Updated CAFE Standards

[Mr. Wyndham]

The automakers all seem to be in favor of this new rule...I assume because it's apparently a bit 'smarter' in the designation between trucks and cars...and even credits gas-saving technologies like EV or ethanol...

I think, though, they're mostly in favor of it because it's a clearly-defined "do this". Versus a dozen competing standards that need to be decoded.

I hate it. I think it's completely stupid, frankly...in every way. But if the automakers have a hand in writing it, maybe it won't be as awful as it could be. Wishful thinking, perhaps...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The automakers all seem to be in favor of this new rule...I assume because it's apparently a bit 'smarter' in the designation between trucks and cars...and even credits gas-saving technologies like EV or ethanol...

I think, though, they're mostly in favor of it because it's a clearly-defined "do this". Versus a dozen competing standards that need to be decoded.

I hate it. I think it's completely stupid, frankly...in every way. But if the automakers have a hand in writing it, maybe it won't be as awful as it could be. Wishful thinking, perhaps...

Its my understanding that this was reached as a compromise. Some groups were pushing for 62 mpg, so the automakers are 'happy' with 54.5 mpg, since it could have been worse. Sorta like going to court and being 'happy' you were sentenced to 'only' 5 years instead of 6 ...

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

That's a dangerous assumption: that companies invest in what people want now..

I guess Capitalism is screwed then.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

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.

What will happen is actually not that hard to figure out because it has happened before. Cars will get smaller, perform poorer, and cost more all at the same time.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The automakers all seem to be in favor of this new rule...I assume because it's apparently a bit 'smarter' in the designation between trucks and cars...and even credits gas-saving technologies like EV or ethanol...

I think, though, they're mostly in favor of it because it's a clearly-defined "do this". Versus a dozen competing standards that need to be decoded.

I hate it. I think it's completely stupid, frankly...in every way. But if the automakers have a hand in writing it, maybe it won't be as awful as it could be. Wishful thinking, perhaps...

In other words, they are accepting the standard under threat of having even worse mandates forced upon them. Just because the automakers have been extorted into accepting it without putting up a fight does not mean they are "in favor" of it.

On the other hand, why would the automakers ultimately care? They won't be paying for this, we will.

[TOMS1SS]

I showed my older brother the new CAFE standard last night. He isn't a car person by any measure but even he knew that 54.5 MPG isn't something realistic in roughly a decade time period.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

I guess Capitalism is screwed then.

Most manufacturing companies would probably fail if they only invested in what people want now. Afterall, it takes months to years to bring a product to market. Buyers in 2013 will probably want something different than what they wanted in 2011.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

What will happen is actually not that hard to figure out because it has happened before. Cars will get smaller, perform poorer, and cost more all at the same time.



In other words, they are accepting the standard under threat of having even worse mandates forced upon them. Just because the automakers have been extorted into accepting it without putting up a fight does not mean they are "in favor" of it.

On the other hand, why would the automakers ultimately care? They won't be paying for this, we will.

Oh they fought ... how do you think it went from 62 down to 54.5?

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

I showed my older brother the new CAFE standard last night. He isn't a car person by any measure but even he knew that 54.5 MPG isn't something realistic in roughly a decade time period.

Vehicles primarily burning gasoline (or diesel) will get a good deal less than 54.5 mpg. Due to the way its calculated, I bet they will end up with a real world average of 30 to 40 mpg. To start with, the archaic methodology gives everything roughly a car a 20% bonus vs its EPA window sticker. Then figure in that electric vehicles & plug in hybrids can easily achieve a 100 mpg rating, probably 200 by 2025. If sold in high volume, they'll skew the curve to read artificially high.

[AZCamaroFan]

That's true about only making things buyers want now. That's what gave us trucks and SUVS, with the cars going to heck a decade ago. (looking back now imagine if the 2010 Camaro came out in 2004)
By that way of thinking there never would have been a Corvette, or a mustang, or a GTO.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Most manufacturing companies would probably fail if they only invested in what people want now. Afterall, it takes months to years to bring a product to market. Buyers in 2013 will probably want something different than what they wanted in 2011.

You're right, when they develop a car, the automakers have to anticipate what buyers will want at the time the car actually goes on sale. They know this. I think the point people are trying to make is that the automakers probably have a better handle on this than regulators who may or may not know enough about cars to pump their own gas.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Vehicles primarily burning gasoline (or diesel) will get a good deal less than 54.5 mpg. Due to the way its calculated, I bet they will end up with a real world average of 30 to 40 mpg. To start with, the archaic methodology gives everything roughly a car a 20% bonus vs its EPA window sticker. Then figure in that electric vehicles & plug in hybrids can easily achieve a 100 mpg rating, probably 200 by 2025. If sold in high volume, they'll skew the curve to read artificially high.

We are actually getting a good idea of what plug-ins and pure electrics are being rated at. The Volt's total combined rating is only in the 60s. The Leaf pure EV manages about 100 eMPG, so each individual electric will probably not boost the CAFE average as much as you think, which means the massively expensive technology and under-performing cars are going to have to make up a much larger portion of their fleets than I think you have in mind.

Remember, with the way the fuel economy works mathematically (in units of miles PER GALLON not miles per car), selling one car at 30 mpg, and one at 100 mpg does not average out to 65 mpg, it averages out to about 46 (it works out to 42 using the Volt plug-in hybrid assuming 70 eMPG). For every 30 miles a 30 mpg car will drive, 100 mpg cars must drive 100 miles to average 65, so for basically every performance car and every pickup (assuming the pickups can get enough loophole credits to make 30 mpg), about 3 pure EV's will have to be sold. (The math works out to 16 plug-ins like the Volt for every pick-up to reach 65). Since GM and Ford each build well over half a million pickups a year, that means that pretty much the entirety of the rest of their fleets will have to be electrics under this regime, unless they stop building the Silverado and F-150.

PS: I know the actual number is 54.5. I just used 65 as an example number, and perhaps simply anticipated what the requirement is likely to be by 2030. The math also assumes each vehicle type will average the same number of miles driven.

Originally Posted by AZCamaroFan

That's true about only making things buyers want now. That's what gave us trucks and SUVS, with the cars going to heck a decade ago. (looking back now imagine if the 2010 Camaro came out in 2004)
By that way of thinking there never would have been a Corvette, or a mustang, or a GTO.

I know of no EPA regulation that required the production of the Corvette, Mustang, or GTO. GM and Ford repectively chose to produce those vehicles on their own.

And by the way, the original CAFE requirement is what brought us the SUV craze. That happened because it was a loophole around CAFE.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Most manufacturing companies would probably fail if they only invested in what people want now. Afterall, it takes months to years to bring a product to market. Buyers in 2013 will probably want something different than what they wanted in 2011.

It seems we read that statement in two completely different ways. It's obvious that entrepreneurs are always trying to accurately guess the future demand (and future prices) of their product, as you alluded to above, but I read it in a way that said, generally, companies do not invest in products that consumers will want regardless of the time period you are specifying. This is simply because past, present, and future are all terms that are relative to which time period you are analyzing it from. I.e., GM saw in the past that SUVs and Trucks would still be in demand now (everything else remaining constant.)

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The automakers all seem to be in favor of this new rule...I assume because it's apparently a bit 'smarter' in the designation between trucks and cars...and even credits gas-saving technologies like EV or ethanol...

I think, though, they're mostly in favor of it because it's a clearly-defined "do this". Versus a dozen competing standards that need to be decoded.

I hate it. I think it's completely stupid, frankly...in every way. But if the automakers have a hand in writing it, maybe it won't be as awful as it could be. Wishful thinking, perhaps...

Did you miss my (above) post? This has nothing to do with the 'wisdom' of the regulation, absolutely nothing! (... and I guarantee it has nothing to do with simplicity)

(Current) automakers are in favor of it because it limits their competition. More regulations equal more & higher hurdles for any new guy to get over... while the current companies already have their foot in the door (high paid lobbiest to pull our politicians strings).

Go ask any entrepreneur if he/she is willing to fund a U.S. start-up Automobile company from the ground up? The response... "It's not worth the trouble!" ...and his/her money will go else where (& probably not into any U.S. company).

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

Did you miss my (above) post?

I'm sorry, no I didn't. To be honest, I breezed right to the end of the thread because I'd been following this since before the thread was started...

I don't personally believe the biggest concern of the current automakers are new startups when something like a 56mpg mandate is looming. Especially the big guys like GM or Ford, who (of all the automakers) probably have the biggest influence on how the rules get written. But I suppose that could just be me.

The sad truth is that people at-large believe this regulation to be a good thing (because it's real easy to make that case at face-value). And so it gets done out of ignorance. :(

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The sad truth is that people at-large believe this regulation to be a good thing (because it's real easy to make that case at face-value). And so it gets done out of ignorance. :(

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to this. At the time the standard was raised to 35.5, there was a rumor that one of the swing votes that ended up pushing the legislation past the finish line was a congresswoman who saw 32 mpg on the instant economy meter on her Buick one day, and figured 35.5 would be easy since they were so close already.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to this. At the time the standard was raised to 35.5, there was a rumor that one of the swing votes that ended up pushing the legislation past the finish line was a congresswoman who saw 32 mpg on the instant economy meter on her Buick one day, and figured 35.5 would be easy since they were so close already.

They're policy-makers, not engineers. I don't expect much out of them...but is a little common sense that hard to muster?

[DGthe3]

One interesting thing to note: most of the opposition (from automakers) seems to be coming from foreign manufacturers.