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

By lagomorpha on 7/16/2011 10:02:11 AM , Rating: 0
Oh yes, let's effectively subsidize the production of large trucks and SUVs while increasing the cost of midsized cars that will reduce our oil consumption. After all, any asshole that drives themselves around in a giant vehicle that doesn't have a compatible bumper with vehicles of sane height both deserves to endanger the lives of sane people and should pay less for CAFE ratings to do so. Good job paying lip service to the environmentalists while letting douchebags get what they want. After all so long as the greenies get their Priuses it doesn't matter how many people drive Hummers, right? Encouraging reasonably efficient cars that can meet in the middle obviously aren't a solution.

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.

"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

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