Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Dealers Want President Trump To Ease Fuel Economy Standards

      It isn't automakers who want the stricter fuel economy and emission regulations for 2025 to be relaxed

    Since President Donald Trump was elected, automakers have been pushing for him to relax the stricter fuel economy and emission regulations coming into effect by 2025. Now there is another group calling for this.

    At the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) annual conference, dealers voiced support for the new president ease the upcoming regulations. 

    "You inflate the price of the vehicle and a car that was maybe within reach of being affordable now may not be," said NADA's new chairman, Mark Scarpelli to Reuters.

    Scarpelli argues that the tech needed to improve fuel economy adds $1,500 to $3,000 to the price of a vehicle. He also says that a "different phase-in period" for the regulations would be welcomed.

    The big argument dealers are using is the regulations would cause automakers to build vehicles that buyers aren't interested in.

    "They've got to make regulation more in line with consumer demand so (the automakers) can build what people want and not what the government’s telling them they have to build," said Pete DeLongchamps, vice president of Group 1 Automotive Inc.

    Source: Reuters

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I think they will get a break from the 2025 standard but the companies are not going to go back to building more V8 models etc. They need to meet the needs globally and California. I expect them just needed a break from the crazy standard we have hanging out there that just can not be met with present technology that anyone would be willing to pay for in large numbers. 

    The EV needs to continue to improve to fill the gap on the Cafe. As of now it is still too expensive and limited in areas that the average buyer is willing to accept. 

    Once a EV is to the point people do not have to change their routine or lifestyle then it is ready for prime time. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A delay to 2030 could help them.  By then I'd imagine electric will be in a lot of powertrains, whether full EV or plug in hybrid of some sort.  I see no reason to lower the CAFE number, but perhaps give them another 5 years to get there, and get cost down to where the market will buy these hybrids.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    52 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    A delay to 2030 could help them.  By then I'd imagine electric will be in a lot of powertrains, whether full EV or plug in hybrid of some sort.  I see no reason to lower the CAFE number, but perhaps give them another 5 years to get there, and get cost down to where the market will buy these hybrids.

    I agree push it to 2030 and let them continue to drive the EV.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yeah, I wouldn't back off the 54 mpg CAFE number though and I'd make crossovers the same as cars.  People buy RAV4 as a replacement for a Camry, they should be treated the same with CAFE.  Something like a Transit or F150 I can see under a truck standard.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    regardless of whether engines are small and tiny or turbo or have ten speeds, the vehicle weight means as much to FE.  And we've done all we can for awhile in weight savings and tiny turbos.  I'd rather see some tax incentives to push more volt type vehicles in addition to leveling out the FE and emissions standards for awhile.  Maybe give some tax credits for continued FE improvements rather than mandates.

     

    a 4000 pound sedan with a 7.5 second 0-60 in 2000 vs. 2016 probably ends up with the same real world FE anyways.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    I would freeze emissions standards and drop fuel mileage requirements entirely.  Let people decide what to drive.

    I almost agree with this.....but we have quite far already-might be time to slow it down for a while.

    There will still be improvements, but let's let the tech out there become a bit more common- and she how well it holds up long term.

     

    I see plenty of turbo'd cars out there....but the engines require a bit more care than a regular one. I've seen quite a few abused Cruzes already, for example.....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Some of the people will demand fuel economy, some will demand power.  Everyone is different.  Everyone should have what they want.  Better for business.  Better for the U.S. economy as a whole.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Automakers are building for a global market. While we can pause the CAFE here companies will still have to continue to improve it. 

    They need to just slow the time line down and make it fit the global plan more so we can help these automakers not have to make special cars for some countries. This is all they are asking for with the US movement. 

    Really if you take Germany. USA and Japan and get them all to agree it will fix about 90% of the problems. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Do not forget that some large markets like India and China have such bad pollution problems that EV will be the future, Hybrids a stepping stone and auto makers will have to build as Hyperv6 states for the global market and not just the tiny US market anymore.

    Days of the US dictates the market are over.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • It's amazing how a leather wrapped steering wheel changes the experience at the wheel for the better (it seems to make for an almost different car from the model with a urethane steering wheel).
    • Another thing to think on is the evidence bullet proof? Sadly, the same type of people who have said an eye for an eye, death penalty if you took a life have convicted others with hate in their heart only to have science prove the convicted innocent.  In this regards I wish all guns had palm / finger tip readers to confirm who last fired the gun. While others might say the death penalty is cruel, how is it when the person if proved beyond a reasonable doubt took a life? What about serial killers who are sitting for life, a burden on society in jail because folks feel there should be no death penalty and yet they took multiple lives themselves. Would it not be better for society if that person was no longer around, a burden on the tax payers? Many good questions to be asked. Lets take this a step further, auto makers who due to a focus on profits take shortcuts on safety of an auto, who should be held accountable for the deaths related to their products and how do you hold them accountable? An example of profit before safety, FORD PINTO Details of the Pinto's flawed fuel system: Location and construction: The sheet-metal gas tank was placed behind the rear axle, a design common at the time, but the Pinto's tank was made with exceptionally thin walls. It was held in place by two metal straps. Vulnerable parts: During rear-end impacts, bolts protruding from the differential housing could puncture the thin-walled tank. Additionally, the fuel-filler neck could tear away from the tank itself. Internal cost analysis: Internal Ford documents revealed that engineers were aware of the risks in pre-production crash tests and considered inexpensive fixes, including adding a rubber bladder to the tank. Alternative designs rejected: Engineers considered safer alternative designs, such as placing the tank above the axle (a design used on the Ford Capri), but this was rejected due to cost and styling constraints. Final design choice: Executives opted not to make these changes after a cost-benefit analysis concluded it would be cheaper to pay out potential lawsuits and settlements than to implement the repairs.  So who do you hold accountable for the deaths?
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search