backtop


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

RE: Because who knows better
By wallijonn on 6/15/2011 4:15:11 PM , Rating: -1
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.


The manufacturers have used marketing to convince you to buy SUVs, trucks and cars with 300 HP engines when it wasn't really necessary, hasn't it? 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.

The plain fact is that individuals have voted with their wallets and most ended up buying better quality and higher efficiency foreign cars. Don't blame the unions - they can only produce what marketing (and the media) tells them to. They were told to produce SUVs and trucks because the profit margins are higher than cars.

Well, my friend complained about the price of gas. Only problem is that his truck was a Ford F350. I would tell him, 'Hey, if you can afford a $50,000 truck you should be able to afford $5 a gallon gas. So what if it costs you $500 to fill it up once a week? That's your problem. I don't want to hear it."

People are lemmings. They'll buy whatever marketing tells them to. No one wants to remember the oil Embargoes of 1973 and 1978. We had a chance to build fuel efficient cars to directly compete with the Japanese. Instead we chose to sell SUVs. The rooster has come home to roost.


RE: Because who knows better
By theapparition on 6/15/2011 4:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
What an utterly incompetent backward analysis.

People WANT big cars and SUVs. The auto manufacturers (all of them, Toyota, Honda and Nissan have plenty of those "evil" SUVs too) were only happy to oblige by producing what people WANTED.

Don't give anyone else the marketing BS. Marketing didn't create the desire for American consumer preferences. You act like someone is sitting on a couch, sees an ad for a Hummer and all of a sudden changes thier mind not to get an econobox. Ridiculous.

Auto companies made what people wanted, and when consumer preferences shifted quickly, the automakers who had the most invested in those high profit models felt the pinch the most.

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.

SUV's have nothing to do with off-road capability. While Jeep popularized that image, the most important aspect of an SUV is it's utility (oh, imagine that, it's part of the name). People wanted on vehicle to haul the kids, pick up items from Home Depot, and have enough power to tow a boat. Do I think many owners of SUVs have overbought? Yep, but I'll never infringe on thier rights to buy what they want.


RE: Because who knows better
By Shadowmage on 6/15/2011 5:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point of marketing then? Why did people buy Intel CPUs even during the P4 days, when AMD dominated? Clearly marketing influence peoples' purchasing decisions, and you'd be naive to think otherwise.

http://www.consumerpsychologist.com/


RE: Because who knows better
By torpor on 6/15/2011 6:23:11 PM , Rating: 4
Lots of reasons.

Some people remembered some of AMDs older products, which were horrible, and refused to trust them again.

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.

Some people would have bought AMD processor-based computers if they could find them, but due to proven monopolistic actions, Intel prevented AMD from effectivly getting their processors to the end consumer.

There are lots of reasons people buy/do things that have nothing to do with marketing. 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.


RE: Because who knows better
By Shadowmage on 6/15/2011 6:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously people aren't mind-controlled robots that do whatever marketing tells them. However, even you just admitted that marketing is indeed a major factor in peoples' considerations:

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.


RE: Because who knows better
By mindless1 on 6/17/2011 10:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but remember it was written "used to ATTEMPT", not "does cause", and in this case it would be marketing "buy our SUV instead of the other brand SUV".

It's a bit irrelevant though, people already knew what type of vehicle they wanted, the advertising simply tells them "hey our company makes one of those".


RE: Because who knows better
By Shadowmage on 6/15/2011 6:38:21 PM , Rating: 3
Also, 2 of the 4 reasons you named are due to marketing:

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.


RE: Because who knows better
By Bad-Karma on 6/16/2011 4:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm.... At the time Rambus was a superior memory standard. What killed it was that it was a proprietary standard that was being stingily licensed and its' exorbitantly high price.

You could also add to the argument that being coupled to the P4 architecture did it in.

The inclusion of Rambus memory simply priced mainstream users out of the market. However, I will point out that lots of high end workstations in the business world still favored the combination or Rambus and Intel.


RE: Because who knows better
By torpor on 6/16/2011 3:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Let me get this straight.

You feel it's marketing's job to publish technical whitepapers, and to encourage ignorance as a sales strategy?

The underwear gnomes know more about how to make money.


RE: Because who knows better
By Bad-Karma on 6/17/2011 5:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
underwear gnomes
.......You now have my full undivided attention!


RE: Because who knows better
By theapparition on 6/16/2011 9:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
Marketing's primary purpose is to distinguish your brand and product above the competition. It can also create demand for new products. Certainly, marketing has it's uses and I wasn't dismissing it entirely.

But the idea that the auto manufacturers created the demand for SUVs by marketing them is ridiculous drivel. Could it be that people just like them? In the 60's the family truckster was the van, then the station wagon in the 70's. 80's was decade of minivan, 90's of SUV and 00's is of crossovers. Consumer trends shift and manufacturers are more than happy to sell whatever people demand.

As for your Intel vs. AMD scenerio, everyone seems to have short term memory on the situation. P4 Willamette was far superior to anything that AMD had at the time. How many AMD systems overheated due to poor thermal management. P4 Northwood was extremely competitive, at first better, then towards the end of it's life getting eclipsed by AMD. Some benchmarks went one way, some went the other. P4 Prescott was a terrible chip, and the time when AMD's offerings were clearly superior. But in the whole "P4 war", AMD only had a clear product advantage for a short time.

As the other poster commeneted, there were many other reasons why people stayed away from AMD.


RE: Because who knows better
By Strunf on 6/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Because who knows better
By theapparition on 6/16/2011 9:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny families in Europe don't seem that smaller than in the US yet in Europe people want smaller cars

No they don't. Don't for one second kid yourself. People in Europe buy smaller cars because that's all they can afford. Taxes on gasoline, engine displacement and registration make larger cars unobtainable for all but the wealthy. And the wealthy don't buy small cars.

Another factor is the signifigantly higher population density, roads that date back to the crusades, and the lack of accessible parking make large SUVs untennable in the cities. That's not a slight at Europeans, just doesn't make financial or practical sense for most families to own SUVs. But the American situation is quite different, and anyone who trys to compare American and European habits are completely misinformed.

Try and spin it all you want, but Europe is home to such gas guzzlers as Bugatti, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Mercedes, BMW, Porsche and many other sport cars that are only able to be obtained by the wealthy. Find someone with the means, and I bet you'll see a Range Rover in thier garage.


RE: Because who knows better
By GTVic on 6/16/2011 3:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
The question is, why do Americans buy larger disposable vehicles. Why buy a Dodge Caravan when the evidence is all over the road that it will rust out at the same time as all the parts start failing which is right after the warranty expires?


RE: Because who knows better
By mindless1 on 6/17/2011 11:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's unfounded nonsense. Certain american automobiles do have quality control issues but if there's any vehicle that I always think of totally rusting out it would be the old toyota pickup trucks and that was over 20 years ago + age of truck.

The answer is obvious, Americans aren't tricked into squeezing themselves into tiny spaces, they can afford something larger because of the volume of larger cars being made reducing their cost per unit, and that with the gas prices being lower.

In america, the little econobox cars are the disposable ones not the larger cars, because of their higher RPM engines, their weaker suspensions, their lack of cargo space, how badly they get damaged in accidents making repair not cost effective, etc.



"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki