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
|
The reason big trucks and big cars sell better than the smaller more fuel efficent ones is simple . You barely save any money on fuel yet get less room . I can go buy a Torrent for 25k almost fully loaded wtih awd. I get 18/22 . I can go buy a vibe for about 20k almost fully loaded with awd . I get 26/31 How much am I really going to save ? The car of course you save about 5k . But gas what a few thousand over a 100k miles ? Lets say 8k in total between gas and price over say 100k miles . Now depending on driving habits that could be 5-10 years (For me about 10 years ) Is it worth it for me to save 7k to loose out on the much bigger vehical ? Take it another way . The ford escape . I can buy one for 19k no frills get 23/26 with the 2.3l or 20/24 with the 3.0 Does the cost over a 100k really matter ? It would take me almost 10 years to drive that far. Even at 5$ a gallon it would take a long time for it to matter. How about the hybrid version. It starts at 27k and gets 33/29 . How long would it take for me to make back the extra money it costs . That is why people don't buy the fuel efficent cars . They need to have a good balance. I would love to get 50mpg but i'd never get into a prius . Its just not a car for me . First off I'm way to big for it and secondly it wont suit my needs . I'd need something in the size of a caliber or vibe at least (i'd rather have a torrent sized car but i'd give it up for much better mileage)
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm...well, in my car I drive about 18K miles per year, and manage 40 mpg (actually 41 but I'm rounding for ease of calculation). The average midsize car (excluding hybrids for now) gets about 25 mpg in real-world driving, which is a savings of 15 gallons for every 1000 miles driven, or about 270 gallons per year in my case. 270 gallons is going to cost me at least $860 right now (that's at the $3.19/gal I'm currently paying), which works out to more than $70/month. Now if you could save more than $70/month by changing some other choice in your life, wouldn't you consider it?  Now imagine if everybody accomplished just half that savings and plowed the rest back into the domestic economy, and you have yourself the concept of something that is a powerful incentive for the federal government. Not to mention, it would reduce our trade imbalance in oil by something like 1/6, or perhaps 35 milion gallons of gasoline per day in savings. Wow, when you think of it that way, maybe it WOULD be good to save some gas by producing a more efficient auto fleet, eh?!
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (May 02, 2006 10:55 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (May 03, 2006 3:13 am) So basically we in this country are driving about 25,000 miles a year on average if you figure 2 vehicles per household, right ? DaRock 
|
|
|
Replying to: rockylee (May 03, 2006 3:19 am) www.bts.gov
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (May 03, 2006 3:41 am) Keep up the good posts pal. Rocky |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (May 03, 2006 3:13 am) But the poster I was replying to was, I believe, questioning the merits of trying to rein in oil consumption AT ALL, and I was just pointing out one example of how we as a nation might benefit. Now, what better way to reduce miles driven than with a rise in gas taxes, eh?! I am tongue in cheek there, but I do not believe CAFE will ever accomplish anything again - the carmakers are too experienced at side-stepping it now, after 30 years' practice. It's so funny to witness all the hot air the politicians are expending right now in Washington as they scramble desperately to look like they are doing something as the gas prices rise into the stratosphere. Problem is, this is a long-term problem that required the implementation of a long-term solution 10, 20 years ago. And long-term solutions are something that politicians don't have the first clue about. Meanwhile, $3.25/gallon is the latest price for 87 unleaded tonight at the gas station I normally go to, which makes it official: that is $1/gallon MORE than it was in January this year, an increase in price of 45% in FOUR MONTHS. It's beyond unacceptable, but makes me very glad that I currently drive last year's EPA fueleconomy.gov grand prize winner for highest fuel economy among straight gas cars.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (May 03, 2006 9:46 pm) Maybe higher gas taxes isn't the answer. We haven't tried this approach so whether or not it would be beneficial is speculation. We've tried CAFE and it doesn't work. We've asked the public to voluntarily conserve and that doesn't work. I guess we could try rationing but I suspect that would be a disaster. There are a lot of people that say leave it to the free market. Funny, a lot of these people are the same ones complaining about the current market prices and asking the government to intervene. Out of curiousity. What do you think would happen if all these countries that currently have high gas taxes suddenly dropped them to US levels? Is this something that we'd like to see them do? Or have we adopted a double standard where we believe high gas taxes are appropriate for everyone else, just not the US. |
|
|
We all seem to agree on, CAFE doesn't work. CARB is in the came boat. There are simply too many competing political agendas for any political solution like CAFE to succeed. Taxing Gas seems like a simple solution but without mass transit that actually goes to where people work how will that effect the working poor? To answer the question about what we think if all these other countries dropped their high Fuel taxes? I doubt if the average American cares one bit. A few years ago, when diesel was still the way to go, I knew a lot of people that lived in lower San Diego county. They were perfectly happy to drive just across the border to buy Mexican diesel, at about half of what it cost in the US. Nippon is correct on this one. You have to have a solution that gives incentives to the consumer to conserve. The problem is, how do you do it in a positive way? Personally, I think alternative fuels would work better than trying to get people to stay home more. Biodiesel sounds like a positive step. But with programs like CAFE why would a manufacturer bother?
|
|
|
Replying to: gljvd (May 02, 2006 9:19 pm) That is what I have looked at each time I bought a new truck. Along the way I have owned several small Japanese PU trucks. The Fuel economy is just not enough to offset the hauling, towing & comfort of the fullsize PU truck. I came to Edmund's 7 years ago looking for a small diesel PU that would get good mileage. Still none are offered in the USA. I could own one in any country in the world outside the US. I blame the high usage of fossil fuels directly on the environmental lobbyists in DC. They have put zero emissions as their goal. Fossil fuel usage is not as important to them. GHG has caused a split in the ranks. CO2 is directly related to fuel usage. That is one reason the EU adopted higher quality diesel and the cars that use it. You get along with 30% better economy, 30% lower CO2 using diesel instead of gas. For example a Prius getting 40 MPG will put out more CO2 than a Jetta TDI getting 45 MPG. Switch to Diesel in cars and small PU trucks and we cut fuel usage and GHG faster than all the CAFE standards could possibly attain. |
|
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
