William Maley

Industry News: Dealers Want President Trump To Ease Fuel Economy Standards

11 posts in this topic

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


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.....

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Most new cars and trucks sitting on dealer lots have fuel economy estimates on their window sticker. The only group of vehicles that don't are heavy-duty trucks. This is due to the EPA not requiring automakers to publish estimates on trucks with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. This makes it difficult for folks to compare the heavy-duty trucks with one another or comparing the diesel variants with the light-duty gas versions. Consumer Reports doesn't believe it should be this way and is working on an effort to change this.
      Consumer Reports recently tested a Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD, Ford F-250 Super Duty, and Ram 2500 equipped with their optional diesel engines to gauge fuel economy and compare it to their light-duty gas counterparts. Their results show the HD trucks were 1 to 2 MPGs lower than their light-duty counterparts. Of course, you might be saying, that's because heavy-duty trucks have more weight to move. Also, most buyers who are going for this type of truck tend to know what they're getting into.
      Heavy-duty trucks begin to show their advantage when it comes to intense workloads, becoming more efficient than a similarly-equipped gas truck.
      Still, we think heavy-duty trucks should have fuel economy estimates to help buyers when it comes time to purchase a heavy-duty truck.
      “Heavy-duty pickup shoppers shouldn't be left in the dark when it comes to fuel economy,” said David Friedman, director of cars and product policy and analysis for Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports. 
      Source: Consumer Reports, Letter to Congress (PDF)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Most new cars and trucks sitting on dealer lots have fuel economy estimates on their window sticker. The only group of vehicles that don't are heavy-duty trucks. This is due to the EPA not requiring automakers to publish estimates on trucks with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. This makes it difficult for folks to compare the heavy-duty trucks with one another or comparing the diesel variants with the light-duty gas versions. Consumer Reports doesn't believe it should be this way and is working on an effort to change this.
      Consumer Reports recently tested a Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD, Ford F-250 Super Duty, and Ram 2500 equipped with their optional diesel engines to gauge fuel economy and compare it to their light-duty gas counterparts. Their results show the HD trucks were 1 to 2 MPGs lower than their light-duty counterparts. Of course, you might be saying, that's because heavy-duty trucks have more weight to move. Also, most buyers who are going for this type of truck tend to know what they're getting into.
      Heavy-duty trucks begin to show their advantage when it comes to intense workloads, becoming more efficient than a similarly-equipped gas truck.
      Still, we think heavy-duty trucks should have fuel economy estimates to help buyers when it comes time to purchase a heavy-duty truck.
      “Heavy-duty pickup shoppers shouldn't be left in the dark when it comes to fuel economy,” said David Friedman, director of cars and product policy and analysis for Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports. 
      Source: Consumer Reports, Letter to Congress (PDF)
    • By William Maley
      Automakers have been trying different technologies and ideas in an effort to boost fuel economy and reduce emissions. On paper, the new technologies do make a difference. But in the real world, it is a completely different matter. 
      Emissions Analytics, an independent U.K.-based company has been investigating what technologies actually make a difference in reducing emissions and fuel consumption. For the past four years, the company has tested over 500 vehicles in the U.S. since 2013 in real-world driving situations. Globally, it has tested over 1,000 vehicles. Next month, the company will be releasing a study showing which of those technologies help and hurt.
      "You can only decide if you have the right information. The EPA sticker is — I would say — good up to a point, but we can give a lot more information," said Nick Molden, Emissions Analytics' founder and CEO.
      Their data shows that over four years of testing in the U.S., there is "no actual improvement in overall fuel economy and no decrease in CO2 emissions," despite new technologies and complex powertrains.
      EA's data also revealed that downsized turbo engines show huge discrepancies between the EPA's findings and the real world. In the lab, the engines aren't put under stress and can produce high fuel economy figures. But it is a different story out in the real world when the turbos are engaged to keep up with traffic and becomes less efficient than a non-turbocharged engine.
      "Downsizing is a good thing up to a point. You go past a certain inflection point and actually you can find that the real-world mpg will actually get worse if you go too small," said Molden.
      "As soon as you start going below 2 liters, that's where we start seeing the gaps open up between EPA sticker and real world."
      The study did deliver some good news for hybrids. EA found traditional hybrid vehicle provided high fuel economy figures and reduced emissions. Other technologies such as multispeed transmissions, adding lightness, and picking the right tires provide a meaningful impact.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Automakers have been trying different technologies and ideas in an effort to boost fuel economy and reduce emissions. On paper, the new technologies do make a difference. But in the real world, it is a completely different matter. 
      Emissions Analytics, an independent U.K.-based company has been investigating what technologies actually make a difference in reducing emissions and fuel consumption. For the past four years, the company has tested over 500 vehicles in the U.S. since 2013 in real-world driving situations. Globally, it has tested over 1,000 vehicles. Next month, the company will be releasing a study showing which of those technologies help and hurt.
      "You can only decide if you have the right information. The EPA sticker is — I would say — good up to a point, but we can give a lot more information," said Nick Molden, Emissions Analytics' founder and CEO.
      Their data shows that over four years of testing in the U.S., there is "no actual improvement in overall fuel economy and no decrease in CO2 emissions," despite new technologies and complex powertrains.
      EA's data also revealed that downsized turbo engines show huge discrepancies between the EPA's findings and the real world. In the lab, the engines aren't put under stress and can produce high fuel economy figures. But it is a different story out in the real world when the turbos are engaged to keep up with traffic and becomes less efficient than a non-turbocharged engine.
      "Downsizing is a good thing up to a point. You go past a certain inflection point and actually you can find that the real-world mpg will actually get worse if you go too small," said Molden.
      "As soon as you start going below 2 liters, that's where we start seeing the gaps open up between EPA sticker and real world."
      The study did deliver some good news for hybrids. EA found traditional hybrid vehicle provided high fuel economy figures and reduced emissions. Other technologies such as multispeed transmissions, adding lightness, and picking the right tires provide a meaningful impact.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
  • My Clubs

  • Who's Online (See full list)