battle between the auto industry and the federal government over changes
to fuel economy regulations is exploding. Lawmakers in Washington want to
impose much more efficient standards on future vehicles that could see a fleet
wide fuel economy average of 62 mpg in effect by 2025.
Some in the automotive industry argue that the costs to reach the lofty 62 mpg
fleet wide average will be much higher than the cost of burning more fuel in
less efficient vehicles for consumers. Automakers have previously claimed that
the costs would have a dire impact on the industry.
study by the Center for Automotive Research has been published and the
study claims that the rise in efficiency standards by 2025 to 62 mpg could add up
to $9,790 to the cost of a new vehicle and will reduce sales by 5.5 million
units. The report also claims that the resultant price increase would force a
reduction of 260,000 automotive industry jobs due to reduced demand for
vehicles by consumers.
On the other side of the battle, those pushing for the increased efficiency
standards claim that the tech needed to meet the efficiency standards would
only add $770 to $3,500 to the price of a new vehicle.
deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles program and
supporter of the new efficiency mandate, said, "The Obama administration
should ignore this industry-advocate propaganda piece and focus on setting the
strongest vehicle efficiency and global warming pollution standards based on
credible scientific analysis."
President and CEO of the Union, Jay Baron, says that the main difference in
cost between the industry and government studies depends on how much the price
of the technology will come down over the next 15 years.
quote: The free market does, but only when we get there.
quote: Let the automakers build whatever they want to, and the *winning* combination of design and price revails. But wait, letting the citizens decide what happens as individuals, with their wallets, seems too democratic or something.
quote: Let the automakers build whatever they want to, and the *winning* combination of design and price prevails. But wait, letting the citizens decide what happens as individuals, with their wallets, seems too democratic or something.
quote: In Phoenix nearly 50% of the vehicles seem to be SUVs. I'd wager that less than 1% use them off road. I'd also wager that you can't buy or sell a SUV in NYC right now.
quote: Marketing is used to attempt to create a perception about a product. What that perception is or should be, and why you want it, varies by product and strategy.
quote: Some people believed that the bandwidth capabilities of RAMBUS would outshine what AMD was offering, and wanted to buy into that model.Some people had no idea what they were doing, and just bought what was familiar or easily available.
quote: underwear gnomes
quote: Funny families in Europe don't seem that smaller than in the US yet in Europe people want smaller cars
quote: Yeah, sucks having to innovate and all.
quote: Why can't we just use Model Ts so we wouldn't have to pay for the development of new cars. They did the job, albeit slowly and somewhat dangerously. How Soviet.
quote: The cars we have today are more advanced than we thought possible 10 years ago.
quote: Infinitely variable valve timing?
quote: Direct injection?
quote: Cars that can parallel park themselves?
quote: Hell man, the average car today has more computing power than a circa 1999 personal computer EVER had.
quote: That's completely untrue. Car ECUs use low-powered microcontrollers
quote: First used on gasoline engines in 1925. Didn't provide a huge benefit so it never became popular. With newer emissions laws automakers will probably have to go that way.
quote: Are you telling me they feel they can't make cars efficiently by then or don't want to.
quote: It is messy, smelly, and different,
quote: We've had engines that could give an F150 30MPG highway with similar towing capacity and an Escort 70MPG highway for decades. The technology is constantly buried for political reasons, mostly regarding oil, much like the GM EV1 technology was destroyed 15 years ago.
quote: The best example is Chevron's ownership of NiMH battery patents. They prevented the creation of large cells. They don't have to be tiny - they can be much bigger and FAR cheaper to make. Instead, inside the battery packs in cars like a Prius are literally hundreds of little cells with a bunch of expensive electronics to lower voltage levels created by using many smaller cells versus fewer large cells. This IP exclusion limited EV cars to heavy lead-acid, highly toxic NiCd, or needlessly complex NiMH.
quote: I'm not a huge analogy fan but I hope that helps explain my view some.
quote: My daughter hates taking an allergy med so I have to armtwist every !#$ morning to make it happen. It sucks. She hates it; I hate it. But... come noontime if she hasn't then she'll come running to me asking for it then be miserable while she waits for it to kick in.
quote: I suspect you don't understand what they mean. They aren't suggesting cars in 2025 will cost $10k more than they do now, rather than they will cost $10k additional cost over what they would have risen to by 2025.
quote: You are acting as though this isn't a big increase but it is! Did you think if car costs go up it won't trickle into other markets and the cost of everything doesn't go up too by an additional amount over what it otherwise would have due only to normal inflation?
quote: Our reduction in oil consumption is trivial compared to world wide use for other purposes and especially increase in use by emerging countries.
quote: I think it would be best if China (and others) are utterly F*cked when the oil runs out while we chug along using solutions we sacrificed to develop today.
quote: And China can easily switch to electric since they have the resources to make the cars and don't have the hippies protesting nuclear power there.