New CAFE rule will change the way industry operates

[MrMopar]

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news...le-will-change-the-way-industry-operates?lite

 

[thebigarniedog]

I can only say this: it is needed. If nothing else, it will end the 2.0 and 2.5 engines.

 

[supton]

Is it 54.5mpg combined, or 54.5mpg under some convoluted rule in which an E85 fueled vehicle gets rated at nearly 7 times the actual mpg?

I'm a bit undecided. Everytime we've been told that the sky is falling we find a way around it. Today's muscle cars put yesterday's muscle cars to shame.

I'm all for saving fuel on my daily commuter. Thankfully I don't have four kids, as I don't think there are many 6 passenger vehicles that could get that kind of mpg. Six passenger is three rows, since it's pretty much verboten for anyone under the age of 16 or whatever to ride up front. [Yes, I'm exaggerating. I think it's actually age 12.] I wonder how well a 55mpg vehicle is going to do trying to move a kayak, let alone two.

 

[dieselpony]

The new rule is still based on a convoluted rule (not real world MPG), so really, the with the new rule cars should average around 45 MPG and light trucks 32 MPG. Not really earth shattering. Automakers seem to need these standards in order to improve MPGs.

I'm excited -- should mean more and better diesels!

 

[MCathcart]

Hey I have an Idea, Cheby can build an Electric Car!

 

[kjclow]

Based on a co-workers comments, we should be seeing other diesel offerings out of the big three to compete with the yet unseen Cruze. If any of them make and sell a diesel in decent quantities, that should be a signal to all the other car makers that the North American market has finally decided that diesels are an acceptable alternative. Really makes much more sense than all electric.

 

[pruzink]

I wonder now that hybrid cars have been out for quite a few years what owners are experiencing for actual battery life. I know that with any laptop computer that I have ever owned that I was always very dissapointed with battery performance and life (they work great when new, by 3 years they have very limited performance). I was at a Nissan dealer recently looking at the 2013 Altimas & they had an Altima Hybrid on the floor that was a couple of years old that they were offering some significant incentives on that they were not offering on the other cars. I was curious if the hybrids were starting to loose popularity. I know that some manufacturers were offering long warranties on the batteries; but sometimes when you get into the fine print of a warranty you still end up having to pay much more than you anticipated when that battery needs to be replaced.

 

[kjclow]

From other posts on here, I've heard that Toyota batteries are holding up fairly well but Honda has some issues.

 

[oilhammer]

Toyota has replaceable cells on some vehicles, but on the older ones you have to upgrade to the newer style cell "stack" in order to have a piecemeal replaceable solution.

Good news is, in case anyone hasn't noticed, Prius drivers are not the sharpest... so there are not only a seemingly endless supply of wrecked ones out there to pilfer parts like battery stacks from, there are even companies set up that do nothing but recycle, clean, test, and resell used hybrid battery stacks for the Prius. So really, this is of no real concern.

We have one such company right here outside STL that recycles Prius bits.

 

[Got Bearings?]

What BS! Let the automakers build what the public wants & buys...not what the gov't tells you. Competition will create innovation not gov't.

 

[kjclow]

Although the government always has the ability to force change.

 

[MrMopar]

I know that some manufacturers were offering long warranties on the batteries

FWIW: Hyundai is offering lifetime warranties on their hybrid batteries. That's for the first owner only, and is probably for the "lifetime" of the car if you read the fine print.

 

[MrMopar]

I am just convinced that the penalties for non-compliance are so low as to invite auto manufacturers making some gains in fuel economy but just paying the fines instead of fully meeting goals.

And then probably taking a tax deduction on those fines as a "cost of doing business".

 

[tditom]

What BS! Let the automakers build what the public wants & buys...not what the gov't tells you. Competition will create innovation not gov't.

Problem is that not enough of the public gives a damn for anyone that comes after them.

There is a finite amount of oil. You can't wait til you are almost out to switch over to new technologies. Forcing conservation is an effective way of stretching the supplies we have left while we are converting to other means of transportation.

 

[No More Buffalo]

FWIW: Hyundai is offering lifetime warranties on their hybrid batteries. That's for the first owner only, and is probably for the "lifetime" of the car if you read the fine print.

Doesn't the Hyundai warranty also cover any single component *once*?

 

[Got Bearings?]

I am just convinced that the penalties for non-compliance are so low as to invite auto manufacturers making some gains in fuel economy but just paying the fines instead of fully meeting goals.

And then probably taking a tax deduction on those fines as a "cost of doing business".

FYI.. Penalties and fines are not tax deductible.

Problem is that not enough of the public gives a damn for anyone that comes after them.

There is a finite amount of oil. You can't wait til you are almost out to switch over to new technologies. Forcing conservation is an effective way of stretching the supplies we have left while we are converting to other means of transportation.

Oh but they do when it hits their pocket books. As oil gets more expensive, people start buying more fuel efficient cars. I'm not advocating gov't taxing oil either. But oil is finite whether we conserve or not and the price will be adjusted accordingly in a free market system. Oil will not drop in price unless there's a viable and sustainable substitute.

 

[tditom]

...Oh but they do when it hits their pocket books. As oil gets more expensive, people start buying more fuel efficient cars. I'm not advocating gov't taxing oil either. But oil is finite whether we conserve or not and the price will be adjusted accordingly in a free market system. Oil will not drop in price unless there's a viable and sustainable substitute.

You are describing a reactive approach, the higher CAFE rating is an example of a proactive approach that will more quickly reduce consumption and will stretch the remaining supply longer. Then perhaps the pricing won't spike as badly when we are really running out. I'd rather have a more controlled approach than another economic emergency.

IMO this is an example of leadership and in the best interest of the country long term.

 

[No More Buffalo]

he higher CAFE rating is an example of a proactive approach that will more quickly reduce consumption and will stretch the remaining supply longer.

This is I very much disagree with. This is a very LONG term approach.

A real proactive approach would be a "Cash for Clunkers" type program that actively rewarded (e.g. through major tax breaks) the owners of the least fuel efficient vehicles to replace them. Like, if moving to a vehicle with at least double the MPG, that was worth a $5k tax credit or something.

Much better to replace a Suburban or Escalade with something more efficient - not even a Hybrid/TDI, but just a "normal" 30mpg+ sedan/wagon, than it is to push for slightly more efficient vehicles for the people ALREADY buying efficient vehicles.

 

[tditom]

...Much better to replace a Suburban or Escalade with something more efficient - not even a Hybrid/TDI, but just a "normal" 30mpg+ sedan/wagon, than it is to push for slightly more efficient vehicles for the people ALREADY buying efficient vehicles.

I'm not sure I understand your point. The CAFE standard would impact almost all car buyers, but certainly the most impacted would be the consumers who now have the option to buy a wasteful vehicle. Replacing the wasteful vehicle option with a more fuel efficient option would be the beginning of the extinction of the fuel hogs currently on the road. I don't see how people who are already buying efficient vehicles are being put upon.

While I think that the cash-4-clunkerz program was a novel approach, it does impact tax revenue & with the deficit being so bad I'm not sure its the right time for that.

 

[No More Buffalo]

Under CAFE, there is nothing to keep them from making 15mpg SUVs to people willing to pay $60k for them. They just stamp out a lot of cheap 70mpg Smartcar clones to offset it. It does nothing to really target the worst offenders.

 

[Got Bearings?]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The CAFE standard would impact almost all car buyers, but certainly the most impacted would be the consumers who now have the option to buy a wasteful vehicle. Replacing the wasteful vehicle option with a more fuel efficient option would be the beginning of the extinction of the fuel hogs currently on the road. I don't see how people who are already buying efficient vehicles are being put upon.

His point is that there are already tens of thousands of Suburabans, Escalades, Hummers, etc... and nothing is being done to retire them now. It's "sit and wait until they can't be driven any longer"... which can be 20-30-40 years. Not exactly a "proactive approach that will more quickly reduce consumption and will stretch the remaining supply longer."

 

[tditom]

His point is that there are already tens of thousands of Suburabans, Escalades, Hummers, etc... and nothing is being done to retire them now. It's "sit and wait until they can't be driven any longer"... which can be 20-30-40 years. Not exactly a "proactive approach that will more quickly reduce consumption and will stretch the remaining supply longer."

Wait- are you against the government setting standards for lower fuel consumption because you support a free market economy but you expect them to do something about retiring gas guzzlers in spite of current owners rights to own them? How would you propose eliminating the gas guzzlers from our roads without taking extreme measures such as forcing the owners to give up those vehicles? That sounds much more intrusive than a federal mandate on automaker corporate fuel economy average.

My only thought is to let them die off as fuel prices continue to increase. Those people will have the freedom to drive a 12mpg SUV while they're faced with the reality of gas at $7/gal.

 

[No More Buffalo]

No one (or at least I'm not) is suggesting the government force anyone to do anything. Merely to augment market forces to make the desired behavior financially favorable to those we are trying to change.

 

[Got Bearings?]

No one (or at least I'm not) is suggesting the government force anyone to do anything. Merely to augment market forces to make the desired behavior financially favorable to those we are trying to change.

This!

I own a couple gas guzzlers. But it makes more sense for me to commute in the VW at $65 every 3-4 weeks than $80 a week to fill up the Impala. If gas was $2/gallon, I'd sell the VW and drive the Impala everyday.

 

[tditom]

No one (or at least I'm not) is suggesting the government force anyone to do anything. Merely to augment market forces to make the desired behavior financially favorable to those we are trying to change.

That's how I read the following

...there are already tens of thousands of Suburabans, Escalades, Hummers, etc... and nothing is being done to retire them now. It's "sit and wait until they can't be driven any longer"... which can be 20-30-40 years. Not exactly a "proactive approach that will more quickly reduce consumption and will stretch the remaining supply longer."

What proactive approach would you employ, Got Bearings?

 

[Got Bearings?]

What proactive approach would you employ, Got Bearings?

Let the market decide...

 

[MrMopar]

Let the market decide...

Exactly. The Invisible Hand makes swift decisions far faster and better than anything a Government can decide to do.

 

[MrMopar]

A real proactive approach would be a "Cash for Clunkers" type program that actively rewarded (e.g. through major tax breaks) the owners of the least fuel efficient vehicles to replace them. Like, if moving to a vehicle with at least double the MPG, that was worth a $5k tax credit or something.

Like the $7,500 Volt tax credits, I think this would end up being more "Trickle Up" economic that benefit the rich. It isn't poor people who would be buying new fuel efficient cars.

 

[kjclow]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The CAFE standard would impact almost all car buyers, but certainly the most impacted would be the consumers who now have the option to buy a wasteful vehicle. Replacing the wasteful vehicle option with a more fuel efficient option would be the beginning of the extinction of the fuel hogs currently on the road. I don't see how people who are already buying efficient vehicles are being put upon.

While I think that the cash-4-clunkerz program was a novel approach, it does impact tax revenue & with the deficit being so bad I'm not sure its the right time for that.

I think that the cash for clunkers hurt both the tax coffers and the auto industry without really helping the overall market efficiency. Lots of quick sales that then stagnated future sales. Some dealerships were overrun with used models they couldn't resell. One by me had cars sitting there for almost a year. My daughter's boyfriend got rid of his jeep for a Mazda 3. Jeep wasn't paid off and I don't think the $4000 covered the loan amount.

The tax incentive for high efficiency vehicles worked better. At least until Obama care screwed up the line items on the tax return. You had to claim tuition credit on the same line, which was income limited. The $1300 credit I should have been able to claim was reduced to about $150, since your credit can only be used against what you owe.

 

[MrMopar]

I think that the cash for clunkers hurt both the tax coffers and the auto industry without really helping the overall market efficiency.

C4C was more deficit spending.
It simply moved existing car sales forward in the calendar.
It ended up promoting market gains in "foreign" manufacturers, losses in domestic.
And it hurt poor people who are the primary buyers of $1,000 cars.