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
|
For one, I would give up the idea that increased fuel taxes are a viable alternative to CAFE. It won't happen, not because it doesn't make economic sense (a fuel tax would be the best way to incentivize reduced fuel consumption), but because it would be political suicide for any politician in the US, whether Dem or Republican, to support such a thing. Not only would the electorate rebel, but the automotive lobby would strenuously oppose it, and would surely bankroll an ad campaign that would help to kill off any such proposal, along with whoever had the courage/foolishness to support it. The problem with CAFE is that it never accomplished its intended goal -- to force the Big 2.5 to build a high quality small car. Instead of working hard to comply with the word and spirit of CAFE, the Detroit automakers have done everything possible to take the teeth out of it in order to make it a non-issue. And rather than step up to the plate by building a great small car that could compete on its own merits against Toyota, etc., it sought instead to build pretty bad small cars, and to dump them by selling them into fleets. As a result, not only does Detroit make minimal money on small car sales, but those cars help to feed Detroit's reputation for poor quality, which in turns hurts their market share. So it has been a double whammy that didn't have to happen, but was bound to happen when Big 2.5 management is intent on shooting itself in the foot. Talk about taking a potential opportunity, and turning it into yet another failing. At this point, I would simply increase the CAFE requirements. The electorate won't care, so the only ones left to protest it would be the lobbyists who could be end run in this case by most politicians outside of Michigan. Meanwhile, as truck and SUV sales decline, Detroit may have no choice but to build decent small cars if they wish to comply with strengthened rules, so perhaps some improved products might come from the effort. I have my doubts about this working, because the management of these firms seems so inept and shortsighted, and I'm not exactly a huge fan of CAFE, but I can't think of a better alternative that would actually pass political muster. |
|
|
|
|
it was recently in the news here in California that they have actually put a bill on the agenda this year, sponsored by CARB, that would levy gas taxes for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (ie burning less gas!). Now this is California only, of course, and there has been no news since so I don't know the fate of that bill - there probably isn't one yet, as it's early in the year. But if it passes here, I will be very interested to see if the other states that follow California emissions standards mimic the tax, and if so, if it ever makes it to a national action. Anyway, tax and incentivize is perhaps not the only way to fix this problem. But clearly the latest CAFE "reform" is one more in a long line of sad little jokes, so it isn't going to accomplish anything. Perhaps there are other alternatives to it besides a gas tax? |
|
|
I recall reading a few years ago that GM supported higher gas taxes, and I seem to recall William Clay Ford, Jr., also coming out in favor of this method of encouraging conservation. They felt that if gas prices were higher, their companies would be assured a ready audience for more fuel-efficient vehicles. CAFE places all of the risk on the manufacturers...they can design a vehicle for maximum efficiency, but with that focus comes certain compromises, and low gas prices do not encourage buyers to pay for those compromises. Higher gas prices encourage buyers to give more weight to fuel efficiency (look at what last year's run-up in gas prices did to mid-size SUV sales). Most Americans still equate size with status and price. I remember looking at an Opel Astra in Germany in 2004 (about the size of a Cobalt). Converted to dollars, it would have sold for about $26,000 in the U.S. Granted, it was beautifully styled and finished, but not too many Americans (at least, not the 250,000+ GM needs to make it a profitable product) would pony up that much for a Cobalt-sized car, especially one with a Chevy badge. |
|
|
|
|
taxes make up half the price of gas, and I don't think anything that drastic should happen here. But all the folks who say wearily "just try to find the suicidal politician that would dare propose gas taxes" might be thinking 1995 a bit too much. This isn't the roaring 90s any more. This is the fearful '00s. A lot of people really buy into the notion that importing oil from terrorism hotbeds is a bad idea. You push that with your gas tax. There is a growing awareness that global warming isn't just talk or the fodder for movies, and that cars and trucks are a BIG contributor, for which less fuel consumption would be a perfect solution. And then there is the HUGE backlog of overdue highway maintenance in this country. You could remind people when you instituted a gas tax that all the extra revenues would be going to highway repair. Plus, if you present it to the automakers this way, using the arguments grbeck mentioned about no longer forcing them into a devil's choice with the ridiculous CAFE, they are likely not to oppose it in their typical knee-jerk fashion. This is only impossible if we say it is and don't try. |
|
|
|
|
I hold CAFE rules responsible for the minvans and SUVs. Families could no longer get the big station wagons they thought the needed to haul the family on vacation once a year, so they bought trucks, which were not included in the CAFE rules. In the engineering world, we call that an unintended consequence. Overall, CAFEmay have done more harm than good. Turboshadow
|
|
|
|
|
with the latest round of "CAFE reforms", automakers will simply expand the use of crew cab family haulers with an open bed, a la Avalanche and SportTrac, in order to get around the latest regs that will now force them to improve the fuel economy of their precious SUVs, or be fined for failing to do so. And automakers will once again side-step CAFE regulations, and a new "crew cab" boom will replace the "SUV boom" of the 90s. And who knows what new variations this will spawn: automakers have MUCH more imagination when they are trying to create vehicles that sidestep CAFE regs, than they apply to trying to improve the fuel economy of their fleets. |
|
|
Replying to: turboshadow (Mar 29, 2006 5:00 am) The large station wagons were really not bigger or better than minivans for space. In the 60's, the VW bus was the only minivan. Big vans were/became available, but were more trucklike and burned a lot of fuel. The minivan had decent fuel economy and reasonable space. |
|
|
Replying to: sls002 (Mar 27, 2006 9:14 am) Last time I checked, there's no railroad line running to my back door, so don't write off the big rigs just yet.  Basically, the railroads and the trucking industry need each other. As for taxing vehicles by weight, I don't think that's very fair, because some larger vehicles might get better fuel economy than some smaller ones. And when you consider that roads are generally designed to support at least the weight of a school bus, garbage truck, etc, the difference between a 2000 pound Metro and a 5000 lb SUV, which is also going to have larger tires, a longer wheelbase, and wider track to spread the weight out, is practically nil. Definitely close that 8500 lb GVWR loophole, though. And even though it would cause me to pay more, close the loopholes for trucks in general. There's no reason that my 1985 Silverado should cost LESS to register every two years than my 2000 Intrepid! Also, maybe a distinction could be made between commercial vehicles and privately-owned vehicles, to help close the truck fuel economy loophole. And definitely change it so that things like the PT Cruiser, Magnum, Legacy, etc, don't get classified as trucks!
|
|
|
|
that's part of their proposal - only pick-ups with an open bed at the rear will be exempted from the "new" CAFE regulations, as long as they meet some minimum outside dimensions (size, not weight). Which is why I say that of course, all this means is that carmakers will find new and innovative ways to build large vehicles consumers want, that happen to have some type of small open bed at the rear. And voila! Another loophole will have been created. 
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Mar 29, 2006 10:15 am) Hmmm, maybe Subaru jumped the gun in canning the Baja? Naaaah!  I wonder if this loophole might make vehicles with a convertible-type rear popular? I'm thinking along the lines of those old Studebaker wagons (Wagonaire?) with the retractable roof, or the more recent GMC Envoy that could do it. Or even something like those old Broncos, Blazers, and Ramchargers that had the removeable rear part of the roof.
|
|
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
