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
|
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
|
If people want small cars they will buy them if not why is the solution always to tax people more? And just what does cutting our income do for our lifestyle? This might not be 1995 and people might be fearful of the future but doesn't higher gas prices do the very same thing a suggested tax would? So if the gas prices are already higher and you add a tax does it hurt the average person more than the upper middle class? No because some people will get a car allowance that increases by mile based on the cost to drive per mile. My neighbor working two jobs and having to drive to both will spend a bigger portion of his income on his transportation expenses than I will considering I only have to drive to work and back and have a company car using company gas. This kind of problem is not solved by taxing the "other" guy because we are taxing ourselves. Every thinking politician has got to realize this just doesn't work. CAFE doesn't work, and never has. CARB doesn't work and never has. If you ask why, deep inside you already know the answer. It is a political solution and by nature is too cumbersome to succeed. We have tried the CAFE and CARB solutions for more than 30 years and it has gone nowhere. Maybe we should for once just let the market decide what we drive and what we buy. It works in just about every other commodity from food to cloths it just might work for cars. Drop CAFE and CARB and see what happens, or are we afraid of the free market?
|
|
|
|
|
tell me how it works. Really. Food: we get half of our produce from abroad now, places 10,000 miles away in some cases, even though we have some of the richest most fertile soil in the world right here at home. Why? Because they can do it cheaper. And so we employ more and more illegals here every year even as farmers scrape their pennies together, trying to stay in business. Clothes: 12-year-old children halfway around the world beg for the privilege of working 12-hour days for $1 so that we can spend $49.95 at Sears on a pair of jeans. Meanwhile, the textile industry is gone in the U.S., and clothing manufacture is just about extinct here too. A perfect microcosm of what is now happening to one of the last manufacturing bastions of U.S. industry - the automakers. The free market does nothing but accelerate the spiral to the bottom, kind sir. That is why some controls are required, and indeed, the U.S. economy has never been close to a "free market" for its entire history. Right now we are like the fat kid in the pantry, busily chomping his way through all the food (he started with the candy!). Ask the kid what he will do when the food is all gone and you will get no answer. He doesn't care - he is way too busy stuffing his face to address such "mundane" questions.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 03, 2006 9:26 am) I agree there has to be a solution but I don't see tossing money at the problem as that solution. Lets try another tack. Why aren't people buying the smaller cars CAFE and CARB have supported? What has kept bigger cars ahead of the pack? I don't think we can say that it is because we a just a whole pack of greedy dirt bags. And if it is National greed why would a politician go against his or her voter base? And if as you say we have never been a free market how would we know it won't work? We haven't tried it. We know CARB and CAFE don't work. If we want to keep them maybe we should toss everyone that has anything to do with them today and start over will all new people? We both see the problem, I just see taxing people as more of the same old solution. If we need to make rules then make them laws so we can all vote on it. Taxes are most often just a way to get passed the voter. In my opinion my friend. 
|
|
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
