Print 118 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jun 17 at 11:09 PM

Automakers claim new fuel economy ratings will put hundreds of thousands out of work  (Source: Business Week)
Supporters of increased efficiency standards claim the numbers are inflated

The 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.

new 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.

David Friedman, 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.

Comments     Threshold

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

"Center for Automotive Research" is lying.
By Amiga500 on 6/15/2011 2:48:15 PM , Rating: 1
It would cost nothing to improve fuel consumption to 62 mpg right now .

A VW polo blue motion can do 80.7 mpg (English gallon).

That is 67.25 mpg (US gallon).

How much different are the testing methodologies?

The technology exists today to sell cars that beat the target figure. A sacrifice in choice will have to be made to make that target apply across an entire range, but there will, and have been sacrifices made already to improve fuel consumption.

The difference is, those sacrifices have been driven by consumer spending trends, not govt instructions.

RE: "Center for Automotive Research" is lying.
By Argon18 on 6/15/2011 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 1
It's true, a small turbo diesel engine can achieve 62+ mpg right now today, cleanly and economically. The Big-3 however have their heads up their collective arses and won't offer that here, despite the fact that Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler all already sell cars in europe with small turbo diesel engines.

RE: "Center for Automotive Research" is lying.
By FITCamaro on 6/15/2011 11:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
Would I like to see it offered here? Sure.

Is it going to make GM or Ford get to a FLEET WIDE average of that? No.

Do most Americans want a supercompact car? No.

By Dr of crap on 6/16/2011 8:56:38 AM , Rating: 2
No one asked if the people WANT them.
If the car makers make them and put up for sale then their fleet wide mpg would be in the CAFE area - not?

I don't think they have to sell a proportional amount of each vehicle to make the CAFE numbers. As long as what they offer together makes the number. So if they were to sell some small diesel cars to offset the SUVs then the CAFE numbers would be met.

Whether the small diesel sell, wouldn't matter then!

By zzatz on 6/15/2011 4:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
The differences between the tests make comparisons meaningless. Test measurements also don't relate terribly well to actual mileage. The ratings are only useful for relative ranks within one test.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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