Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?
507 messages, Last post on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:49 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 22, 2009 5:09 am) Finally the new 'Good GM' will not have to factor in legacy costs, Jobs Bank, an overbearing debt burden into its pricing structure. These latter three items alone could take $5000-$8000 out of the cost of every vehicle. After it reaches breakeven on the 2-Mode R&D amortization this 'extra cost' of $3000-$5000 disappears or flows directly to the bottom line as profit. GM could after BK end up selling $30000 non-hybrid trucks for $23-$25000 and making a profit. It could sell $34000 2-Mode trucks for as little $27000 and make a profit. It's all in the accounting.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (May 27, 2009 1:04 pm) They are still neutered. Unable to tow enough to be a real truck. The Sierra hybrid gets ONE mpg better on the highway than the 6.2L engine in the non hybrid. And has a towing capacity of 3400 lbs less. The Sierra with the 5.3L V8 gets BETTER highway mileage than the hybrid and still tows more. GM is toast. Their hybrids are a joke. Even worse than the GMC hybrid I owned in 2005. Some people seem to think if you tack the word hybrid on a vehicle it is better. A Toyota man ought to know better after the LS600h debacle and the new HS 250h that is getting trashed in the press. Maybe what we really were expecting was Lexus IS performance. Despite its occasional faults, we really like driving the Lexus IS, every one of them yet made, in fact. The HS 250h does bear a resemblance, proportionally, to the IS 250. But that's where the resemblance stops. So why is it that during our first drive of the new car, all we could think of was Prius? Maybe it was the continuously variable transmission, a choice that is never fun and just screams, "We love you, EPA!" CAFE needs to be put in the museum with the dinosaurs. A totally failed idea.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 27, 2009 1:51 pm) Regarding CAFE I've explained the numbers to you at least 3 times and you still don't understand the concept. No hope here. We move on. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (May 20, 2009 7:16 am) I can't resist. News articles say that this year's arctic ice was the 3rd lowest ever - not mentioning that it has been increasing since 2007 (that "lowest ever"). Antarctic ice is also increasing. So no, "that polar ice ain't meltin' its own self". But I don't think CAFE was ever designed to counter climate change, only to encourage fuel economy - it was instituted after the oil crisis of '73, IIRC, to encourage conservation as much as anything else, always a good thing in my opinion. I do not think it has outlived it's usefulness as a general indicator on the sticker of the car. If you see a low number on a huge SUV, it can be compared to a high number for a compact car. Yes, YMMV, but that is to be expected. |
|
|
"For years - and years, and years -automakers in the U.S. insisted that their studies showed that Americans didn't value fuel economy and preferred those fuel-swilling (and profitable) SUVs and pickups over gas-sipping compacts. But that's not so, says former General Motors economist Walter McManus" Say it Ain't So! Detroit Ignored Fuel Efficiency Demands, Says Ex-GM Economist (Green Car Advisor)
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Oct 22, 2009 7:56 am) For example, station wagons aren't profitable, but anything based on the existing truck frame is. So in the 90s, the automakers slowly discontinued wagons, marketing the truck-based SUVs as "this is so much BETTER than a wagon!" Then when fuel prices increased, the move was to car-based SUVs... "this crossover is so much BETTER than your big guzzling SUV!" And with the new CAFE rules, we'll see/hear in a few years "this sleek wagon is so much BETTER than that oversized crossover!" Then somebody (like me) will point out that the 1979 Ford Fairmont wagon my grandfather owned had more cargo room, far better visibility, and exceeded 30 mpg highway with both the 2.3L I-4 and 3.3L I-6 engines (Grandpa had the I-6). Back To The Future, anyone? kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host |
|
|
Replying to: kcram (Oct 23, 2009 7:59 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Oct 23, 2009 12:18 pm) kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
|
|
|
Replying to: kcram (Oct 23, 2009 1:41 pm)   See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com |
|
|
Replying to: kcram (Oct 23, 2009 7:59 am) Yeah, but a lot of them came like my '78; with the 302 (5L) V8 engine. Actually, I got around 23 MPG on the road with that car, a sedan rather than the wagon. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
