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: gagrice (May 20, 2009 11:59 am) I think you will find that it is somewhat less than half, gagrice. Last poll I saw said 67% considered man-made global warming to be a moderate or serious threat, and that was a few months back. Certainly the consensus is at roughly 99% in the scientific community. But only 20% of all man-made emissions that contribute to global warming come from cars, from what I understand. So it is only tangential to the topic of CAFE, IMO, since my larger concern with CAFE is savings of the consumer's gas money and a reduction of oil importation.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (May 20, 2009 12:07 pm) Ford seems to be happy with the CAFE announcement. Ford: Perfect Timing for EcoBoost Celebration (AutoObserver) and Ford Couldn't Have Picked a Better Day to Celebrate Its EcoBoost Engine And Chrysler is hopping on the PR bandwagon: Chrysler Says It Can Meet Future CAFE Standards With Help From Fiat (Green Car Advisor) |
|
|
"The proposed new CAFE's numbers may appear like a difficult target to reach for the automakers, but when compared to current EPA numbers, they're already not that far off. After crunching some numbers, we've estimated that it takes a 2008 combined EPA rating of only 26 mpg to achieve the proposed CAFE rating of 35 mpg. Break it out by cars and trucks, and the proposed 39 mpg CAFE rating for cars translates to only about a 29 mpg EPA rating. For trucks, the proposed 30 mpg CAFE rating equates to roughly 23 mpg on a current window sticker." CAFE vs. EPA: Obama's MPG targets are closer than you think (Edmunds Daily) "However, as in all things involving politics, the new fuel-economy standards aren't what they seem. "Turns out that there are loopholes almost big enough to drive an SUV through," quipped Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl." CAFE, EPA Math: 35 Equals 26 (AutoObserver) |
|
|
Yes, this tells it like it is. CAFE is computed based on a number that was officially repudiated as unrealistic in 1985. And in 2008 the 1985 numbers were also revised downward because they were also deemed unrealistic (and didn't take into account things like ac use, 70 mph hwy speeds, etc.). Anyway, what Obama has done is still a big change and a big improvement, but when the feds say that the fleet in the future is going to get 35 mpg, that's just a big, fat, lie. The real number is 26, as this article states. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: benjaminh (May 21, 2009 11:17 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (May 21, 2009 8:24 pm) the auto fleet figure under CAFE is 39 mpg combined; thus the combined EPA value would be in the 31-32 mpg range; the truck fleet figure under CAFE is 30 mpg combined; thus the combined EPA value would be about 23 mpg. But in addition no vehicle maker has to meet these standards. The industry must meet these standards. The new accurate title of this program is Industry Average Fuel Economy ( IAFE ). But that's too cumbersome. The big benefit for the nation is the increase in the truck fuel economies. Since the truck segment numbers are so low to start then small increases mean much more important savings in fuel not used. To wit... Let's say that all 'trucks' on the road today get an EPA average of 18 mpg combined. ( 'trucks include pickups, SUVs, minivans, crossovers and even the HHR ). If a typical year in this new world of reduced volumes is 10 million units of new production, 50% being 'trucks' and 50% being autos, the 'truck' segment will use 4.2 Billion gallons of fuel each going 15000 mi/yr on average based on today's actual averages. Under the new program where 'trucks' are going to have to attain about 23 mpg as an industry that means that 5 million units each going 15000 mi/yr would use 3.3 Billion gallons of fuel. 900 million gallons of fuel NOT used each year.* The 5 million unit auto fleet now has a combined EPA rating of about 27 mpg meaning that it uses about 2.8 Billion gallons each year. At the new standard which would be about 31.5 mpg combined EPA the auto fleet would use 2.4 Billion gallons annually. 400 million gallons of fuel NOT used each year.* *This assumes no increase in population nor in auto sales. What it actually does is spread out the supply of petro-fuel over a larger usage base and over a longer period of time.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (May 22, 2009 4:22 am) Do you really believe the industry can squeeze 22% more miles out of a gallon of gas, without sacrificing power? The easiest way would be diesels. I just don't see the CA government allowing that. And they are the tail that wags the dog. You can buy a GMC Hybrid PU that is rated 21 MPG and selling at invoice for $41k base. Same vehicle with the most common 5.3L V8 is selling for $30k. On the highway the hybrid only gains ONE MPG. Not worth $11k to me. I suspect not to many buyers. Even if people were willing to spend from $5k to $15k more for a hybrid PU or SUV. Where would the additional materials come from. Ford has fought to get what parts it needs for hybrids from day one. The big bully Toyota has used its clout to limit what Ford could get. That has created a situation where an Escape hybrid sells for $8k more than an equally equipped V6 Escape. Add to that an additional $800+ for our sales tax and it becomes rather pointless to buy a hybrid truck or SUV. Or if you are really feeling green you can spend $90k for an Escalade hybrid or $16k for an LS600h L.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Apr 13, 2009 8:25 am) kdhspyder: That's precisely why I used the word 'intransigence' on the part of the D3. They didn't diversify and balance product lines except as minimally needed to satisfy the minimum requirements of CAFE. They were already building small vehicles before CAFE. Check out the introduction dates of the Gremlin, Pinto, Vega, Mustang II and Chevette. As I said, the main diversification occurred with the transplant manufacturers, as they branched out to build SUVs, crossovers and full-size pickups. kdhspyder: As I've stated several times before if they had made serious efforts to provide competitive vehicles that were more efficient they would have been better placed to switch directions when the US buying public switched directions. They didn't so they are close to dying. And yet we had CAFE, and they are still failing. Please note that CAFE standards only required them to meet a mileage target, not a price, quality or performance target. kdspyder: 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. Sorry, but you are incorrect. The Big Three didn't ignore CAFE. If they had done so, they would not have met the standards and would therefore have paid the resulting fines. Some of the European manufacturers have done this - and the last time I checked, they were not near bankruptcy. The Big Three made a point of making sure that their fleet averages meet CAFE standards, which prevented them from paying these fines (for both public relations purposes and to prevent shareholder lawsuits). So much for the thesis that ignoring CAFE is what has driven them to the brink. kdhsypder: 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. I understand perfectly - when the original goal is not met, a new one is invented to cover up its failure. I'm surprised that no one has argued that CAFE was meant to cure erectile dysfunction or help the Biggest Loser contestants lose weight, although I'm sure that if the discussion continues long enough... kdhsypder: 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. kdhspyder, please come to Harrisburg, and we can go the Widener School of Law Library and pull the issue of the Congressional Record where the original CAFE law was debated. It contains speechs from supporters as to why the original law was enacted. I'm sorry that it has failed in those regards, but you would do better to ask why we should support something that has clearly failed in the original mission, not to mention the missions du jour that supporters have dreamed up to mask its failure. That's better than stoning the messenger for pointing out that the CAFE Emperor is stark naked.  kdhspyder: '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. Yes, it was the one where you were predicting gasoline shortages and resulting mayhem in the streets by 2015 and $5 a gallon by this May. I just bought gas yesterday. It was $2.35 a gallon. So much for that prediction... kdhsypder: From your entire prior post you acknowledge the advancement in the marketplace of more fuel efficient vehicles. Agreed, it's undeniable. Yes, it had been happening since 1965. CAFE went into effect in 1977. Is CAFE now responsible for increased economy gains and the movement to smaller vehicles BEFORE it went into effect? That's quite a stretch! kdhspyder: 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. Which is supported by history and market trends since 1965. kdhspyder; 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. GM, Ford and Chrysler met the original standards. They specifically made sure that they avoided paying CAFE fines, unlike some foreign manufacturers. Since when is this synonomous with digging in their heels? What you are upset about is that they lobbied against increasing the standards. As did Mercedes, Toyota, BMW and others. Are Mercedes, BMW and Toyota fossilized relics, too? Your argument based on corporate goodwill toward the nation fails in the face of reality. If consumers want more fuel efficient vehicles, manufacturers will give it to them. I see no evidence that people who buy Accords or Corollas or Fusions, for example, are unhappy with the mileage of their vehicles. What you are upset about is that some purchasers are willing to make other trade-offs in fuel economy for performance, room, cargo capacity, etc. They don't want a Fit; they want a Silverado. When you make their vehicle payments for them, and show that you know more about vehicles than they do, then feel free to dictate their choices. Until then, it's best to leave them make their own decisions.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (May 27, 2009 7:07 am) Just an aside, but Porsche is in trouble. Paying CAFE fines probably hasn't helped any. (link). Welcome back. 
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?
