backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by Qapa.. on Feb 19 at 11:12 AM


  (Source: dougburson.com)
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers asked that some credits be given to automakers that improve technology to meet 2012-2016 requirements

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers approached the Obama Administration earlier this week to request the use of credits to meet the proposed fuel efficiency standards.

Last year, major automakers, the state of California, and the White House agreed on the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal that would boost fleet wide fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The effort aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil. The new rules also included a mid-term review to make sure that the 2021-2025 requirements are probable, which the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers also addressed this week.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Toyota Motor Corp., Detroit's Big Three automakers and eight other automakers, has requested that carmakers obtain some credits for improving technology to meet 2012-2016 requirements set by the new fuel efficiency standards proposal instead of automakers only receiving credits if they are "in use in a minimum percentage of its overall fleet."

"Providing this program feature in the earlier years improves the usefulness of the credit program and encourages manufacturers to introduce the listed technologies sooner," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

More specifically, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers would like automakers to obtain some credits for improving active grill shutters, start-stop technology, air conditioning and high efficiency lights for the 2012-2016 technology requirements.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers also asked that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explain the mid-term evaluation process as well as the specifics that will be reviewed. In addition, automakers want to know that the "timeline and procedures for assuring that the studies relied upon by the agencies are appropriately peer reviewed."

Automakers added that they shouldn't be held responsible for emissions from electricity generation from EVs.

"Automakers may now be called on to not only make an unprecedented investment into vehicles with lower emissions, but to also fill the void between this rulemaking and a comprehensive national energy policy," said the automakers.

The new rules are expected to save drivers $1.7 trillion at the pump, but the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) said last month that the new proposal could add as much as $5,000 to the sticker price of a new vehicle in 2025.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: consumer choice
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 3:37:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That's only something that GM can do. The company that pioneered planned obsolescence and the worst mass produced engines in the world.


What? Please explain how one company in a free market dicates consumer choice.

I'm also a little concerned about the inability to understand "planned" obsolescene.

Any product that can be made will wear out eventually. A company ensuring that thier product

A. Lasts at least as long as expected
B. Doesn't last (Cost!) significant more

Is doing the ethical thing. They are matching thier goods, services, and costs to customer expectations. Any company that doesn't plan the lifecycle of their products is well... not very well run.


RE: consumer choice
By x10Unit1 on 2/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: consumer choice
By Spuke on 2/14/2012 5:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why build a product that can last a lifetime when you can build something that forces the customer to buy again in a shorter amount of time that you can control(to a certain extent)?
I suppose on your planet, both of these products would cost exactly the same. Not going to happen ever. You're probably one of those idiots that thinks EV's will eventually cost $20k too. Also, as long as man makes something, it will ALWAYS break whether planned or not.


RE: consumer choice
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 5:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're probably one of those idiots that thinks EV's will eventually cost $20k too.


The Leaf is a ~36,000 dollar EV. I am sure you could strip it some more and make it essentially a 33,000 dollar EV. The Leaf's battery pack cost ~20,000 dollar in 2010 pricing. Therefore, without any other cost savings, if the battery now cost 7,000 dollars, then we would have the "20k" EV.

http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/han...

Its entirely possible for this to occur (albiet in 15-20 years) using an extrapolation of existing price reduction lines. Now I am talking 20k in 2010 dollars.


RE: consumer choice
By Black1969ta on 2/15/2012 1:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
price reduction timeline? last time I checked a 3 cent piece pf Bubble Gum was...25 cents! What? Where is the price reduction.
Initial price reduction of new technologies only occurs in the short term, as manufacturing sets up and facilities recover initial R&D and other acquirement costs. After that there is the slow, sometimes slower than others, but inevitable march of inflation.


RE: consumer choice
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 12:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its entirely possible for this to occur (albiet in 15-20 years) using an extrapolation of existing price reduction lines. Now I am talking 20k in 2010 dollars.
Seriously Keeir, now you're being ridiculous. Car prices have gone only UP. How does car pricing, especially using "new" tech and a fresh set of new government mandates, going to go down? That does NOT makes ANY sense at all and it NOT in keeping with reality (which is car prices continuing to RISE like it has been).


RE: consumer choice
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 2:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That does NOT makes ANY sense at all and it NOT in keeping with reality (which is car prices continuing to RISE like it has been).


There are some problems.

#1. Car prices have steadily fallen. Yes fallen.

Fundamentally it doesn't make sense to compare absolute figures of prices. Inflation occurs. If you anchor prices to one year, say 2010, you'd discover that cars cost more in 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 and 2000-2009 then they do today.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/his...

For instance, between 1991 and today, there has roughly been 65% inflation.

A Civic CRX, HF, Base was 9,400... thats 15,500 in 2011 cash. An Si? 11,400 ... 18,800.

A Nissan Versa today? 11,000. Honda Civic seems to base around 15,500... and its a whole class above the CRX.

#2. The primary component in an EV in terms of cost is the battery. It comprises 60-75% of the cost of the Leaf for instance. Battery prices have fallen both relative to inflation and absolutely. That is simple fact. If battery prices continue to fall, then EVs will both relatively fall in price AND absolutely fall in price.

Consider that in 1996, EV-1 was estimated to cost upto 80,000 1996 dollars. A Leaf costs 35,000 in 2010 dollars. Thats a REAL ABSOLUTE price fall. It has already happened... which I tend to call reality.

#3.
I think the real statement should have been (your intention)

The price of a C-Segment EV will never be the same as a C-Segment ICE.

However following existing establish price falls in just one component (batteries) this is likely to occur within 15 years. IE, no new technology folks. Any new or improved battery technology could cause it to occur even faster, but that is of course uncertain.


RE: consumer choice
By Keeir on 2/14/2012 5:14:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Here I will explain: If a product is planned to stop working/break after a certain time then the customer would be forced to buy another product. Why build a product that can last a lifetime when you can build something that forces the customer to buy again in a shorter amount of time that you can control(to a certain extent)?


And let me explain something.

If I buy a product from Company X that breaks/wears out in Y time that is 1/2 of expected time, when I go to replace it, I will be very tempted to buy Company Z's product instead of Company X. But of course if Company Z's product cost 1.5-2 times more the Company X, I probably would buy Company X's product again.

The truth is that any product has a cost versus durability curve. The more durable the product, the higher the cost. Reducing durability leads to lower cost, but reducing it too far leds to lost market share.

Many times customers place little to no value on durability that is significantly increased past a fixed point in time.

For example, If I had a cell phone that lasted 3 years and could sell it you for free with a 2 year contract versus a cell phone that lasted 5 years and could sell it to you for 100 dollars with a 2 year contract... most would take the free cell phone since the expected lifespan is 2 years. Is it wrong for the company then to plan a 3 year lifespan instead of a 5 year or a 10 year?

If a cell phone maker though made phones that barely lasted 1 year, it wouldn't be too long before people -stopped- getting the "free" cell phone.

Gosh isn't this what happened to GM? Didn't people start buying foriegn cars because they provided valued durability more than the cost increase? Didn't GM respond (eventually) by producing more and more durable cars?

quote:
I would be concerned as well if you don't understand what is now widely used concept.


At one point, most people widely thought the earth was flat.

Now there are many products I would be gladly willing to pay a premium to buy for longer lifespan. I am often unable to find these products at any price... but I am not angry at the company, it is the shortsightiness of my fellow consumers that drive the situation.


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














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