- #285 of 507
-
Re: think back [li_sailor] = EU & no CAFE [95civic] [boaz47] [nippononly] [boaz47]
by nippononly
-
Sep 04, 2007 (11:09 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Sep 04, 2007 10:55 am)
naw, you're wrong there, the 2009 emissions standard is what ULEV would be today, and the Germans and Honda all have a diesel engine ready to go that meets the '09 regs. VW is bringing theirs to market next March, Mercedes, soon thereafter, and Honda by the end of CY 2008.
|
- #286 of 507
-
Re: think back [li_sailor] = EU & no CAFE [95civic] [boaz47] [nippononly] [boaz47] [nippononly]
by boaz47
-
Sep 04, 2007 (11:18 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 04, 2007 11:09 am)
I wonder if ULEV will be enough. How about PZEV? I can tell you from experience that there a a whole lot of diesels in Europe that can no way meet our particulant standards. I don't know how that effects the older fleet in Europe but I do know we are simply selling out commercial government and construction fleet to other countries. There was a big article on that in the LA times a few weeks ago. You have to wonder how that relates to real world issues? I think VW could make a Pzev diesel. After all they are in the shop so often they can't be polluting. LOL
|
- #287 of 507
-
Re: think back [li_sailor] = EU & no CAFE [95civic] [boaz47] [nippononly] [boaz47] [nippononly]
by boaz47
-
Sep 04, 2007 (11:47 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 04, 2007 11:09 am)
I believe like you do that they are working on Diesels and have been reading the sites like
http://www.spotlightingnews.com/article.php?news=3363
But saying you will meet the standards by 2009 and doing so are questions that have to be seen to be believed.
|
- #288 of 507
-
Re: think back [li_sailor] = EU & no CAFE [95civic] [boaz47] [nippononly]
by tpe
-
Sep 05, 2007 (4:30 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Aug 30, 2007 6:34 am)
And the new standard is 120 g/km (about 44 mpg), which they are saying it looks like the automakers will not be able to meet by next year when it is supposed to be in force,
That is a proposed standard which was to be met by 2012. It probably won't make it into law because, as you stated, there is a lot of opposition from the auto manufacturers. The current proposed standard that exists is 140 g/km by 2008 and it represents a voluntary agreement between the automakers and the EU, not a mandate. 75% of the automakers selling vehicles in Europe are not on track to meet this voluntary target.
One other thing to keep in mind. This is not quite the inverse of our mile per gallon scheme of measuring efficiency. The difference is that diesel fuel has about 13% more carbon per gallon, which means that under this g/km CO2 measuring system a diesel vehicle needs to get about 13% better mpg to meet the same CO2 emission level of a gasoline burning vehicle. For instance if they were to meet this voluntary 140 g/km level then gasoline vehicles would have to get 39.2 mpg and diesels would have to get 44.4 mpg.
My point is that Europe has a voluntary form of CAFE that the auto manufacturers are not in compliance with yet the European fleet is significantly more efficient than the US fleet. So as far as CAFE goes the European model is not an example of its effectiveness. There must be something else going on that is motivating drivers.
|
- #289 of 507
-
Re: think back [li_sailor] = EU & no CAFE [95civic] [boaz47] [nippononly] [tpe]
by boaz47
-
Sep 05, 2007 (9:41 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am)
Well in Europe the motivation for diesel is two fold. Mileage and a tax break. While I don't support our method of taxing people into compliance I do support getting tax breaks to achieve the same goal. As the old saying goes about flies and honey verses vinegar. We have long suffered at the hands of political minorities pushing for taxes to fund their cause rather than rewarding people with tax breaks for helping with a problem. Still one has to question how they will make a diesel that starts our with more Particulents cleaner than gas if people are working on making gas cleaner as well? CAFE simply doesn't address both of these issues.
|
- #290 of 507
-
Re: think back [li_sailor] = EU & no CAFE [95civic] [boaz47] [nippononly] [
by tpe
-
Sep 05, 2007 (11:07 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Sep 05, 2007 9:41 am)
Tax breaks/incentives certainly are more appealing to the average voter, which is why politicians are more likely to support them. The question I have is how are these tax breaks paid for? It seems to me that there are 3 possibilities. Either a tax hike somewhere else. Reduction in a government service, which is essentially a penalty on whoever was benefiting from this service. Or, the government can choose to simply not fund this tax break and just add it to the deficit, which is a tax hike on the future.
Imagine this scenario. What if instead of a tax deduction for children and dependents there was a tax penalty for not having kids? The tax rates could be adjusted so that everyone's tax burden would end up being the same with this method but the psychology would be very different. The people without kids would be wondering why they are being penalized for this. So its easier to sell a tax break even though these breaks end up in higher tax rates for those that don't take advantage of them. So what if everyone took advantage of these tax breaks, wouldn't everyone benefit? Again, I don't see how that's possible.
I wouldn't oppose tax incentives and credits for adopting fuel efficient vehicles but they need to be paid for. Since the goal is to reduce fuel consumption what would be the most logical way to pay for these tax breaks? It seems to me that they should be paid for by a fuel consumption tax. That would represent the carrot and stick approach.
|
- #291 of 507
-
Re: think back [li_sailor] = EU & no CAFE [95civic] [boaz47] [nippononly] [ [tpe]
by boaz47
-
Sep 05, 2007 (11:55 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Sep 05, 2007 11:07 am)
That could be why I keep returning to the free market approach. Build a vehicle the people want and they will buy it. Give them the fuel mileage they want and they will buy it. Things like CAFE simply limit those options to the consumer. Once the government sets a standard then the manufacturer doesn't have any reason to exceed that standard. I believe the EU tax break I was referring to was that they simply didn't tax diesel, or tax it as high, rather than indicating they cut the taxes on diesel. There is no one to take services from because the taxes were never applied in the first place.
For most of CAFE's life it did nothing to improve fuel consumption. To even say that without CAFE fuel consumption would have been even higher is pure speculation. Fuel consumption average dropped slightly for the first few years and then started to flatten and then rise every year till people started realizing that CAFE was a waste or time. If a private business took this long to produce results it would have been bankrupt several times over.
|
- #292 of 507
-
Re: think back [li_sailor] = EU & no CAFE [95civic] [boaz47] [nippononly] [
by tpe
-
Sep 05, 2007 (2:08 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Sep 05, 2007 11:55 am)
I don't mind letting the free market sort this out. However it might not result in the smoothest transition to oil alternatives. I believe that barring a global economic recession gas prices will continue to climb. This climb probably won't be gradual and steady. In all likelihood it will be an overall trend that involves increasingly large price swings in both directions. Now I'm not referring to you with this comment but I wonder how many free market advocates will be asking for government intervention on the price spikes.
|
- #293 of 507
-
shoot
by nippononly
-
Sep 06, 2007 (10:35 pm)
-
|
You don't think the politicians know that all eyes turn accusingly to them every time the price of gas spikes? That's the reason we have these ridiculous "investigations" into "price gouging" every year or two, all of which inevitably come to naught, and is the reason there will continue to be some kind of government intervention into fuel efficiency.
And boaz, my simple response to your proposed system of market forces solving this problem is to point out that consumers are selfish and fairly uninformed on long-term costs of vehicle ownership, the U.S. has a massive effort in place to keep oil prices artificially low, and fuel efficiency won't sell itself to the average American buyer enough to make the U.S. a good global neighbor with regard to oil consumption.
|
- #294 of 507
-
Re: shoot [nippononly]
by boaz47
-
Sep 07, 2007 (4:28 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 06, 2007 10:35 pm)
There is no such thing as a good global neighbor in this case Nippon. We are selling our excess industrial diesels that won't meet our air standards to China who has air quality as bad if not worse than ours. The air they breath in China is the same air we breath. We are simply moving the problem out of sight. Go visit some of these developing countries and see what selfish and disregard is. I know they have economic reasons and understand why they do what they do but if they would make a vehicle that people wanted they would buy it. Look at the Iphone. People waited in line to get them even though they were way more expensive than other phones. If they make a product the people want they will sell them by the boat load. But if you try to force something on them they don't want they will break their neck trying to find a loop hole that allows them to avoid getting what you want. Why in the world do you believe Trucks are getting so big? Because 3/4 ton trucks are exempt from many of the restriction placed on other vehicles. CARB and CAFE created these loopholes and people litterly drove a truck through them.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 
