Ask the Car People.SM


Your Thoughts Regarding The New 54.5 MPG Mandate

158 messages,  Last post on Nov 05, 2012 at 2:02 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Legislation

Messages Page 6 of 16

#48 of 158 Re: Cost [bobw3] by andre1969

Sep 06, 2012 (7:21 am)

Replying to: bobw3 (Sep 06, 2012 6:51 am)
There's always a cost...there was an increased cost in adding seatbelts, anti-lock brakes, traction control, etc for safety. A cost for power windows, mirrors, etc... on just about every new car out there. A cost for all of the emissions controls. And there will be a cost to improve MPG.
 
Those costs tend to go down with time, too, as those things you mention become more widespread and common. Back in 1980, my Mom bought a new Malibu coupe that cost about $7,000 out the door. So I'd guess that meant it was around $6500 plus tax, tags, etc.
 
Adjusting for inflation, that $6500 would be about $18,000 today. The 2013 Malibu starts at $22,390 MSRP. So, if you pay MSRP for one, that represents a $4,390 increase over the 1980 model.
 
But, the $4390 gets you power windows, power locks, a much better sound system, tilt wheel, cruise control, alloy wheels (Mom's just had steel wheels and hubcaps, although you could get steel rally wheels as an option), reclining seats, extra lighting, a tach, trip computer, ABS, traction control, airbags up the wazoo, a 6-speed automatic (versus a 3-speed in Mom's car), and a 2.5 4-cyl that has 197 hp and 191 ft-lb of torque, versus the old 229 2-bbl in Mom's car that had 115 hp and something like 175 ft-lb of torque.
 
Working backwards, that $22,390 would come out to around $8,053 in 1980 dollars. I'm sure you could easily spec out a 1980 Malibu to come out to an MSRP of $8,053 just by adding all the options options of the era that are standard today. So then, all the technical advances that didn't exist in 1980, like the ABS, airbags, better engine/tranny etc, are almost like freebies thrown in.
 
I think the biggest cost of the new technology is going to be years down the road, when it starts to break. Instead of $600-800 for a new transmission, you could be looking at $4000 or more. The plus side is that it might take much longer to break down. But, when it does, it's going to be more likely to total the car.

#49 of 158 Re: Cost [andre1969] by lemko

Sep 06, 2012 (8:03 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 06, 2012 7:21 am)
I think the biggest cost of the new technology is going to be years down the road, when it starts to break. Instead of $600-800 for a new transmission, you could be looking at $4000 or more. The plus side is that it might take much longer to break down. But, when it does, it's going to be more likely to total the car.
 
For that reason alone, I believe my 1989 Cadillac Brougham will outlive my 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance. Think about something like an Audi A8 - an exquisitely made car that will be totalled by something as stupid as a fried circuit board.

#50 of 158 Re: Cost [bobw3] by hpmctorque

Sep 06, 2012 (8:13 am)

Replying to: bobw3 (Sep 06, 2012 6:51 am)
Your implied conclusion that the tradeoffs associated with the new mileage standard are positive may be right...or wrong. As your message and andre's (next message) illustrate is that there are so many variables that you can spin the conclusion either way. For example, if gas goes to $5, and average gas mileage increases, is it because of government regulations or because auto companies respond to consumer demand for more economical vehicles?

#51 of 158 Re: Cost [hpmctorque] by bobw3

Sep 06, 2012 (9:35 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 06, 2012 8:13 am)
"For example, if gas goes to $5, and average gas mileage increases, is it because of government regulations or because auto companies respond to consumer demand for more economical vehicles?"
 
It really doesn't matter as long as the MPG increases...either from consumer demand or govenment regulation...the result of MPG increasing is the same. The difference is that the government mandate would get the MPG improvements quicker as compared to just waiting for consumer demand.
 
I think the future will be plug-in hybrids, especially with smart electric meters that charge less for overnight usage. Battery technology is improving and the price is coming down. The tricky part of plug-ins is in trying to calculate an MPG, because it's hard to factor/estimate the miles driven solely on the car's battery that was charged while plugged-in at home.

#52 of 158 Cost may be "sportiness" by ateixeira

Sep 06, 2012 (11:11 am)

The real cost may be sportiness.
 
The added weight of batteries, KERS systems, coupled with tiny forced induction engines that just aren't as responsive as N/A engines they replace, could mean fun goes out the window.
 
I read that the next Miata might use a 1.3l turbo with 200hp. Sure peak power is good, but throttle responsiveness will be gone. That's a point-and-shoot type of car, if you don't get quick response coming out of curves, the whole car is pointless.
 
I realize newer turbos are better, but they still have to build boost.
 
When it arrives I'd love to see not just 0-60 runs but also autocross times compared.
 
If they use batteries instead of turbos, for hybrid assist, you still have to carry around a lot of extra weight.
 
Either way the result isn't as sporty. Oh well, I can always keep mine.

#53 of 158 Re: Cost [andre1969] by busiris

Sep 06, 2012 (1:42 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 06, 2012 7:21 am)
"going to be more likely to total the car"...
 
If you look at how cars are constructed today .vs. as recent as 25 years ago, you see how much we've moved towards the recycle-ability of car components.
 
No one really cared about that back in the 1970's, other than possibly the steel and other metal components.
 
It's going to be a paradigm shift, for sure. In 100 years, there will still be Model T's, Model A's and 1939 and 1957 Chevrolets, but it's highly unlikely one will see many 1986 Chrysler minivans or 2012 Buick Verano's.
 
Simply put, new vehicles are constructed with a much shorter lifespan curve than those made when I was a kid (I'm almost 58 now). And, it's intentional.
 
Personally, I see exponentially less cars belching blue smoke as they tool on down the road today than I did 20 years ago. The repair/replacement threshold is quite different now.
 
So, I think you're correct. It's a way to keep fairly-recent technology dominating the drivable car "fleet".

#54 of 158 Re: Cost [andre1969] by berri

Sep 06, 2012 (5:42 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 06, 2012 7:21 am)
I sure don't believe the government number estimates. When they started getting heavily involved in cars back in the 70's costs shot up way past estimates as quality also declined from the automakers trying to cut corners on product to help offset all of the gov regulation costs.
 
I think you are right that the learning curve comes into play and over time the cost spike will smooth out some. But remember that in the 80's there was another influence on Detroit pricing - Japanese imports. To a large extent, I think we're already getting to the very high costs of auto repair and parts that you talk about. Not just technology driven, but the whole nature of industry pricing has changed forcing dealers to increase reliance on service shop profits to offset declining new car sales margins.

#55 of 158 Re: Mpg [hpmctorque] ...cost doesn't matter by wilcox

Sep 06, 2012 (6:34 pm)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 05, 2012 7:01 pm)
If you'd expect different, then let us remember that these targets are being pronounced by the 'Government Employed'. They make rich salaries and are not hard hit by recessions. They don't give a flip how much extra it costs to achieve their mandates....

#56 of 158 in favor of higher mpg by benjaminh

Sep 06, 2012 (7:15 pm)

I'm glad that because of higher mpg we won't be sending hundreds of billions of dollars to certain countries in the middle east. Glad we can keep the money here at home.

#57 of 158 Re: in favor of higher mpg [benjaminh] by ateixeira

Sep 07, 2012 (9:17 am)

Replying to: benjaminh (Sep 06, 2012 7:15 pm)
Aren't they saying we'll cut imports from OPEC countries by some amazing amount?

Messages Page 6 of 16

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement