Unbearable Lightness?

[ocnblu]

Whoever said Europe already meets our 2016 standard misses the point entirely. I do NOT want the US auto fleet to resemble Europe's, and based on our entire history up to now, neither do the vast majority of Americans.

Dwight takes the WIN in this thread with his completely correct and well-thought out post.

THE MARKET MUST DECIDE the product mix. It is the only way the automakers can survive! I've been saying that for years in response to boondoggle CAFE laws.

[pow]

THE MARKET MUST DECIDE the product mix. It is the only way the automakers can survive! I've been saying that for years in response to boondoggle CAFE laws.

IMO, current CAFE regs don't dictate product mix. Consumers will continue to choose what types of vehicles they want. It's more about having better fuel economy across the board for each of these vehicle segments through technology and engineering tweaks. There will still be trucks and full-size SUVs, since manufacturers of those vehicles have a lower MPG target than one that makes small cars, but they will have aero tweaks, lower resistance tires (which don't ruin performance, by the way), direct injection, 6+ speed transmissions, etc.

[loki]

Whoever said Europe already meets our 2016 standard misses the point entirely. I do NOT want the US auto fleet to resemble Europe's, and based on our entire history up to now, neither do the vast majority of Americans.

Dwight takes the WIN in this thread with his completely correct and well-thought out post.

THE MARKET MUST DECIDE the product mix. It is the only way the automakers can survive! I've been saying that for years in response to boondoggle CAFE laws.

first point, the fact that Smart has done... decently? i guess... now of course it might just be how different the product is from others, so i'd have to say our "market" is open to new ideas, even european ones

i agree otherwise. if you make vehicles that aren't good or people don't like for whatever reason, they won't sell and the manufacturer has to change or loose it's business.

[David]

This will just make me hold onto my SUV's that much longer and keep them running rather than go and buy a paper light vehicle that would cost my family their life when they get hit by a Semi.

Market dynamics is what should justify product, never the government. I might just have to look into how I can change my suburban over to an electric system with a tiny little Diesel generator to help it drive.

Think about this, you take one 4x4 suburban. Replace ithe power train with 4 powerfull water proof electric motors, one at each wheel and then put in a nice size Lithum Ion battery pack and a solid DI 4 stroke diesel generator so that you can have a decent 500 to 600 mile drive and you have a very nice Green setup.

[Camino LS6]

CAFE is moronic and ineffective.

Time to dump it.

[regfootball]

Also, the US blocks the import of Brazilian cane ethanol and insists on subsidizing the Iowa-grown garbage to the hilt.

they subsidize the corn and the sugar here so everyone can eat as much sugar as they can handle. .lol

[regfootball]

My take of CAFE is to simply ignore it.

Let me explain... I am not against fuel efficiency. It is prudent to have fuel sipping offerings in a manufacturers line up in case fuel prices sky rocket and consumers flock to such vehicles as a 3~4 year development cycle is too long for an adjust on demand strategy. Having said that, the market should be the mechanism that decides what vehicles are built and in what numbers, not ideologues in Washington DC or some one's theory on "corporate social responsibility".

The way the CAFE law is written, there is nothing preventing automakers from completely ignoring it and still manufacture and sell cars. All it stipulates is a $5.50 penalty per 0.1 mpg per car manufactured if the manufacture does not meet CAFE standards. Let's put that into perspective...

Let's say the CAFE standard is 36 mpg. And you come up short at a 31 mpg (GM is currently at 31.3 BTW, Ford is at 31.1). What this means is that every car hitting the showrooms will carry a (36-31) x 10 x 5.50 = $275 CAFE "tax". That's all there is to it.

Now, what I recommend is that a manufacturer should have a full range of vehicles -- all designed to what they believe each segment of consumers want based on their best market research and understanding. They should then manufacture the vehicles in numbers, again, based solely on consumer demand. As for CAFE? They should let it fall where it may. However, to be fair, I'll amortize the entire CAFE tab only on those vehicles over CAFE mpg ratings. Beyond that, let's allow the market to decide. If you are a Global Warming coolaid drinker, prefer fuel economy over performance or if that couple of hundred dollars make or break your buying decision, buy the cars under CAFE ratings with no surcharge. If you want that Corvette or Tahoe? Well, they are there for you at a few hundred dollars more courtesy of Congress (and clearly marked as such on the sticker).

What an automobile manufacturer shouldn't be doing is making cars around the artificial CAFE standard -- performance cars that don't perform as well as they otherwise would, big SUVs that isn't as big as their buyers prefer, trucks that don't tow as much as their owners want, family cars with engines less refined due to reduced cylinder count, or saddle every buyer with "green technology" which they don't care for and don't want to pay for. They should also not gate production volume of various models to meet CAFE and end up with under supplying certain models and oversupplying others (which then leads to an unhealthy combination of heavy premiums and generous discounting).

I say the above based on the following premise:-

• It is perfectly legal to ignore CAFE.
  
• The CAFE penalty is small compared to the selling price of vehicles.
  
• It may cost more to meet CAFE that pass on the penalty.
  
• It is fundamentally unhealthy to the bottom line to meet the ideologies of the political class rather than market demands.
  

ROCK STAR

only one problem is the slippery slope of CAFE fines, it is essentially then a new tax, and i see them 'raising the tax rate' over time if people go outside it too often....the penalty could become huge over time....

[Lamar]

Dwight's analysis is spot-on.

One question though... would your proposed CAFE tax replace the present gas-guzzler tax?

Or would it not matter since many vehicles (e.g. CTS-V, any SRT- subject to the gas-guzzler tax aren't on CAFE's radar anyway?