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: kdhspyder (Apr 02, 2009 1:51 pm) Becuase look at what this latest revamping of CAFE has done to the product plans of the D3. It has for all intents and purposes decimated GMs plans for Zeta, it's Trucks, and it's Muscle/Sports car program. Like it or not, those are the vehicles they know how to do best, and that earn the company positive buzz among car buyers, something GM could use every ounce of. It also has hurt Ford vis-a-vis their global RWD program, but since Ford is a little better at making smaller vehicles than GM (But still not as good as the Euros and Japanese) they were hit less hard by it. I think this was the plan all along, and that the haters of big V8 vehicles in Washington just bided their time to put something like this into action.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 01, 2009 8:20 pm) Your memory has failed you... for shame  Tata owns Jaguar and Land Rover, thus their inclusion on the list as the "manufacturer" (or, the parent firm). kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
|
|
|
Replying to: carfanforever (Apr 02, 2009 4:05 pm) Did you miss the fact that it was the price of fuel that jumped over $4 a gallon last year that was the real cause of the D3 getting out of SUVs and trucks. The new CAFE regs that you're worried about aren't going to take full effect for 11 more years!!!! It was the price of fuel and the shift of the US buying public since 2001 that put the D3 where they are now. CAFE had nothing to do with it. The old CAFE regs from the early 80s were still in effect all through this decade as GM fell apart. In the 90s GM made $Billions in profits with the same CAFE rules in place. All of a sudden this decade GM is a rotting hulk losing $Billions with the same CAFE rules in place. Nothing changed in CAFE while this transformation took place. CAFE is the easy excuse that losers search out in order to place the blame for their own incompetence. You can't make $Billions on one hand then lose $Billions on the other hand under the same rules then place the blame on the rules. The cut backs you noted were decided by the managment when they finally recognized that they had made a horrendous error by emphasizing BOF vehicles too heavily. The vehicles you noted as being the strengths of the D3 are in fact their weaknesses. The muscle cars do create a buzz in enthusiast circles. Agreed. But when those 12 enthusiasts buy their vehicles the vehicle maker is left with a near empty plant that can't be filled because the huge majority of the population has no interest whatsoever in these dinosaurs. The D3 can't make profits by being specialty boutique builders of low volume muscle cars. That was a luxury for a different time in the 70s when they dictated the market. Now the buyers dictate the market. In the meanwhile over the last 25 or 30 years we've saved billions of gallons of fuel not burned up and kept $25 to $50 Billions here at home instead of donating it to Big Oil, Saudi princes, Venezuelan dictators and Iranian terrorists. All the while during those years especially in the 90s GM was raking in $Billions in profits. Now what was bad about CAFE again?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kcram (Apr 02, 2009 4:44 pm) kdh: A gas tax just takes more money from my pocket with nothing gained in return. Well, you are to be applauded for being ahead of the curve, but you DO still benefit in that the higher gas tax stops gas price spikes from happening as often and as high as they will with unchecked consumption. And even with a Prius, gas price spikes DO affect you, what with all the miles you drive for work. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 02, 2009 8:43 am) I wrote about my experience 2 summers ago in an earlier post. I was visiting one of the caverns in Virginia and they had a small auto museum next door. They had models from the beginning of the era through the 40's and 50's. The interesting thing is some of the cars built in the 20's and 30's got 20+ mpg. I'm sure that was at a constant speed on flat land but it leads me to believe that maybe we have gotten all we can get out of the internal combustible engine. I would think we would be farther along 80 to 90 years later. |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Apr 02, 2009 8:24 pm) The Zeta-based cars are not body-on-frame. They use a rear-wheel-drive layout, but they also use unibody construction. Same with the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger and Challenger. kdhspyder: The vehicles you noted as being the strengths of the D3 are in fact their weaknesses. The muscle cars do create a buzz in enthusiast circles. Agreed. But when those 12 enthusiasts buy their vehicles the vehicle maker is left with a near empty plant that can't be filled because the huge majority of the population has no interest whatsoever in these dinosaurs. The D3 can't make profits by being specialty boutique builders of low volume muscle cars. That was a luxury for a different time in the 70s when they dictated the market. Now the buyers dictate the market. The Mustang was selling over 100,000 units annually. It has only recently dropped in sales because Ford is getting ready to unveil a new one and the market for ALL vehicles is down (Toyota is offering incentives on the Prius). The Pontiac G8 is a sedan; it's not a "muscle car." It can be used as a family hauler. The G8 flopped because: a. GM hasn't bothered to promote it; and b. it is being sold as a Pontiac, which is a dying brand. It should have been sold as a Chevrolet, which would have given it a much larger dealer body and immediate tie-in with Chevy's trucks and the Corvette, not to mention the upcoming Camaro. kdhspyder: In the meanwhile over the last 25 or 30 years we've saved billions of gallons of fuel not burned up and kept $25 to $50 Billions here at home instead of donating it to Big Oil, Saudi princes, Venezuelan dictators and Iranian terrorists. All the while during those years especially in the 90s GM was raking in $Billions in profits. Making vehicles more economical only makes them cheaper to drive, as long as gasoline prices stay low (which they did until very recently). Gasoline use continued to climb. It was only within the last year that gasoline consumption actually dropped. The average annual mileage per vehicle in the U.S. climbed from under 10,000 miles in the early 1970s to over 12,000 miles by 2006 (the latest year for which I could find figures). Even that trend is deceptive - there are more vehicles per household. So more people are driving, which results in fewer miles being added to an individual vehicle every year, but still ups the overall number of miles driven (and amount of gas burned). The total number of miles driven had continued to increase until the double whammy of $4-a-gallon for unleaded and the collapse of the housing bubble reversed the trend last year. kdhspyder: Now what was bad about CAFE again? It didn't work, and it also caused some unintended side effects (namely, the shift to trucks and SUVs after the death of large, rear-wheel-drive passenger cars).
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Apr 07, 2009 12:19 pm) The DOT did a Vehicle Miles Travelled study from the late 70's through 2001. As you noted the average driver drove just under 10000 miles at the beginning. By 2001 the average driver was driving about 14000 miles annually. But again as you noted there are far more drivers on the road now. New vehicle production in the late 70s was 10 MM units annually. Before the recent crash it was running at 16 MM units annually. The average fuel economy of the fleet pre-CAFE was 12+ mpg. Now in 2007 it's 25 mpg. If CAFE had not be instuted there would have been no 'stick' to force the vehicle makers to offer more fuel efficient vehicles. As shown by their recalcitrance to push fuel economy over the last 25 yrs, the D3 have never been on board until the last 12 months. If there was no CAFE we likely would still be driving the vehicles of the 70s getting 12+ mpg. However we benefit from CAFE by the fact that now the fleet which is probably three times as large as in 1970 is also twice as efficient. In this last statement is the genius of the whole concept that the detroiters and naysayers refuse to understand. The math is clear. 1970 10 MM units x 10000 mi driven / 12 mpg = 8 Billion gallons used for that MY 2007 16 MM units x 14000 mi driven / 25 mpg = 9 Billion gallons used for that MY The number of vehicles has increased by 60%; the miles driven has increased by 40% but the fuel used has only increased by 12%. That's success. IF...CAFE had never been implemented our increased population and increased number of drivers and increased distances driven would mean that in 2007... 16 MM units x 14000 mi driven / 12 mpg = 18.7 Billions of fuel that would have been used with no CAFE regs in place. But that's only one year. Nearly 10 Billions of gas saved. CAFE has been in effect for 25 years!! 20 years have been at current levels. If we consider that the total US market is 2/3 USED and 1/3 NEW each year that means that the savings are tripled. In fact there are about 250 MM units on the road now in the US. All of these 250 MM units are more efficient due to CAFE. Clearly the numbers support the continued success of CAFE, whether the D3 hate it or not. It's been good for the country.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Apr 07, 2009 5:32 pm) I totally disagree. I don't see how you can say CAFE did much of anything. It was the oil embargo of 1973 that got people to looking for better fuel economy. Then the super high gas prices of the early 1980s catapulted the high mileage imports into the arena raising the overall average mileage. The two largest auto maker were still building and selling mostly gas guzzlers. My 1988 GMC PU was a 3/4 ton 4X4 that got about 14 MPG. My 2005 GMC hybrid PU which was a 1/2 ton 2WD got 15-16 MPG. I don't consider that an improvement. CAFE is and has been a total waste of tax payers money. Just like all the rest of the programs Congress has cooked up to pad the pockets of their lobbyist friends.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Apr 07, 2009 5:32 pm) That is pure conjecture. The swing to smaller vehicles began in 1965. Imports were increasing in sales, and intermediates were displacing full-size cars even before the first fuel crunch in late 1973. Even compacts experienced revived sales in the early 1970s (after declining throughout most of the 1960s). People were seeking improved fuel economy even before the first fuel crunch. kdhspyder: If there was no CAFE we likely would still be driving the vehicles of the 70s getting 12+ mpg. However we benefit from CAFE by the fact that now the fleet which is probably three times as large as in 1970 is also twice as efficient. This is not supported by sales trends at that time. People were moving from larger cars to smaller ones even before the first fuel crunch. Note that the Vega, Pinto and Gremlin debuted during 1970, or three years BEFORE the Arab Oil Embargo hit in late 1973. Detroit felt the need to respond to increasing small car sales. The swing to smaller cars was well underway by the late 1960s (we'll ignore the quality of Detroit's responses). kdhspyder: Clearly the numbers support the continued success of CAFE, whether the D3 hate it or not. It's been good for the country. I've read the Congressional debate surrounding CAFE, which gives insight into the intent of the law. The goal was to REDUCE oil consumption and cut oil imports. Gasoline usage is at record levels, and oil imports have increased since the late 1970s (when CAFE went into effect). Clearly CAFE has failed in its original mission.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 07, 2009 5:47 pm) You cannot tell me that this has not been worthwhile. That's HUGE money staying here in this country every year. It may not stay in your pocket because of your choice of vehcles but when you consider 250 MM vehicles on the road as a nation we benefit enormously. Your two examples indicate the recalcitrance of the D3. But because of this refusal to adjust by embracing fuel economy they find themselves in the condition they're in. Karma.
|
|
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
