Sign in to follow this  
Variance

New CAFE rules could backfire

10 posts in this topic

Variance    0

New CAFE rules could backfire

Automakers may have an incentive to build bigger trucks

Harry Stoffer | | Automotive News / April 3, 2006 - 6:00 am

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration insists that its new fuel economy rules will force SUVs, pickups and minivans to get better gasoline mileage. But skeptics wonder whether the Law of Unintended Consequences will overtake that goal.

Critics say the new standards could encourage automakers to build bigger trucks, potentially wiping out the promised fuel savings. That's because the standards set different fuel economy targets for different-sized light trucks.

The classifications are based on the area bounded by a truck's four wheels, called its "footprint." The bigger the footprint, the lower the mileage requirement.

The new rules also impose a unique fuel economy standard on each automaker, based on its product mix. They amount to the biggest structural change in the 30-year history of the federal corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, program.

For example, the rules set a target for the Hummer H3 of 24.16 mpg by the 2011 model year. That's 4 mpg more than the EPA estimate of the H3's current fuel economy. Such an improvement likely would require changes in the H3's powertrain, aerodynamics and weight.

But if Hummer were to add two inches of track width and four inches of wheelbase to the H3, the vehicle's fuel economy target would drop by about 1 mpg.

Claybrook weighs in

"The complex new sliding scale and the secrecy of automakers' product plans will submerge any accountability for achieving fuel savings in an oil slick of confusion," says Joan Claybrook, president of the consumer group Public Citizen and a former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The new rules, she says, give car companies an incentive "to cut out more efficient vehicles altogether."

John Johnson is an engineering professor at Michigan Technological University. He sat on a National Research Council panel that in 2001 proposed changes to CAFE along the lines that U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced last week.

Johnson says he doesn't advocate manipulation of truck sizes but expects that to happen. That is how automakers respond to regulation, he says.

"You try to figure out how to optimize the rules for you," Johnson told Automotive News.

The new standards for light trucks will take effect for the 2008 model year. Overall, they require fuel economy improvements of about 10 percent, to an average of 24 mpg in 2011.

For 2006, the light-truck standard is 21.6 mpg; for 2007 it's 22.2 mpg. The car standard stays at 27.5 mpg.

A Ford Escape, with a footprint of 43.5 square feet, will have a fuel economy target of 27.32 mpg, NHTSA says. A Ford F-150 SuperCab, with a footprint of 75.8 square feet, has a target of 21.81 mpg.

NHTSA projects that BMW, which mostly builds small and medium-sized SUVs, will have to meet a 2011 truck fleet standard of 25.8 mpg. For General Motors, which makes more large trucks, the standard would be 23.2 mpg.

No backstop

Roland Hwang, vehicles policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, says his group and others asked Bush administration officials for a "backstop" provision. It would have required a certain level of improvement by each automaker, regardless of product mix.

"They rejected that, of course," Hwang says. With lax standards and no backstop, he says, "there is a danger and an incentive to continue to upsize the fleet."

Chris Preuss, GM's public policy spokesman, says his company is unlikely to enlarge vehicles just to meet the new fuel economy standards. He notes that automakers will not have to make every vehicle hit its CAFE target.

Instead, Preuss says, fuel economy standards still will be based on averaging. A company can continue to build a higher volume of a vehicle that exceeds its target to offset sales of a vehicle of another size that misses its target, he says.

GM "will meet our obligation" to comply with CAFE, Preuss says.

Acting NHTSA Administrator Jacqueline Glassman estimates that the new rules will add about $200 to the customer's cost of a vehicle in 2011. A consumer would recover that amount in four years from fuel savings, she says.

Steve Kratzke, NHTSA's associate administrator, was a key developer of the regulations. He says there could be safety benefits if automakers move wheels farther out to the corners of new vehicles. Researchers say that vehicles with wider stances are less prone to roll over.

Link: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...3/1003&refsect=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carman21    7

Let's just drop the rules so people go back to full-size cars. The only reason for the reign of the SUV is due to CAFE. :banghead: CAFE has actually increased the consumption of fuel by the average American. :duh: Figure that a V-8 equiped Full-size sedan will get better MPG than a V-6 Midsize SUV or even a midsize CUV. I think that the CAFE program is a total failure. :nono::stupid:

If we really want to change things. The governent should take money from CAFE & the EPA and use to promote Ethanol & Biodiesel to replace Gasoline & Diesel. Then, Hydrogen is next for gov't support.

Edited by carman21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snate    0

CAFE in itself is dumb. All it does in penalize companies for providing what the consumer wants.

The best thing to do is revise the EPA testing procedures, then establish a reasonable fuel goal (one for light trucks and one for cars) and then simply add a "gas guzzler" type tax to those vehicles that do not meet the reasonable standards. You can grant a few exemptions for work type trucks but otherwise if consumers want the bigger vehicles they are gonna have to fork over the extra dough...car or truck. If they don't want them...then the manufacturers are going to have to improve the fuel efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hudson    16

Stupid...they should just have one standard for "light-trucks"

The problem with that is that many light-trucks are used for commercial applications and need more powerful (and potentially less efficient) engines. The rules were initially set up to favor trucks because of these commercial truck owners. Inadvertedly, CAFE created "passenger trucks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goblue1999    0

Stupid...they should just have one standard for "light-trucks"

I couldn't disagree more.

The market imposes its own standards. If people want fuel efficient vehicles, they will demonstrate that through their purchases, and manufacturers will meet their needs.

The FEDs should get their grubby hands out of this too, the people can vote with their wallets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snate    0

The problem with that is that many light-trucks are used for commercial applications and need more powerful (and potentially less efficient) engines. The rules were initially set up to favor trucks because of these commercial truck owners. Inadvertedly, CAFE created "passenger trucks."

You can grant a few exemptions for work type trucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snate    0

I couldn't disagree more.

The market imposes its own standards.  If people want fuel efficient vehicles, they will demonstrate that through their purchases, and manufacturers will meet their needs.

The FEDs should get their grubby hands out of this too, the people can vote with their wallets.

I'm not arguing the merit of CAFE regulations...what I'm saying is that its dumb to let a vehicles size determine its fuel regulations. Making one standard ensures that doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew Dowdell    5,000

I couldn't disagree more.

The market imposes its own standards.  If people want fuel efficient vehicles, they will demonstrate that through their purchases, and manufacturers will meet their needs.

The FEDs should get their grubby hands out of this too, the people can vote with their wallets.

unfortunately, people are stupid and greedy.

They feel they should be able to waste as much gasoline as they want and it should be 79 cents a gallon. The true cost of SUVS is much higher then the purchase price. The damage to the roads and enviroment is substantially greater than a sedan with little to no reflection of that damage translated directly back to the consumer.

I say this as an Avalanche driver. I need the truck to run my company, but I'm also very careful to only drive it when I specifically need it. Grocery runs or leisure travel are all done in a much smaller, more efficient car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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.

Sign in to follow this