backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Dec 20 at 12:15 PM

Could the proposed standards lead to automakers vacating smaller platforms?

The proposed CAFE standards that have been looming all year will force some major changes on the automotive market. The government says that the much more stringent fuel economy standard will save consumers at the pump and reduce the national need for foreign oil. The auto industry has said that the cost of meeting the standard would increase the cost of new vehicles and could result in lost jobs.
 
According to a new study published by the University of Michigan, the CAFE standards will make cars larger, not smaller. The study indicates that there is a loophole in the economy standards that the automakers could exploit.
 
"For just about all the scenarios, the car got bigger,” said Steven Skerlos, an associate professor at U-M Department of Mechanical Engineering. “What you can model in a computer is different from reality, but based on this research we expect it to happen."
 
The loophole is that the formula used for determining miles per gallons required under the new standard uses the vehicles footprint (multiplying the wheelbase by track width). This was done to give larger vehicles less stringent economy standards to follow. In a nutshell, the formula favors larger vehicles and those vehicles may be less costly since they wouldn't have to use as much technology for fuel gains. 
 
Therefore, automakers may design new vehicles to be larger in an effort to target the lower economy standards. The study also claims that not only would the automakers considering redesigning a vehicle to go for the lower economy limits undermine the CAFE standard goals, but it would also create more pollution
 
"This study illustrates that there may be a substantial financial incentive to produce larger vehicles, and that it can undermine the goals of the policy," said Kate Whitefoot, who conducted the research as a U-M design science doctoral student and is now a senior program officer at the National Academy of Engineering.

Source: AutoNews



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By sigmatau on 12/14/2011 2:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
Or another way to look at it:

Companies faced with new regulations will find any way to get around them not only defeating the regulation but defeating the spirit of why the regulation was implemented.

It's like the government told Company A to stop dumping styrofoam into the landfills because it doesn't decompose quickly and should be recycled. So, instead of dumping the styrofoam into the landfill, Company A decides to burn it and release all the lovely chemicals into our atmosphere.

I really wish people would think more like this. The government can make the most carefully thought out law/regulation, but there will be always someone that will find a way to get around it.


RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By lightfoot on 12/14/2011 4:35:47 PM , Rating: 5
Or another way to look at it is that government is stupid.

If you want to reduce automobile sales, TAX AUTOMOBILE SALES.

If you want to reduce gasoline use, TAX GASOLINE USE.

Don't make some half-assed crazy concoction of government regulations to try to shift the blame for increased costs to some other entity.

The increased cost is the government's fault, and they shouldn't try to hide the blame. People hate taxes and rightfully so. Don't make policies to try and pick winners and losers. Make policies because they are good policy. That's it. Period.

The CAFE standard is BAD POLICY.


RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By idiot77 on 12/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By Arsynic on 12/15/2011 9:50:39 AM , Rating: 4
I'm sorry, but the government shouldn't be in the social engineering business.


By Lerianis on 12/18/2011 9:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
Only in your personal opinion. Many people like myself say that when these companies will not do the socially responsible thing and increase fuel economy and other standards themselves, the government HAS to step in to encourage that.

It is simply good for the people of the world, good for our economy, and good for our national security.


RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By sigmatau on 12/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By Keeir on 12/15/2011 3:36:51 PM , Rating: 3
The question is not "How is CAFE bad?"

but rather "How is CAFE good?" or "Is CAFE better than the alternatives?"

Any regulation is fundamentally "bad". Now the regulation can accomplish overall good, but it starts negative, not positive.

If the end goal is to increase fuel economy, then increase the cost of gasoline. Consumers will put pressure on manufacturers to produce fuel efficient cars, at the rate they value it. Government revenue will increase (regardless of your political view, US revenue MUST increase and spending MUST decrease), and Government will have no burden of compliance costs.

CAFE ensures the Government is in the business of designing special tests, collecting data, assesing data, levying fines, holding hearings on the fines, etc, etc. Overall end cost to the government is much much higher with CAFE.

But why is CAFE bad?
Well, CAFE forces manufacturers to force consumers to buy fuel efficient cars. Manufacturers ALREADY have fuel efficient cars they could offer. The US marketplace DOES NOT WANT them. Recent studies have shown most US consumers (more than 50%) require fuel savings to pay off increases in initial cost in less than 36 months. Given that over 3 year the average US driver pays ~6,000 in fuel costs, and even a 50%! savings in fuel justifies only a 3-4,000 increase in initial purchase price.

So given the above, CAFE forces manufacturers to force you (average US consumer) to purchase cars than you do not see as a good value. And you get to blame the manufacturers for the higher prices of the cars you want to buy and the cheapness of the cars you can afford to buy. Stupid.

If we (the US consumers) really want more efficient cars... simply refuse to purchase less efficient cars! No need for CAFE OR Gas Taxes. But we are all too selfish for this... so we need something to force us to act in the way we apparently want to act... lets at least do it efficiently.


By Lerianis on 12/18/2011 9:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
With all due respect, I disagree about 'U.S. revenue must increase and spending must decrease.' Why?

Because the fact is that compared to what we spent years ago with less people in America (meaning less wear and tear on the road and other things) we are already spending TOO LITTLE and not taking in enough revenue.

Hell, in the 1970's, federal and state combined, we took in 25% of GDP. Today? 18.6% with nearly 2 times the people!

The real issue is that government isn't taxing enough and isn't taxing the right people, meaning the rich people and corporations that outsource overseas.


By Mint on 12/20/2011 12:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
It can pay off immediately if you lease. $3000 over 3 years works out to $80/mo, which is a lot. Put another way, if a car has a 60% residual after three years, then $3000 saved per year means break even occurs with a $7500 greater capital cost (assuming 0% interest, so reduce that however you see fit).

The thing holding back batteries and PHEV from being cost competitive today is not initial cost, but battery life and inventive financing. Imagine if, 10 years down the road (say 3000 charges), a battery can still function at 90% capacity. The value of the battery is still very high, and does not depreciate nearly as fast as the rest of the car. You can, for example, remove 90% of that battery and put them in a new car while running the old one as a regular hybrid until it's retired.


By lightfoot on 12/15/2011 3:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am still waiting for a thoughtful response to why CAFE is bad.

Shane wrote this really great article titled "Study Claims CAFE Loopholes Will Make Vehicles Larger, Not Smaller."

It goes into pretty good detail about one of the reasons that CAFE is bad.

The Cliff's Notes version is basically this: CAFE was designed to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Instead it makes vehicles larger and consume more fuel and create more emissions. That is bad. Mmkay?

A fuel tax on the other hand would have EXACTLY the desired results and would not have loopholes because it is so simple. Heck, Europe even tested it for us and proved that it works.

How the Corporate Average Fuel Economy is supposed to work can't even be described in three pages much less three sentences.

A fuel tax makes fuel more expensive. People react by buying, and thus using, less fuel. The money collected by the tax can be invested in technologies that improve fuel efficiency, build better roads, and improve access to transportation to the poor.

CAFE is needlessly complex and irreparably flawed. It is bad legislation and bad government policy.

I am still waiting for a thoughtful response to why CAFE is good.


RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By Strunf on 12/15/2011 7:35:38 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is that those taxes are blind taxes, as in they affect everyone that buys or has a car, sure if you want to make driving your own car a privilege only wealthy people can afford then yes TAX the hell out of automobile sales and gasoline, I'm pretty sure the "1%" would be more than happy to pay more of those taxes if that meant they would only share the roads with there own "kind".


By lightfoot on 12/15/2011 6:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree with your assessment, but I have to ask:
How do you reduce fuel use if you exempt the vast majority of the population from any rules designed to curb usage?

Due to sheer numbers, even the poor and middle class will need to cut back on fuel usage.


RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By lagomorpha on 12/15/2011 10:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
i have to admit, as a motorcycle rider, i would happily pay $10/gallon in the summer months if it meant no SUVs on the road


By Lerianis on 12/18/2011 9:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
Why? The fact is that SUV's are safer to drive than many other cars and are less likely to get into an accident with a motorcycle because of their 'high and expansive field of view' than a small car is, according to the NHTSA.


RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By Solandri on 12/14/2011 5:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Companies faced with new regulations will find any way to get around them not only defeating the regulation but defeating the spirit of why the regulation was implemented.

Companies and consumers faced with new regulations found a way to get around them, defeating the purpose and spirit of the regulation. The sellers can't do anything without the buyers.

CAFE was based on the misguided belief that "if you build it, they will come." That consumers wanted smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, but the evil car companies simply weren't building them. Instead, it turns out that consumers predominantly want bigger, gas guzzling cars, and automakers were just giving them what they wanted. So automakers figured out a way to skirt around CAFE to continue to give consumers what they wanted, government regulations be damned.


RE: Another government regulation backfiring?
By sigmatau on 12/14/2011 8:35:13 PM , Rating: 1
Um no. The consumer is usualy out of the loop of any regulations not directly imposed onto them.

CAFE was made to decrease our increasing use of oil, not what you said at all.


By Flunk on 12/15/2011 9:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
I want a smaller more fuel efficient car, so someone must. If you want to drive a huge gas-guzzling wreck that's up to you but it's hard to argue that CAFE regulations haven't resulted in more fuel efficient cars and even huge SUVs. These new regulations seem too strict to actually achieve but CAFE regulations have achieved what they have set out to do in the past.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














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