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 09, 2009 4:19 pm) Except that we had CAFE, and it didn't result in a broader product portfolio. The logic seems to be that we need stricter CAFE standards to encourage the domestics to build a broader product portfolio, yet we had CAFE and it was getting progressively stricter during the late 1970s and 1980s, and it didn't result in a broader product portfolio (the domestics had been making subcompacts since the early 1970s). The product portfolio did become broader at Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW and Mercedes, as they rushed to build more...trucks and crossovers and SUVs. kdhsypder: That was the rhetoric of the time - but misinterpreted. Apparently still so. I've seen this faux-argument very often on the D3 boards. It's in Congressional Record. Legislators give speeches on the floor of their respective chambers to have their views on the record for future generations. They meant what they said, and what they said was that CAFE was designed to reduce gasoline usage and dramatically reduce oil imports. It's pretty hard to misinterpret what I read. kdhsypder: If in the late 70s each driver drove about 10000 mi annually with a fleet average of about 12.5 mpg thus each driver on average used 800 gal annually. Easy math. If there were 10 MM new units sold each year at that time ( there were ) then the new vehicle fleet each year used 8 Billion gallons of fuel. Easy math. You are assuming that without CAFE all of those vehicles would still be getting 12.5 mpg. There is nothing to support that contention. kdhspyder: Your contention is that CAFE has failed because it should have caused the usage of fuel to be less than 8 Billion gallons annually. Since we now use 9 Billion gallons for each new model year you see this as a 'failure'. Well, that was the intent of the original law... kdhspyder: When I was an average driver in the late 70's driving 10000 mi at 12.5 mpg I used 800 gal annually. In 2006 as an average driver of 15000 mi in a modern 25 mpg vehicle I used 600 gal annually. Only problem is that the pressure for better mileage was building before CAFE, and there is no proof that these gains are the result of CAFE. kdhspyder: CAFE works, whether the detroiters like it or not. The new CAFE 35 in 2020 will accomplish the same benefit; i.e. spreading out a scarce resource over an ever-increasing population. Clearly stated now, this is the sole goal of CAFE. CAFE only "works" because supporters keep changing its objective when it fails to accomplish the latest one. Originally it was supposed to reduce gasoline usage and reduce the need for imported oil; when it failed to do that, it was supposed to save us money; when it failed to do that (falling gas prices did that), it is now supposed to...well, I'm curious to hear the newest reason.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Apr 13, 2009 7:49 am) That was never a 'purpose' of CAFE but they certainly would have been better off if they weren't so intransigent. In the end it was the decisions of the three Managements in Detroit to fight and to ignore CAFE while digging in their heels and concentrating on the least fuel efficient vehicles that did them in. In the meanwhile the national fleet did achieve a doubling in fuel economy as planned by the regulations. We moved on without the D3 and we as a group bought more transplants and imports. That intent of the original law apparently is poorly understood on your part because it appears that your statement ignores the normal growth in population and thus in drivers. Are you seriously saying that your understanding of CAFE was that it was intended to absolutely reduce the usage of petro-products even if the population grew from 250 MM people to 300 MM people? If so then you're arguing nonsense. The math is clear CAFE both saved us fuel not used and it saved us money. It did reduce gas usage, I'm a prime example as I noted. In the 70s I used to drive vehicles that got 12-13 mpg on average. 25 yrs later I drove a vehicle that got 30 mpg. My fuel usage was cut from 8 gallons per 100 miles driven ( GPC ) to 3 GPC. In the late 70's I paid $.80 or so for fuel, in the 90's it was about $1.00 and for most of this decade it's been over $2.00. I've personally saved tens of thousands of dollars because of CAFE....thank you very much. 'New reason(s) for the extention of CAFE'.....since it was the initiative of G W Bush and his advisors what do you think those reasons are? You and I have covered this issue as well in our prior annual exchange on this subject. From your entire prior post you acknowledge the advancement in the marketplace of more fuel efficient vehicles. Agreed, it's undeniable. Your main rationale against CAFE is that in your view the vehcle-makers would have done this on their own. Several times you've stated that pressures from the marketplace would have brought them to provide us the same levels fuel effiiciency simply for their own survival. Unfortunely that view of corporate-benificence doesn't pass the litmus test of actual facts. We have been demanding better and more efficient vehicles. Obviously by the growth of the transplants and imports this is the direction we the buyers have taken. What has Detroit done? the D3 did nothing but dig in its heels - until it was too late - and we as a nation abandoned them to their fossilzed relics. Your argument based on corporate goodwill toward the nation fails in the face of reality.
|
|
|
"The auto industry, tired of being seen as the bad guy whenever fuel economy and emissions regulation is on the table, is wasting no time lining up in support of tomorrow's White House announcement on development of a national carbon emissions and fuel efficiency program." Are Automakers Finally Seeing the Light? Will Government and Greens See it Too? (Green Car Advisor) 
|
|
|
By Bob Gordon President and Co-founder The Auto Channel Louisville KY May 19, 2009; President Obama, our fearless(we hoped) new leader, the guy who said Yes We Can apparently just can’t when it comes to our antiquated and destructive energy policy! His "new" energy policy could have been authored by our former administration. Yes I am angry, upset and feel betrayed, apparently taking on the oil gang is just too tough, even for a street kid from Chicago. When President Obama was campaigning for our votes and hearts, he called for doubling fuel economy standards by 2027 to a combined fleet-wide average of 50 mpg. (Click for original article) Although The Auto Channel editorial board thought that his goal was way short of what is actually needed to free ourselves and our children and grandchildren from our oil masters, we applauded his then big step vision, while hoping that he would soon see the light and benefits of a realistically reached gasoline free society. In an energy policy speech Senator Obama used an analogy of the 1960’s U.S. effort to place a man on the moon in 10 years as the same impetus needed to put in place a sane and prudent energy policy for our oil held hostage country. "When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win - he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do." the then junior senator from Illionois said in a campaign speech in Las Vegas. That was then and this is now. Mr. Obama’s “new” energy policy announced today would force car companies to raise the CAFÉ average from 25 MPG to 35.5 MPG a goal that is not only easily attainable but truly worthless if we are to become energy independent, and worst of all it takes the air out of the tires of a (formerly) growing groundswell for a worthwhile and meaningful mobile energy policy and deflates it with today’s minimalist demands…no wonder the car companies and status quo-niks are praising it.. Unlike President Kennedy’s call for a bold collective action by American industry and its citizens to reach a goal, Mr. Obama’s “new” energy policy is more of the same old pandering to those that were not only opposed his election, but will continue to benefit from this impotent vision of our countries energy future. This "new" wimpy energy policy has squandered two opportunities, to both energize our citizens and force our owned automobile industry to cut the crap and once again design and build cars that create a passion and desire to buy a new car. So we believe that this bla energy policy will be responsible for a double loss...it will allow the status-quo to continue with very minor improvements and it eliminates a once in a lifetime opportunity to create an automotive revolution by forcing car companies to build cars that people really want to buy, hey another 10 MPG is not a viable reason for any intelligent person to give up a perfectly serviceable and paid for personal vehicle to buy another. Our country's car buyers are poised waiting for real benefits and a reawakened passion for a new car, but this "new" energy policy misses the point! If our car companies offer cars that people want to buy, we can not only keep our existing auto plants open and American auto workers employed, but will enjoy a renaissance of auto manufacturing here in the U.S. More than ever we are in dire need of a new and far reaching energy policy that makes it mandatory to use alternative fuels, not only to eliminate our dependence on oil, but provide our creative auto designers and engineers with new platforms on which to build cars and trucks that we will all have the "hots" for, this new found desire will help take our wonderful country and the world to the nirvana of sustainable energy. Oh well and I really thought President Obama had the intelligence and chops to force the needed changes…ah maybe next time, maybe next time. Let us know what you think - bgordon  theautochannel.com
|
|
|
Sounds a bit extreme to me. It's a first step. It's a significant step. Obama has made major progress. We've had the same mpg standard since 1985. And heck, that was set back in 1975, I think, when Obama was about 15 years old! If Obama gets elected to a second term, I assume some of the things that guy is advocating will be done then. In the meantime, the internal combustion engine has a lot of great things about it. It obviously has some costs and problems too....This new standard will increase the number of hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles on the road.
|
|
|
Replying to: benjaminh (May 19, 2009 10:53 am) But using our President's own words: "When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win - he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do." Well I believe we needed a statement that excites, inspires and reflects landing on the moon not getting half way there and floating in space. This half way announcement may take the air out of our tires and even though we may meet the 35.5 MPG average in 5 or 6 years...so what. |
|
|
tach: You may have a point. Look at these numbers. They show that some companies are already close to the standard for 2016! Toyota is already at 36, and Honda is right behind at 35. They need to get to 39 in 8 years. Sounds like to easy a bar to pass over. Mercedes Benz, at 26, is going to have a harder time.... (below if from the Fox news website today): "Thanks to a recent turn to more fuel efficient vehicles, most of the major automakers are already above the current CAFE for cars of 27.5 mpg, and well on their way to 39 mpg, but some are much closer to the mark than others. The following is a list of the 2008 figures for the top 10 best-selling automakers: Toyota 36.4 Honda 35.1 Hyundai 33.8 Kia 33.4 Nissan 32.2 Ford 30.0 General Motors 29.8 Chrysler 29.5 VW 28.8 BMW 27.4 Mercedes-Benz 26.4" |
|
|
I think a 2008 5 speed manual Accord with a 4 cylinder would be rated about 33 or 34 mpg under the CAFE rules (the old EPA test from 1975), although the new test says that its combined city/highway is a more realistic 25. In that same Fox article it says that a Ford Fusion would count as a 31 mpg car under CAFE, even though its current EPA sticker gives a combined city/hwy of 23. What's interesting is that Honda earned a 35 CAFE score before the Insight was introduced. That car alone when added them into the mix might push them close to 39. And everyone knows Honda has large and powerful cars, esp. with the Acura brand. This seems like proof that by 2016 we'll still have large and powerful cars mixed in with the efficient ones. In other words, I think maybe tech was right. This standard is not very impressive by the standards of a moon shot at all... It is an improvement, but maybe not a terribly big one. My guess, however, is that Honda and Toyota will try to get way over the mark years early. They could probably do it by 2012 if they really tried... Again, still a lot of work for MB and BMW. |
|
| But now that I think of it, that CAFE number was probably only for cars, and left out trucks, suvs, vans, etc. With those factored in it may take some work after all... | |
|
|
in several articles that there will still be a separate standard for trucks and SUVs of only 26.6 mpg or something? If so, Obama's big announcement is completely worthless.
|
|
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
