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

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 5:14:46 PM , Rating: 4
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?

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.

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

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