goal.

What will happen as a result is anyone's guess, but you can bet it will not be what they had in mind when they started this new push.

Good analysis there.