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
|
|
|---|---|
|
with the latest round of "CAFE reforms", automakers will simply expand the use of crew cab family haulers with an open bed, a la Avalanche and SportTrac, in order to get around the latest regs that will now force them to improve the fuel economy of their precious SUVs, or be fined for failing to do so. And automakers will once again side-step CAFE regulations, and a new "crew cab" boom will replace the "SUV boom" of the 90s. And who knows what new variations this will spawn: automakers have MUCH more imagination when they are trying to create vehicles that sidestep CAFE regs, than they apply to trying to improve the fuel economy of their fleets. |
|
|
Replying to: turboshadow (Mar 29, 2006 5:00 am) The large station wagons were really not bigger or better than minivans for space. In the 60's, the VW bus was the only minivan. Big vans were/became available, but were more trucklike and burned a lot of fuel. The minivan had decent fuel economy and reasonable space. |
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Mar 27, 2006 9:14 am) Last time I checked, there's no railroad line running to my back door, so don't write off the big rigs just yet.  Basically, the railroads and the trucking industry need each other. As for taxing vehicles by weight, I don't think that's very fair, because some larger vehicles might get better fuel economy than some smaller ones. And when you consider that roads are generally designed to support at least the weight of a school bus, garbage truck, etc, the difference between a 2000 pound Metro and a 5000 lb SUV, which is also going to have larger tires, a longer wheelbase, and wider track to spread the weight out, is practically nil. Definitely close that 8500 lb GVWR loophole, though. And even though it would cause me to pay more, close the loopholes for trucks in general. There's no reason that my 1985 Silverado should cost LESS to register every two years than my 2000 Intrepid! Also, maybe a distinction could be made between commercial vehicles and privately-owned vehicles, to help close the truck fuel economy loophole. And definitely change it so that things like the PT Cruiser, Magnum, Legacy, etc, don't get classified as trucks!
|
|
|
|
that's part of their proposal - only pick-ups with an open bed at the rear will be exempted from the "new" CAFE regulations, as long as they meet some minimum outside dimensions (size, not weight). Which is why I say that of course, all this means is that carmakers will find new and innovative ways to build large vehicles consumers want, that happen to have some type of small open bed at the rear. And voila! Another loophole will have been created. 
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Mar 29, 2006 10:15 am) Hmmm, maybe Subaru jumped the gun in canning the Baja? Naaaah!  I wonder if this loophole might make vehicles with a convertible-type rear popular? I'm thinking along the lines of those old Studebaker wagons (Wagonaire?) with the retractable roof, or the more recent GMC Envoy that could do it. Or even something like those old Broncos, Blazers, and Ramchargers that had the removeable rear part of the roof.
|
|
|
If people want small cars they will buy them if not why is the solution always to tax people more? And just what does cutting our income do for our lifestyle? This might not be 1995 and people might be fearful of the future but doesn't higher gas prices do the very same thing a suggested tax would? So if the gas prices are already higher and you add a tax does it hurt the average person more than the upper middle class? No because some people will get a car allowance that increases by mile based on the cost to drive per mile. My neighbor working two jobs and having to drive to both will spend a bigger portion of his income on his transportation expenses than I will considering I only have to drive to work and back and have a company car using company gas. This kind of problem is not solved by taxing the "other" guy because we are taxing ourselves. Every thinking politician has got to realize this just doesn't work. CAFE doesn't work, and never has. CARB doesn't work and never has. If you ask why, deep inside you already know the answer. It is a political solution and by nature is too cumbersome to succeed. We have tried the CAFE and CARB solutions for more than 30 years and it has gone nowhere. Maybe we should for once just let the market decide what we drive and what we buy. It works in just about every other commodity from food to cloths it just might work for cars. Drop CAFE and CARB and see what happens, or are we afraid of the free market?
|
|
|
|
|
tell me how it works. Really. Food: we get half of our produce from abroad now, places 10,000 miles away in some cases, even though we have some of the richest most fertile soil in the world right here at home. Why? Because they can do it cheaper. And so we employ more and more illegals here every year even as farmers scrape their pennies together, trying to stay in business. Clothes: 12-year-old children halfway around the world beg for the privilege of working 12-hour days for $1 so that we can spend $49.95 at Sears on a pair of jeans. Meanwhile, the textile industry is gone in the U.S., and clothing manufacture is just about extinct here too. A perfect microcosm of what is now happening to one of the last manufacturing bastions of U.S. industry - the automakers. The free market does nothing but accelerate the spiral to the bottom, kind sir. That is why some controls are required, and indeed, the U.S. economy has never been close to a "free market" for its entire history. Right now we are like the fat kid in the pantry, busily chomping his way through all the food (he started with the candy!). Ask the kid what he will do when the food is all gone and you will get no answer. He doesn't care - he is way too busy stuffing his face to address such "mundane" questions.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 03, 2006 9:26 am) I agree there has to be a solution but I don't see tossing money at the problem as that solution. Lets try another tack. Why aren't people buying the smaller cars CAFE and CARB have supported? What has kept bigger cars ahead of the pack? I don't think we can say that it is because we a just a whole pack of greedy dirt bags. And if it is National greed why would a politician go against his or her voter base? And if as you say we have never been a free market how would we know it won't work? We haven't tried it. We know CARB and CAFE don't work. If we want to keep them maybe we should toss everyone that has anything to do with them today and start over will all new people? We both see the problem, I just see taxing people as more of the same old solution. If we need to make rules then make them laws so we can all vote on it. Taxes are most often just a way to get passed the voter. In my opinion my friend. 
|
|
|
|
|
if we're going to try the cut-all-the-taxes approach, then we have to also accept that the age of wars in foreign lands to protect sources of cheap oil is over - that is just one more subsidy that our new free market simply will not allow on principle! America becomes more of a debtor nation every year, and it seems to me it is a sound proposition that decreasing imports of foreign oil to counteract that trend is a good idea for the collective well-being of Americans. But each individual American will never see that collective interest as they make individual purchasing decisions. It is human nature for people to want the OTHER guy to be the one to make the necessary sacrifices... |
|
|
Move comes as gas prices hit $3; Big 3 may be hard-pressed to meet higher standards quickly. President Bush talks to Michael Wade, left, and Marty James at a Biloxi, Miss., gas station. While in Mississippi, the president said Congress was debating several energy concepts, "and one idea is to give me a capacity to raise CAFE standards." WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration asked Congress Thursday for authority to raise fuel economy standards for passenger cars for the first time in more than 20 years as public pressure to reduce rising gas prices intensifies. The proposal, which administration officials acknowledge was prompted by recent gas spikes, could head off more radical efforts in Congress to immediately impose stricter standards. Even if he's successful, the change won't have an immediate impact at the pump or on consumer demand. However, the Bush proposal could eventually lead to a major improvement in passenger car fuel economy, which could save millions of gallons of gasoline but raise automakers vehicle development costs. Congress by law set the current standard of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars, which hasn't changed since the mid-1980s. Bush wants authority to raise car standards through an administrative process similar to what he now does for light trucks. "The president believes these actions are critical to promoting our nation's energy security and independence," U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta wrote in a letter to Congress. While automakers have vigorously objected to tighter fuel economy standards in the past, they no longer reflexively oppose increases in vehicle fuel efficiency -- as long as they are involved in the deliberations. "We've supported reasonable and technologically feasible increases," Chrysler Group spokesman Jason Vines said. "All we ask is to be part of the process." GM said it wanted to ensure that any new rules were fair to manufacturers -- a position the administration supported. In Biloxi, Miss., Thursday, President Bush noted Congress was debating several energy-related concepts, "and one idea is to give me a capacity to raise CAFE standards on automobiles." "I encourage them to give me that authority. It's authority that I used for light trucks. And I intend to use it wisely if Congress would give me that authority," Bush said. Under current law, any changes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy wouldn't take effect for 18 months -- to give automakers time to comply -- and it would take months more to write the new standards. Congress must approve the proposal to give the administration the power to raise the standards. An earlier effort by Congress to grant the Bush administration authority wasn't approved. New size-based rules issued last month will raise the fuel economy standards for some light trucks to 24.1 miles per gallon by 2011. Smaller light trucks will have to meet a target of 28.4 mpg, more than the current requirement of 27.5 mpg for cars. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has "the technical expertise to regulate fuel economy in a manner that is cost effective, based on sound science and safeguards vehicle occupants," Mineta wrote in his letter to Congress. "Substantial increases in CAFE standards under the current single standard approach would increase fatalities on America's highways, raise health care costs and reduce employment." "It is imperative that CAFE standards be set through an administrative process based on sound science and data," Mineta said in his letter. When the rulemaking for new fuel economy standards begins, the automakers often provide highly sensitive sales forecasts for future years and technical specifications of future models. That helps regulators but hinders public scrutiny of the rules, since none of the material is ever made public, environmental groups argue. To quickly meet a new higher fuel economy standard, automakers might be required to drastically reduce the weight of cars, which could potentially raise traffic deaths. Last year, 43,200 people were killed in accidents, up 1.3 percent over the 42,636 killed in 2004 -- the highest number since 1990. Bush plans to meet with the CEOs of Ford, GM and the Chrysler Group on May 18, and among the issues for the tentatively set meeting are fuel economy rules. The Bush administration's effort also potentially heads off efforts by some in Congress to immediately raise fuel economy standards -- and without the automakers' input. Automakers have argued that arbitrary fuel economy standards might be impossible to hit. Fighting hikes in fuel economy rules has long been one of the U.S. and foreign automakers legislative priorities. In 1989, then-Sen. Richard Bryan introduced a bill to raise standards 40 percent over a decade -- to an average of 40 miles per gallon -- though automakers said the standard would be impossible to reach. In 2002, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass. and John McCain, R-Ariz., proposed to raise fuel economy to 36 miles per gallon by 2015, a bill that wasn't approved by Congress. A Ford spokeswoman declined comment, because she hadn't seen the letter. In March, the administration issued tougher fuel economy standards for light trucks and included larger SUVs for the first time ever. The new rules will save 10.7 billion gallons of fuel. Mineta said the new rules "close loopholes that have long plagued the current system." But it didn't go as far as environmental advocates had sought. In addition, the light truck fuel economy standards will save more than 250 million gallons a year by including the largest sport utility vehicles, those that weigh between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds. Mineta said these large SUVs will be included in the program starting in 2011. http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060428/AUTO01/604280328/- 1148 |
|
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
