Print 70 comment(s) - last by jimhsu.. on Jul 27 at 3:56 PM

Concession would make fuel economy standards easier for large trucks  (Source: Dodge)
Concession would reduce the yearly increase rate for new standards for large trucks and SUVs to 3.5% per year

The Obama administration wants to significantly increase the CAFE standards that govern fleet wide fuel economy for automakers. The problem is that there is a huge amount of backlash from those in the automotive industry. The backlash is so far keeping the Obama administration and automakers from coming to an agreement on proposed fuel economy standards moving into the future.

The Obama administration has put a concession forward in an effort to woo the Big 3 automakers to agree to the economy standards. The concession would see the makers of big trucks and SUVs forced to move to the higher fuel economy standards at a much slower rate than makers of cars and light SUVs. Hopes are high that the agreement between the Obama administration and the Big 3 will be made by early next week. 

Washington wants the CAFE requirements to be set at 56 mpg by 2025. The concession would allow the Big 3 to adopt the CAFE standards for the larger, gas guzzling vehicles, at a rate of 3.5% per year rather than the 5% annual improvement rate that the Obama administration wants for light trucks, cars, and light SUVs.

CAFE standards are currently targeting 35.5 mpg fleet wide by 2016 and that number will grow to 56 mpg by 2025 under the proposed regulations. The final rules are hoped to be ready by September.

However, automakers outside the Big 3 are not happy at all about the proposed concession. Carmakers that do not produce large SUVs and trucks see the concessions as giving the Big 3 an unfair advantage. The companies feel that the concession would encourage consumers to buy less efficient vehicles. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I see SUVs selling very well
By Dr of crap on 7/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Philippine Mango on 7/15/2011 2:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
This is just the government giving its lobbyists a helping hand, like they always do. Obummer is just trying to give the big 3 a leg up since they're usually too pathetic to support themselves on their own without the government giving them a helping hand.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2011 2:22:14 PM , Rating: 3
If Obama's policies are still in effect in 2025, the United States would probably resemble a post-apocalyptic wasteland anyway. Or Greece. Either way, we'll have bigger problems.

It's not the Governments job to tell automakers what they can provide to the consumer. End of story.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By nolisi on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By kraeper on 7/15/2011 3:07:06 PM , Rating: 5
If gas prices go up, people buy more efficient cars. No legislation is required. If people buy more efficient cars, automakers make more efficient cars to compete with eachother. Again, no legislation required.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By nolisi on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 4:49:27 PM , Rating: 5
Great idea, let's not prepare businesses who rely on heavy, expensive, inefficient vehicles to run operations. Let's pretend like they can all afford to replace their fleets all at once.

Markets are customer driven. If customers demand something, supply will meet the demand. When the oil crisis hit in the 1970's, automakers initially had no fuel efficient vehicles. Within a very short period of time they were making small, fuel efficient vehicles because the market demanded it. With the cost of fuel so high, the manufacturer who could make the most fuel efficient cars made the most profit. Eventually, the fuel shortage ended and gas became cheap again. Suddenly, customers demanded larger vehicles. The small efficient vehicles were still available but they no longer sold well because customers wanted something else.

That's how business works.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Samus on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Mr772 on 7/16/2011 9:34:25 AM , Rating: 1
We agree with you too. We have the population enslaved with debt and we now run/own the governments too and pretty much the world. The currency depreciation, I wouldn't worry about that either if I were you - it's not like you can do anything about it.

Thanks for your support,

~The Bankers~

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By knutjb on 7/17/2011 9:21:12 PM , Rating: 3
Otherwise we'd all still be driving death traps without catalytic convertors that get 10mpg. But they'd also only cost $4000... You weigh the benifits and I'm sure you'll reconsider. Having a $20,000 safe car that is quiet, doesn't pollute much and gets 40mpg is far better than the $4000 alternative.
In the mid 1920s Henry Ford saw many friends lose their lives in car accidents. The 1927 Model A Ford had safety glass, an all metal body and wheels.
In the mid-fifties Ford had a padded dash and, hold on, seat belts as an option but few bought them.

Perfect vehicles, no but the manufacturer did it long before the nanny state dictated contradictory single-minded regulations. That is force very high MPG & safety standards before all material development and costs allow for any profit margin, gotta stay in business too.

Your "only the government can do it" ideology is mostly misplaced. When most people are shown the reason for such products, i.e. crash footage with and without safety devices few willingly go without. Oversight on manufacturer claims, yes. Dictating the market place, really?...

BTW If you ever had the chance to go into a junkyard in the 70s-80s you would not have found many burnt Pintos but you would have found many burnt Datsuns and Toyotas. I saw them there.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By tastyratz on 7/19/2011 9:19:25 AM , Rating: 1
Dare I play devils advocate and mildly agree with you even though it will get me rated to oblivion for the opposing view?
The issue argued is that the market dictates consumer need by demand. This is true unfortunately this is not ahead of the curve. Look at how pathetic we let cafe standards remain for how many years then all of a sudden this is a hot button to ramp things up once consumers demanded it. Had this been a government concern and a very slow reasonable gradual requirement till now we might have found ourselves there.

At this point the government is pushing too hard for too much too soon too late. We should have been looking at these thins YEARS ago and seem to think we can legislate them out of thin air. I do not support the recent hard cut cafe standards and I think American standards are keeping us from getting MANY of the great vehicles perfectly good for the rest of the world, but I do believe some regulation is needed to continue the trend, just a lighter hand. People live in the now, but manufacturers take YEARS to develop. The issue is with the size of the market, and OP is right. We would probably still drive unsafe polluting cheap cars and have no choice about it because it would be manufacturer dictated.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Philippine Mango on 7/16/2011 1:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
You would hope, but I think the issue people have is that they fail at economics and their priorities are all screwed up. I mean when you have people paying $0.20, $0.30, $0.50 per kilowatt hour and you tell them straight up that if they replace this bulb here, refrigerator here or their swimming pool pump with something more efficient, that it will PAY FOR ITSELF in a years time or less and still won't do it, you know there is something wrong. Instead, they will only replace the items when it actually breaks, and not at the point when it is no longer cost effective.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By mindless1 on 7/16/2011 5:06:00 PM , Rating: 3
It's because they aren't dumb. There's always a tradeoff of some sort whether it be inferior lighting, higher up front cost, vanishing profit once you account for the interest on the money spent, general longevity of the replacement goods, repairability of replacement goods, etc, etc.

Further, it is wasteful to throw away something that still works. There was energy, time, natural resources spent on the replacement product.

I don't know about you but I'm not paying remotely close to $0.30, let alone $0.50 per KWH. I'd buy a natural gas generator if electrical prices were so steep. In the end we need to quit thinking greedily and look at the bigger picture. Our energy needs ARE GOING UP, the only sane solution is to ramp up nuclear plant production.

Once we do that, we can gracefully transition to new products that conserve energy once they have matured into being as reliable as those they are replacing.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By jimhsu on 7/27/2011 3:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
A wise man once said that all societal problems - fossil fuels, poverty, war, hunger, etc -- can ultimately be reduced to a problem of energy. Energy production, energy distribution, name it. Ironically energy conservation also falls into that same category.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By ClownPuncher on 7/15/2011 3:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Part of the job of government is to protect the people from their own freedom of choice

Sure, it may suck that some choices we make now will have negative effects on the future, but how far are you willing to let the government go, THX 1138?

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By nolisi on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2011 4:51:18 PM , Rating: 4
This is why we vote and have discourse in this country, to determine how far we all are to let the government go in determining how we as a people should handle anything in our lives.

People don't get to vote on CAFE or EPA regulations, so sorry, it's not up to the people. This is one of the drawbacks of our modern "compartmentalized" government. Much of the day to day decisions the government makes are out of our hands.

How far are you willing to let others freedom of choice go in affecting your life?

I'm sorry but only a Liberal would try to make the argument that what car we drive infringes on someone's rights' and freedoms.

Let's take your suggestion and go to the extreme of abolishing all penalties for murder, theft, and rape.

So wait, you are equating a free market solution to rape and murder? I'm pretty sure that is not taking "his suggestions", not even close. Nobody is "suggesting" Anarchy!

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By idiot77 on 7/16/11, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2011 1:52:14 PM , Rating: 3

This discussion isn't about emissions standards, it's about efficiency standards. Which aren't the same. As far as a cars impact on the environment, hybrids and electric cars are the worst. The batteries will NOT all be recycled. More chemicals WILL end up seeping into groundwater. They cause more air pollution initially being manufactured.

Environmentalism = National Security. Yeah, I know that's sooooo liberal or whatever

No, actually it's just really retarded. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. In fact environmentalism is what's largely been responsible for getting us as involved with the Middle East as we are today, which has hurt our national security.

This wasn't done a whim, it was done because idiots like you thought it was okay that corporations should be able to pollute water, land, and air. It turns out that wasn't such a good idea.

So I'm trying to understand your logic. Higher MPG requirements stops "corporations" from polluting water, land, and air? And supporting free market solutions means I'm for said pollution of the Earth? An arbitrary efficiency standards means corporations won't "pollute" as much now?

Because, crazy me, CAFE has nothing to do with EPA regulations on businesses. It's not about what corporations can do or pollute, it's about what we can choose to buy as consumers.

I think you're a very confused individual or just need some education or life experience. These matters are far above your mental range.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 5:02:24 PM , Rating: 4
It prevents chaos, such as people murdering eachother, or determining boundaries of ownership. Because a completely "free market" has no incentive to solve these problems.

This is dead wrong. Even without a functional government there would still be pressure to stop criminals. The majority of people don't like crime, so people would just take matters into their own hands. If a criminal was on the loose, they'd be captured or killed by a mob of people acting as their own police force.

By ClownPuncher on 7/15/2011 5:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
People have this assumption that if there were no laws, everyone would be a rapist.

You're absolutely right about a community fighting back against personal harm, it has been this way throughout history.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 5:05:54 PM , Rating: 4
This is why we vote and have discourse in this country, to determine how far we all are to let the government go in determining how we as a people should handle anything in our lives.

The point you were making before ran contrary to what you just said here. Before you said that the government should force certain rules on people and protect people from their own freedom of choice. The people said that they want SUVs, you said that the government should make laws mandating smaller vehicles, ignoring what the people wanted and limiting their freedom of choice.

What happens when you don't like your freedom of choice being limited and you decide to vote these politicians out? Maybe that's another choice that the government should limit? Surely we can't have the people thinking for themselves, can we?

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2011 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
Part of the job of government is to protect the people.

Can you find it in the Constitution where their "job" is to protect the people from, as you call it, purchasing too much of something?

Their job is to provide for the general welfare and defense. NOT to micromanage every aspect of our lives. You're wrong.

Allowing automakers to sell high fuel consumption

Allowing? Did you just say allowing? No, you are wrong. They have always been "allowed". This isn't allowing, this is FORCING. Do you understand how the semi-free market economy we have works?

Such a shortsighted view.

Only on DailyTech would that kind of Collectivist nanny state bullshit get a 5. Shortsighted? I think we've seen just where your point of view has taken us. We're drowning in it as we speak.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 5:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
Only on DailyTech would that kind of Collectivist nanny state bullshit get a 5. Shortsighted? I think we've seen just where your point of view has taken us. We're drowning in it as we speak.

This is what happens when you have emotional thinkers trying to run the show. They know what they want but don't know how to form a workable plan. So they try to enforce their emotional, unworkable plan with heavy-handed laws which, not surprisingly, doesn't work.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 4:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
Allowing automakers to sell high fuel consumption, less efficient vehicles only benefit the automakers and oil companies, and that benefit exists so long as gas exists, is readily available, and stays cheap.

Most of your argument is really tenuous. Business starts with customer demand. If customers want SUVs, then how are you helping the customers by denying what they want? Why don't you let the market take care of this? Companies can offer a selection to the customer, and then the customer can decide what he wants to buy?

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By wallijonn on 7/18/2011 12:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
Business starts with customer demand.

Initially. But business usually starts by first creating a demand, then fulfilling it. That's how marketing & advertising work.

Does everyone in America really need an SUV? Does everyone in America need a cell phone or Internet access? That's what marketing wants you to buy.

The reason why auto marketing sold us on SUVs is because there was a higher profit margin.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 4:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
Securing and stabilizing the country's energy needs is and should be a job of the government to ensure that the market doesn't destroy itself. Sure, you may want that large vehicle, but if you want to keep driving it long term and make it affordable (affordability is something that everyone, including businesses want), conservation of petroleum to keep the price low is the only way to make it happen.

Oil is a commodity that's traded in a global market. If the US uses less oil, that oil doesn't get stored for our future use. Instead, it just drives the market price down and then the consumers in other countries will demand larger, less efficient vehicles since gas will be cheap. In the end, you didn't conserve anything. Even if we found a huge amount of oil right here in the US, that doesn't mean that it helps our energy independence. As I mentioned before, it's a global commodity and that fuel would be worth a lot of money. So if we somehow found a huge reserve of oil in Kansas, that oil would simply be sold for the normal market rate. If there was a huge global oil shortage, that oil from Kansas would still be sold on the open market, the price would just be higher.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2011 8:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
LOL great point 91TTZ, you are my hero of the day.

It's like he really believes if higher CARB passes, OPEC will be like "OKAY guys, the U.S. has more fuel efficient cars now, damnit, stop drilling the oil now."

It's not about oil for him anyway. It's just another excuse to do more social engineering and get this utopian society going.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By shin0bi272 on 7/17/2011 8:19:20 AM , Rating: 1
point to the line in the constitution that allows the government to dictate how a product is made and used. Oh yeah you cant.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By BZDTemp on 7/18/2011 3:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
Listen to yourself - do you really want no rules at all?

No safety demands, no rules about the strength of lets say headlights, seat belts, noise, pollution....

If anything the Government is helping the US automakers to enter the 21st century. I know they are kicking and screaming right now but unless car makers try to keep up with the rest of the world then they'll end up selling only niche cars.

Look at the market shares of foreign cars in the US and then look at the market share of US cars abroad. Here in Europe is more normal to see a Lamborghini than a F150!

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2011 2:44:03 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people like to buy large SUVs when they can afford them. Even today they're still selling. Perhaps not as well as before but still well. Some are just starting to choose slightly smaller crossovers like the Chevy Equinox which gets 32 mpg. The trade off is that its useless for doing any real work or towing.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Flunk on 7/15/2011 3:06:47 PM , Rating: 3
All Crossovers are worthless for towing. A crossover is a car shaped like a truck. As a result they're basically big heavy cars, which are lousy for towing.

My point here is that they're not for real work or towing. They're for hauling families and their associated junk around.

Also, you're idea that people always buy the biggest gas-guzzeliest thing they can afford is a crass generalization. A lot of people enjoy driving smaller vehicles.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Keeir on 7/15/2011 7:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
People like to buy the best they can afford.

Even with "small" cars, people often spring for things like V6 engines or turbos, that make those small cars not much more efficient.

For example, people buy many more V6 Fusions and MKZs than Hybrid models.... even though over 50,000 miles, the V6s already cost more and over 100,000+ cost A LOT more.

Consider that even at its peak, Hybrid + Diesel + Electric accounted for no more than 3.5% of the entire car market. A market where the average transaction price is ~30,000+.

This is Fit's point. Not that people buy the largest car or the gas guzzliest car. People buy the best they can afford... which is usually not the same as the most efficient.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By AssBall on 7/15/2011 3:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
My first new vehicle is a truck, and my next vehicle will also be a truck. When I can't buy a Ram, Tundra, F150, or Seirra anymore in this country I'm moving to Canada or Australia.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Flunk on 7/15/2011 3:19:34 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for being such a stereotype.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Camikazi on 7/15/2011 4:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
You realize you don't know what they do for work right? Maybe they need a truck for work, like towing, or moving heavy items or things like that? You are too quick to think that everyone who owns a truck has one just because and not cause they need one for what they do for a living.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By gixser on 7/15/2011 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
As an Australian, what makes you think we will take you?

I'm moving to Canada or Australia.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By AssBall on 7/16/2011 12:11:59 AM , Rating: 2
My skills and willingness to contribute to an effective economy do.

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By croc on 7/18/2011 3:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
"My first new vehicle is a truck, and my next vehicle will also be a truck. When I can't buy a Ram, Tundra, F150, or Seirra anymore in this country I'm moving to Canada or Australia."

Can't talk to Canada, but you'd be hard pressed to find any of the vehicles mentioned down here in Aus... I do know a person with an F350, cost him quite a bit more that 100K to get it here, certified, modified, etc., and it costs him well over $250 / week in fuel costs... $1.27 to $1.65 per litre, depending on grade...

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Spuke on 7/15/2011 7:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that people like to buy large SUVs when they can afford them.
See this is what I find so misleading. Large SUV sales have NEVER even broken into the top 20 in the US. I think the Yukon hit number 22 once or twice. Large SUV's are a niche market like sports cars yet some people seem to think they're everywhere and everyone in the US is driving one. Let's move past this BS. What IS selling by the buttloads is pickups (mostly 1/2 tons). Well over 100,000 pickups are sold every month! Granted, a lot of those go to fleets but if "you people" are going to crap on Americans loving gas guzzlers, at least be accurate about it.

The following is auto sales in the US. There is a bit of shake up because there are TONS more US cars in the top 10 than in the past 20 years but that's probably due to supply issues in Japan.

By Richard875yh5 on 7/16/2011 3:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Japan has had an extremely large edge when they came here with their small cars decades ago. They did not have to pay for retirees for they were none, while the domestics had to pay for over a million retirees.
Today they are complaining for something which should have little effect on them. Afraid the domestic will more money than them. I would tell them, all they to do is build trucks like the domestic does, but they know Americans will buy mostly American trucks.

Oh! I feel so sorry for the Asian!!

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Wererat on 7/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By stimudent on 7/17/2011 11:20:18 AM , Rating: 1
The inferior quality of Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler truck and SUVs will be dogging us for years to come. So maybe the poor mileage of these vehicles can be improved if nothing else.

Bigger is better
By Taft12 on 7/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Bigger is better
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2011 2:45:29 PM , Rating: 4
You realize that more women drive like to drive larger vehicles right? Because they feel safer and are usually the one with the kids.

RE: Bigger is better
By adiposity on 7/15/2011 2:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Usually minivans and SUVs. I think he was talking about the trucks.

RE: Bigger is better
By kraeper on 7/15/2011 3:10:47 PM , Rating: 1
And more males like V8 sports cars. No exemption for us?

RE: Bigger is better
By dcollins on 7/20/2011 2:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
I hate when people buy bigger vehicles because they are "safer." It is such a misinformed, incredibly selfish thing to do. Larger, taller vehicles are more likely to roll over, more difficult to maneuver and stop and more deadly in accidents. The only reason they are safer is that the larger vehicle has a weight advantage in an accident with a smaller, lighter vehicle.

A 3,000lb car versus a 3,000lb car accident is much safer than a 5,000lb SUV versus a 5,000lb SUV. The SUV is only safer when it hits the smaller vehicle and only at the cost of significantly more damage to the smaller vehicle. SUV/Truck drivers put everyone else's lives in greater danger just so they can feel safe.

There are a lot of reasons to buy a truck, but safety is NOT one of them. Unless you have no concern for your fellow man I guess.

By lagomorpha on 7/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: *sarcasm*
By Leper84 on 7/16/2011 1:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
So yeah, when was the last time you fit ~1000lbs of tools/equipment and 6 grown men into a corolla or a camry? Should I try a prius?

Or maybe it could be that there are small and large businesses alike, not to mention independant contractors who have no other choice to buy trucks?

Nah, it couldnt be that epa and Obama are trying to increase fuel economy without making trucks the nations economy relies on priced out of reach for everyone but the corporations? That would mean Obama displayed common sense for the second time in his presidency.

RE: *sarcasm*
By foolsgambit11 on 7/17/2011 3:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
If you need a truck for your job, then the higher costs associated with more stringent CAFE standards can be passed on to your customers. If the job requires a truck, all your competitors will be at the same disadvantage, which means there really isn't any disadvantage. Except possibly if the added cost made the industry as a whole lose business - but an extra couple thousand dollars, split up over several years, probably isn't going to cause that. Vehicle costs are generally only a small portion of the operating expenses of jobs that need trucks - an increase of even 25% on vehicle costs will barely bump up the total cost of a contracting job.

Let's drop the trucks-for-jobs argument, eh? It's just not a strong enough argument to stand up to serious scrutiny.

RE: *sarcasm*
By shin0bi272 on 7/17/2011 8:22:25 AM , Rating: 2
yeah thats a great strategy... make everything cost more so the consumer gets to foot the bill. This is the mindset of a fascist.

RE: *sarcasm*
By lagomorpha on 7/17/2011 4:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, having the same standards for everyone is fascism. Obviously.

Have you considered that maybe we shouldn't be subsidizing everyone that wants to have an F150 as their daily driver by giving them different standards than everyone else? Most trucks are not used for businesses and the ones that are get written off taxes anyway.

It sounds like a fair compromise to me.
By CurseTheSky on 7/15/2011 2:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
This will hopefully continue to push auto makers to innovate and design more fuel efficient vehicles across their spectrum while still giving them a break which will make larger vehicles a viable option.

So, as consumers, we get to choose between smaller vehicles that are more rapidly becoming fuel efficient and larger vehicles that haven't all but disappeared from the market (and are still improving in efficiency, albeit at a slower rate). The key word here is "choose."

Seems like a win/win for consumers to me.

RE: It sounds like a fair compromise to me.
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2011 2:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
A brick can only be so fuel efficient.

But people still have the choice of what kind of vehicle they want and can afford to buy.

By Spuke on 7/15/2011 7:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
This only gives the automakers more time to get more fuel efficient vehicles on the market to counter the less fuel efficient one's. FIT is right. I will add that, IMO, 25 mpg (EPA rating...don't care what you get at home at all) is all you'll get from a truck without a significant redesign.

By KaptinB on 7/15/2011 5:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
Unless by Big 3, you are referring to the 3 largest sellers of vehicles in the US market - GM, Ford, and Toyota. Last time I checked (, Toyota has a pretty fair sized stable of gas guzzling trucks and big SUV's (Tundra, Sequoia, LandCruiser - all currently averaging 20 MPG or less on the highway) that will be helped every bit as much as GM, Ford, and Chrysler. I'm also sure Nissan's not exactly crying either as they try to figure out how to get the Titan and Armada fuel economy to meet government regulations. Nissan and Toyota just don't sell as many full size trucks and SUV's as the Detroit 3.

Automakers build and sell the cars that people want to buy. Maybe not what YOU want to buy, but a pretty sizeable(though shrinking) chunk of the American public still want their pick-em-up trucks. And if people want big gas thirsty trucks well than the automakers are only more than happy to build 'em and charge huge margins for them. The desire to make obscene amounts of money on high margin trucks and SUV's is NOT limited to U.S. based automakers...

Blame the Detroit 3 for losing focus on making cars in the 90's when they were too busy raking in money hand over fist selling trucks and SUV's. Don't blame them for cashing in on the SUV craze that started in the 90's.

By shin0bi272 on 7/17/2011 8:31:28 AM , Rating: 2
You know why they were selling SUVs? they actually made a profit on them and people were buying them left and right because that's what they wanted... SUVs replaced the minivan and with the profit margins that the union labor put on GM that was the only way they could keep in the black. Then gas prices go over $3/gal and people want more fuel efficient cars. So the automakers retool and start making them but they cant charge you 45,000 for an escort or cobalt so they end up losing money on each car they sell. Causing them to flounder especially when no one buys their poorly put together ugly looking vehicles (i.e. the volt) for 29k when they can get a toyota camry for 19k and get 26% higher resale because of a lack of union labor.

If the big 3 built tiny cars when people wanted big ones theyd lose money fast. I dont know where you and the rest of the leftists got the idea that profits are evil but profits are what make companies grow and expand and survive. Its only non-profits and churches that live off of government and/or the people's hand outs.

By Willhouse on 7/18/2011 9:45:36 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is that the desire for profits have caused corporations to do shortsighted and outright amoral things that hurt people. We can look to Enron as exhibit A.

In the current example, the push for profits may have caused the big 3 to reduce innovation in the late 90s and fall behind when gas prices went up. Hence the heavy layoffs, plant closures and bailouts. Again, people are hurt.

Without regulation, the corporations are reactive and not proactive, and often can't react fast enough (example: the bailouts again). So I'm for the setting the mpg standart to 55mgp in 14 years. If we're still running on gasoline, we going to need to start to conserve it at some point, or otherwise, we run the risk of energy shortages in the future and I don't think that would be good for anyone.

What Washington wants
By shin0bi272 on 7/17/2011 8:41:53 AM , Rating: 3
There's potentially a HUGE gap between what politicians and environMENTALists want and what can actually be done. You go ask a long haul truck driver if he'd wanna drive an electric truck... He'll laugh in your face. Why? no power in the things and the range is horrible.

They had electric vehicles in 1913 but they were so heavy they couldnt climb a 5% grade! Now the current versions have other problems with heat, cold, range, top speed, charge time, and power (the towing kind). So what do you do? hook that up to a gas engine! yeah cause that wont be a total failure or anything nooo.

I live in an area that has lots of hybrids... the traffic is horrible. Morons driving down the road and slamming on the breaks at green lights cause they think it might turn yellow. Driving down the highway at 55 in a 65 so they can conserve fuel... in the fast lane.

This is where things that the government wants diverge greatly from whats possible... you try getting an 80,000lb load across the country in 4 days on batteries. You cant do it. You try towing a 20,000lb load up a 20% grade with a hybrid truck... cant do that either.

So the liberal ecoMENTAList agenda forces the rest of us to live under THEIR rules and suffer for it... and when someone says hey that might not have been a good idea look at the crap that happened (i.e. e85 ethanol causing food prices to go up) they get demonized. typical.

RE: What Washington wants
By CannedTurkey on 7/18/2011 1:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Um, you do realize the rail industry has been using hybrids for ages, right? One thing electric motors have is an abundance of torque for pulling things. The diesel makes around 3200 horsepower which turns the generator, which in turn powers electric motors which provide 64,000 lbs of torque.

If you want to get a good idea of what can be done with current electics, take a look at the White Zombie (plasmaboy racing): 1250 ftlb of torque, around 400 horsepower, low 10's in the quarter mile, and he can still get over 100 miles of range on the highway. That all fits in a datsun, and if you're going to try and tell me it can't or won't scale up, you need to put down the kool-aid and give your head a shake.

Look at the wording...
By UNHchabo on 7/15/2011 3:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
The concession would see the makers of big trucks and SUVs forced to move to the higher fuel economy standards at a much slower rate than makers of cars and light SUVs.

Emphasis mine.

So does this mean that all a manufacturer has to do to qualify for these lower standards is make a single large truck or SUV?

If so, then that exempts nearly every major manufacturer on the market. The only ones I can think of without a large truck or SUV on its lineup are BMW, Hyundai, and Subaru. Meanwhile, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, Audi, and VW look like they'll all fall under this new system.

RE: Look at the wording...
By Spuke on 7/15/2011 7:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
So does this mean that all a manufacturer has to do to qualify for these lower standards is make a single large truck or SUV?
Some manufacturers make less larger vehicles than others. Hyundai and Honda come to mind.

By Spikesoldier on 7/15/2011 3:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
the elite trying to push the 'green' tech on us dont realize that the poor people will continue to use the gas guzzlers because the efficient vehicles are out of reach in price due to mandates like CAFE and all the R&D that has to go into making the product comply.

there really wont be a revolution in transportation until something is created that gets us completely off of oil.

RE: sigh
By Ghost42 on 7/15/2011 7:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to get my 10mpg truck converted to something other then Gasoline.. but the California Air Resources Board (C.A.R.B.) won't let me and since my truck is paid off, it'd cost me around $500 more a year just in payments to buy a new truck with 20mpg, that's not including the $4k or so a year in fuel as well.

Older auto's
By AMDftw on 7/15/2011 2:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
All they are doing is keeping older autos on the road.

"Americans may benefit from some of the lowest new car prices in the world but the average motorist in the U.S. is keeping their cars for longer a new study has found. According to the results the median age of cars on U.S. roads was 9.2 years in 2007, a new record, and a substantial 41.3% of call vehicles were 11 years or older compared to just 40.9% the year before."

Myself, will keep my '96 Chevy 350 til I can't fix it any more. I have replaced the transmission and rebuilt the engine 25k miles ago. She still can pull my '90 Nissan 240sx back and forth from the track. I may only get 17mpg but its still not worth for me to buy a new truck that only get 18-21mpg. Even if they raise the mpg I still will keep my truck. My father, make's close to $130k a yr and still drives a 99 Chevy. Only my mother has a new car. (for reliably reasons)

The point is some people can afford to buy a new car and some can't. Its the choice someone has to make. I would like to buy a new-ish car but the economy is so shaky I'm not taking the chance just yet. I will be waiting for the grandfather yr so my Nissan can be allowed on the road. plus it only get 15-24 mpg. Just depends on how I drive it. O-wait i still drive it on the road. :)

My next vehicle...
By troysavary on 7/15/2011 4:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
will be a big-assed diesel, and when fuel prices become a concern, I'll make it myself. Bio-diesel is not difficult to manufacture.

By vciucxx on 7/16/2011 11:53:56 PM , Rating: 2

I tide fashion
not expensive
Free transport

By vciucxx on 7/16/2011 11:55:15 PM , Rating: 2

I tide fashion
not expensive
Free transport

And Obama disapoints again
By BZDTemp on 7/18/2011 3:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
The need to do something is the biggest exactly where he now want to do less - it's pathetic :-(

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki