backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by protosv.. on May 11 at 9:49 PM


Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen TDI
The majority of vehicle shopper support increased fuel efficiency standards

The Consumer Federation of America recently released a report that it calls the first progress report on the 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standard. According to the CFA, consumers are demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles. According to the poll, the majority of Americans support federal government requirements increasing fuel economy for new cars.

“Looking at current market offerings, consumer purchasing trends and our surveys of consumer demand, there is no doubt that the federal effort to significantly raise fuel economy is benefiting, consumers, car companies, autoworkers and the environment”, said Jack Gillis, report co-author who is CFA’s Director of Public Affairs and author of The Car Book.

Those federal regulations stipulate that new cars achieve 35 mpg fleetwide average by 2017 and an average of 55 mpg by 2025. 85% of respondents to the survey said that they support these requirements with 54% saying they strongly support the standards.

Fuel efficiency is highly sought after when it comes to purchasing new vehicles with 88% respondents to the survey saying that in their next vehicle purchase, fuel economy will be an important factor and 59% say fuel economy will be a very important factor influencing the purchase.

Survey respondents who say fuel economy is very important to them expect their next vehicle to get 12 mpg more than the current vehicle. Consumers who already have a relatively efficient vehicle getting at least 24 mpg the intended purchase a new vehicle in the future want at least a seven mpg increase putting their desires at approximately 31 mpg.

The survey also found that 50% of respondents who said they intend to purchase an SUV want fuel efficiency of at least 25 mpg.

“These results should lay to rest any concerns that some car dealers had about consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicles,” said Gillis.  In spite of the support of car companies, unions, consumer and environmental groups, the National Automobile Dealers Association was the only major entity opposed to the new requirements.

Source: ConsumerFed



Comments     Threshold


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

Well...
By ballist1x on 5/8/2013 11:20:25 AM , Rating: 0
If the people want high MPG vehicles so much, then why do they have to be mandated?

Wouldn't manufacturers simply produce a range of cars, as they did previously, and then sales would be higher on cars with more MPG and lower with less etc?

Why do performance models have to be wiped off the map just to fit a fleet average, they are reducing the choice for everyone and producing cars. Doesnt seem right to me.




RE: Well...
By Spuke on 5/8/2013 11:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do performance models have to be wiped off the map just to fit a fleet average, they are reducing the choice for everyone and producing cars. Doesnt seem right to me.
Which performance cars have been wiped off the map? There's more fast cars than ever IMO. Look at the acceleration times of the 6 speed manual V6 Honda Accord coupe. 14 flat @ 103 mph in the 1/4 mile. And that's not even a performance car. Nearly every grocery getter has 250+ hp and the sports cars have 300+. The Camaro's back, Toyota has a new sports car, the new Vette is awesome. I think you're WAY off base here.


RE: Well...
By ballist1x on 5/8/13, Rating: -1
RE: Well...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 12:51:57 PM , Rating: 4
So you listed the cars that went out of production and not the new ones?

How about mazdaspeed3/6
How about 370z, G37, M56?
How about Scion TC, FRS and the Subaru version
How about the LFA?
How about the Jaguar F type
How about BMW M1, 4 series, 6 series, 1 series?
How about Audi A3, TT RS?
How about the Camaro, Challenger, SRTs vehicles?
There's a ton of new cars that more than replaced the EOL ones.

The GTR is actually a very cheap supercar. It cost under 100k and can beat ferraris and lambos easily that are twice the price.

The NSX was the epitomy of the V6 Honda? When it came out in 1991, it was one of the best supercar you can buy. It also is still the most reliable supercar ever made. The lightweight all aluminum body and chassis mid engine was also achieved. It never received any major updates so it fell behind but it was definitely worthy of supercar title when it launched.

You obviously stopped keeping up with the auto industry. The RX8 is not a replacement for the RX7. The only reason there's no replacement for them was reliability and budget issues.


RE: Well...
By alpha754293 on 5/9/2013 2:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well the NSX died. That was the epitomy of the V6 Honda for a start.


NSX is on it's way back. Acura I think unveiled the concept/prototype either this year or last year at the North American International Auto Show. It's due out for 2015 (I guess that it got pushed back by a year) and it's going to be a hybrid.

You can read more about it here:
http://www.motortrend.com/future/future_vehicles/1...


RE: Well...
By freedom4556 on 5/8/2013 1:24:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nearly every grocery getter has 250+ hp
Uhhh, no? Nothing with a naturally aspirated four cylinder has more than 200 hp, and they've been cutting sizes down now that they have VVT and DI, eg. the 2.0L engines are being replaced with 1.6L engines. GM has a new 1.0L three cylinder in the works that evokes memories of horrid Metros and Yugos of the 90s. These won't even have maunals either. You either get a shit-tastic car for under 25k or a "performace car" for 35k plus. 300 hp and front wheel drive isn't a performance car, IMO. The speed3 is a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...


RE: Well...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 1:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Honda S2000


RE: Well...
By freedom4556 on 5/8/2013 1:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
...and GT86/BRZ or Miata, your point? There are about 3 corner case of rear-wheel drive cars under $25k.


RE: Well...
By Spuke on 5/8/2013 2:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are about 3 corner case of rear-wheel drive cars under $25k.
Man those goal posts are picking up speed! LOL! Now we're capping the price to under $25k when NONE of those cars you listed were under $25k when new.


RE: Well...
By freedom4556 on 5/8/2013 1:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
And BTW, the S2000 is out of production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_S2000


RE: Well...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 2:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
you said no NA 4 cyl engine have more than 200hp. There's actually several. Honda S2000 is the more common one. I didn't know you can keep popping up new rules and say EOL or not.


RE: Well...
By Just Tom on 5/8/2013 5:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
Honda does not manufacture the S2000 anymore.


RE: Well...
By Spuke on 5/8/2013 2:37:24 PM , Rating: 3
Uhhh yeah. Now you're moving the goal posts. You said PERFORMANCE CAR not normally aspirated sports car. I mentioned the Accord as an example that you can get a performance car without even getting the tag performance car (14 flat in the 1/4 is a performance car...sorry). Do you even know that there's family sedans with 250+ hp on the market? Sports cars with 300+ hp? As BRB mentioned there's PLENTY of performance. And whoever rated me down is an ignorant idiot (had to mention that). Also, nearly all of those cars you listed were from 15-20 years ago?? WTF is that? The article only mentions 2005 as the earliest date for their data so we're only talking about recent cars not old one's and that makes sense because our supposed preference for better fuel economy in cars is only recent.


RE: Well...
By Mint on 5/8/2013 4:08:55 PM , Rating: 1
You're absolutely right. It's amazing how affordable and commonplace high performance cars have become.

Once EVs and PHEVs start becoming more commonplace, performance is going to have an even lower incremental cost. Doubling horsepower in a combustion engine needs far more raw materials, cooling, fuel consumption, etc than doubling it in an electric motor. EVs will eventually make performance upgrades have no compromises and much more common.


RE: Well...
By Spuke on 5/8/2013 7:06:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
EVs will eventually make performance upgrades have no compromises and much more common
Well, no. EV's geared towards performance will always require a larger battery aka more energy storage. This will require performance cars to weigh more or weight will be removed to offset the weight gained from the higher capacity battery. Range would also suffer. So, there's always going to be compromises, EV's or not.


RE: Well...
By Mint on 5/9/2013 6:02:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
EV's geared towards performance will always require a larger battery aka more energy storage.
Not necessarily. Right now manufacturers are just playing it safe with these batteries and electronics. A123's production batteries could do 2600W/kg, so 200kg of them (20kWh) can give you 700hp peak (10s), or 400hp continuous. Substituting them in for 20kWh of a typical battery pack would only add a little more weight, if any. Even those typical batteries will probably get this good in a few years.

The power density of batteries became good enough for performance cars a long time ago. People use lithium ion batteries for RC helicopters, where power to weight is even more important. They want 500+ W/kg for the machine overall, while a Gallardo has <300 W/kg.


RE: Well...
By p3ngwin on 5/9/2013 1:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
"300 hp and front wheel drive isn't a performance car,"

riiiight.

performance car is quite easily thought of as "more than the average working-class person needs for commuting and lifestyle" .

Anything more than that, instantly becomes a minority case, and sportcars for the consumer are exactly that. i'd venture anything over 175HP is a sport car as that satisfies nearly every working class person's needs.

This does not speak of flatbeds like Ford F150's because obviously they are not cars an are for tradies, etc.

for a regular 2-7 seater vehicle, less than 200HP is plenty.


RE: Well...
By Nutzo on 5/9/2013 6:24:59 PM , Rating: 1
So, you are saying that the curent 4 cyl Camry is a sports car? (178 HP)

Most people complain it's too slow, although I find my much older Camry at 150 HP fast enough.


RE: Well...
By euclidean on 5/8/2013 12:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
It could be said that everyone was ignoring the voice of the customer...really, how many industries truly listen to what you want?

But, I feel it would have eventually made it there just not as fast. I can recall the early 2000s - if you wanted a vehicle that had decent MPG (20+) and cost less than 25k you would be looking at mostly compacts with very few or limited features. Now you can find these cars with 30+ MPG, under 25k, most if not all of the features of the high-end/luxury models and not just in a compact.


RE: Well...
By Solandri on 5/8/2013 1:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It could be said that everyone was ignoring the voice of the customer...really, how many industries truly listen to what you want?

The frequent complaint that an industry is not providing the product you want is misdirected. The industry is providing the product their customers want - they would go out of business if that weren't the case. It's just that what you want is not what most customers want.

quote:
But, I feel it would have eventually made it there just not as fast. I can recall the early 2000s - if you wanted a vehicle that had decent MPG (20+) and cost less than 25k you would be looking at mostly compacts with very few or limited features.

With the exception of SUVs and a few luxury sedans, pretty much everything got 20+ MPG, even as far back as the 1980s when I started driving. Once you adjust for inflation, gas was actually the same price in the early 1980s and most of the first half of the 20th century as it is today.
http://barryonenergy.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/i...

Gas prices just feel like they've skyrocketed because they hit a historical low (in inflation-adjusted dollars) during the late 1990s.


RE: Well...
By Harinezumi on 5/9/2013 12:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that the US car industry would have gone out of business without government bailouts, your comment would imply that they were, in fact, not listening to the customers.


RE: Well...
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 12:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
People have always wanted higher mpg. If not for the mpg, it's for the range.

There are several reasons why US manufacturers didn't care for a long time
1. Truck sales are the most profitable so small vehicles gets neglected
2. high mpg vehicles are low profit margins
3. High R&D cost for very little profit compared to trucks and larger vehicles
4. Everyone needs a vehicle, they have to buy one.

Reasons why people's demands were not strong
1. Relatively low gas prices cancel out some of that demand
2. Easy loans. A low monthly payment makes it affordable so people care less about paying more for gas
3. Culture. It's American to not be frugal
4. Size. We just can't give up our big engines and big cars
5. Relatively high disposable income. Despite our debt, our residents have relatively high disposable income so gas prices isn't a problem.
6. Aesthetics. Yes looks matters and it's ugly/uncool. Same reason for SUV vs minivans. The "off-road" excuse is whacked, most SUVs wasn't even designed to go off road.
7. Safety fears. We think these small cars will be unsafe because most of our vehicles are huge.

And the result of the US automakers slacking off and not listening to their customers demand...Toyota and Honda took their market share away because they had what the customers wanted. A cheap, reliable and high mpg vehicle.


RE: Well...
By Mint on 5/8/2013 12:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
The survey is for everyone, but car makers only cater to the desires of new car buyers. ~40% of them earn $50-100k, and ~30% earn $100k+. Not only do they place lower priority on fuel cost than the general public, but dealers also convince them to choose bigger engines.

Most people, however, buy used cars, and are stuck with the shortsighted choices of others. Sure, they can influence residuals for fuel efficient cars, but that has too limited and indirect of an impact on new car purchases.

That's why they overwhelmingly support CAFE and don't trust the automakers and new car buyers to give them what they want. They may not make this realization as explicitly as I have, but they do own used cars and wish they delivered much better economy.


RE: Well...
By mjv.theory on 5/8/2013 1:28:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The survey is for everyone, but car makers only cater to the desires of new car buyers. ~40% of them earn $50-100k, and ~30% earn $100k+. Not only do they place lower priority on fuel cost than the general public, but dealers also convince them to choose bigger engines.

Most people, however, buy used cars, and are stuck with the shortsighted choices of others. Sure, they can influence residuals for fuel efficient cars, but that has too limited and indirect of an impact on new car purchases.

That's why they overwhelmingly support CAFE and don't trust the automakers and new car buyers to give them what they want. They may not make this realization as explicitly as I have, but they do own used cars and wish they delivered much better economy.


An intelligent, well thought out analysis; well said.


RE: Well...
By freedom4556 on 5/8/2013 1:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much hit the nail on the head. The used car buyers are getting to tell the new car buyers and automakers what they have to buy and make via these regulations. Dictatorship of the proles.


RE: Well...
By Philippine Mango on 5/8/2013 3:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh please, this is one of the few cases where everybody benefits. If the automakers want to make a gas guzzling car they can, but you'll just pay penalties for it.


RE: Well...
By Spuke on 5/8/2013 7:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the automakers want to make a gas guzzling car they can, but you'll just pay penalties for it.
Sorry but this is a retarded statement. You already pay the higher "penalty" for driving a not so fuel efficient car. It's called <drum roll> higher gas prices!! LOL! So you DO have to pay more now. And what does us paying more have to do with the automakers producing "gas guzzlers"? Another thing, if automakers are producing "gas guzzlers" then people must be buying them or it wouldn't benefit (ie profit) the automakers to continue producing them, would it now?


RE: Well...
By Philippine Mango on 5/9/2013 1:33:15 PM , Rating: 1
They have penalties so that the automakers are incentivized into making cars more efficient. It's either spend $1K+ on penalties or spend $1k+ on fuel efficiency technology. I know many poor people who can't afford to buy a new vehicle so when rich or dumb ass poor people buy a vehicle then resell it, all the poor people are left with are gas guzzling vehicles to drive to and from work.

The point of CAFE isn't just to increase fuel economy, high gas prices might do that alone, the idea behind the CAFE is to increase fuel economy while keeping fuel prices low so that consumers SAVE money. Most people think CAFE is retarded to work in that way but I think it's the best way because saving fuel isn't the only goal, but also to help people save money as well. The first owner may no benefit from fuel sipping technologies but the succeeding owners will which is why it's difficult to understand that market forces alone don't drive fuel economy as much as it should. Gas prices apparently need to be much higher than they currently are for dumbasses to get out of their guzzlers but that would negate any economic savings to the consumer the fuel sipping technologies would provide, therefore hurting the poor disproportionately.

I like CAFE because it's a different kind of tax. It's an impulse, waste tax. The automakers and therefore the consumer pays a penalty if they buy a gas guzzling vehicle, therefore are disincentivized from buying gas guzzlers. However it does not tax fuel so those who continue to drive the vehicles that they do don't have to be so heavily tax nor those who drive fuel sipping vehicles.

If you can't wrap your head around CAFE, think of it this way: CAFE IS A GAS GUZZLER VEHICLE TAX THAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO A GASOLINE TAX.


RE: Well...
By Mint on 5/10/2013 8:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that if they buy a gas guzzler, they likely can afford it, that penalty is usually only paid for for 3-5 years.

After that, the car is put on the used market and somebody is going to buy it. It may depreciate faster, but it will be bought and driven for its remaining life. There is no net consumer choice in the used car market because it's a fixed, predetermined supply of goods. The individual choice merely has a substitutional effect, i.e. who gets which car.


RE: Well...
By Mint on 5/8/2013 3:57:28 PM , Rating: 1
Welcome to democracy.

What a travesty that the people are getting what they want.


RE: Well...
By cyberguyz on 5/8/2013 1:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
The mandates are not for the buyers to buy them. I don't need a govt agency to tell me that spending less on gas is a good thing. I'm not stupid. Likewise a government can't force me to dump my old gas-guzzling beater to buy a new econobox. They can make it more expensive to own that beater, but they can't force me to junk it and buy something newer.

No, the mandate is for vehicle manufacturers to produce cars that run on less and less gas.

Without the goals set by these mandates manufacturers will look at their most economical cars and say 'Good enough! No need to improve them'. The mandates raise the bar that manufacturers have to reach.


RE: Well...
By Solandri on 5/8/2013 1:45:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Without the goals set by these mandates manufacturers will look at their most economical cars and say 'Good enough! No need to improve them'. The mandates raise the bar that manufacturers have to reach.

Without the mandates, the manufacturers will make what the customers want. There's this vast conspiracy theory that the automakers are deliberately trying to keep fuel economy down. That simply isn't the case. It's the customers who are not prioritizing fuel economy highly enough.

Here's car and truck sales data for the U.S. from 1931 to present.
http://wardsauto.com/keydata/historical/UsaSa01sum...

If you sift through it, you'll find that light trucks accounted for about 15% (give or take 5%) of passenger vehicle sales for most of the 20th century. Then in the early 1970s when the oil embargo caused manufacturers to release more fuel-efficient cars, the ratio starts shifting towards light trucks. CAFE was implemented in 1975, continuing the trend towards trucks. Until we arrive at where we are today - approximately half of new vehicle sales are light trucks.

Basically the government implemented CAFE because it believed the conspiracy theory that the automakers were keeping mileage down. It forced the automakers to raise mileage, which they did by reducing vehicle size and (after you subtract technological advances) power. Customers responded by buying the bigger and more powerful trucks instead of CAFE-inspired cars.

It's the customers who are resisting the move to higher mileage, not the automakers. If we want to increase vehicle mileage, it'd be much more effective to do it by ditching CAFE and implementing higher fuel taxes.


RE: Well...
By freedom4556 on 5/8/2013 1:52:59 PM , Rating: 1
This x1000. I don't understand why otherwise normally intelligent but left-leaning people can't see it. The free market is working, but it isn't doing why they (the environmentally-concerned) want.


RE: Well...
By kmmatney on 5/8/2013 5:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think gas prices aren't high enough for that to happen yet. I'd like to see what people buy if gas prices hit UK levels ($8/gallon). At U.S. gas prices, customers are "concerned" with gas mileage, but there are other factors that may be more important.


RE: Well...
By Nutzo on 5/9/2013 6:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't understand why otherwise normally intelligent but left-leaning people can't see it.


Because left-leaning people don't trust individuals or the free markets. Only the government can be trusted, and should be used to force people to make the correct choice.

Make that correct choice according to some clueless political hack.

What may be the best choice for one person, may not be the best for everyone else, and thats why this type of central planning never works.


RE: Well...
By Mint on 5/10/2013 8:50:54 AM , Rating: 2
Read the source article and you'll see that right leaning people agree want mandated higher efficiencies as well.


RE: Well...
By rountad on 5/10/2013 9:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
When I see things like this (calls for mandates), I am reminded of all the people that keep retaining the services of the Three Stooges as plumbers or movers...

Not only is this counter-productive and much better handled by either the free market (best) or higher gas taxes (better than CAFE, but still problematic), the choice of who should fix this is mind-boggling to me.

We are clamoring to give up choice and freedom.
We are choosing as our "saviors" people who have demonstrated corruption, incompetence, and indifference in large measure.


RE: Well...
By cyberguyz on 5/8/2013 2:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
You think it was the oil embargo that forced people to light trucks? Look at the 70s and 80s. what were the most popular cars? Minivans. Then as we moved from the 80s to the third millennium you see SUVs and crossovers gaining popularity. Do you really think folks are thinking about fuel economy when they buy these?

So what do YOU think is driving the manufacturers to build more and more fuel efficiency cars? It is certainly not the soccer moms or the guy driving the hummer. The car companies have made huge amounts of profit making them. Listen to the auto makers bellyache about having to meet ever stiffer and stiffer fuel economy goals. Do you really think they will do that on their own? The way they are complaining now?

Nope. Unless these car makers are pushed to innovate, they will not. Just look at the Toyota Corolla to see the truth in that.


RE: Well...
By protosv on 5/11/2013 9:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just look at the Toyota Corolla to see the truth in that.


This. Somehow Honda, Mazda, Hyundai, Ford, hell even GM have managed to come out with compacts that at least approach 40mpg highway. Corolla? Gets a measly 34mpg in comparison. Why? Because they can afford to sacrifice its mpg in order to push customers up to the Prius, which *starts* at $8K more!


RE: Well...
By cyberguyz on 5/8/2013 3:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
(sorry for dbl post DT won't let me edit :/)

Just as an FYI, I currently drive a 2013 Focus. When I was shopping around I had on my shortlist 3 cars:

1. 2013 For Mustang V6
2. 2013 Hyundai Sonata 2.0T / Kia Optima 2.0T
3. 2013 Focus (non ST)

All 3 were only within a $1000-$2000 or two of each other and comparably equipped. Care to guess why I went with the Focus? Both of the competing cars had more power, were bigger and were faster. Here's a guess:

It costs about $35 bucks to fill it up and I just as far. Do you really think I would be getting that kind of economy if CAFE had not been forcing the automakers to provide it?


RE: Well...
By Spuke on 5/8/2013 7:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really think I would be getting that kind of economy if CAFE had not been forcing the automakers to provide it?
Are you talking about the new CAFE or the old one? If you're talking about the old one then no. If you're talking about the new one, then no. Todays cars were designed 4 or 5 years ago on the old CAFE standards which all of them equal or surpass. Only a few cars meet the new CAFE standards. What all of you fail to realize is that todays fuel efficiency improvements have crap to do with CAFE and everything to do with what WE want. So, yes the automakers will respond to consumer demand like they always do (duh) else they would be out of business.


RE: Well...
By Philippine Mango on 5/9/2013 1:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
You're terribly misinformed. The fuel economy improvements you see in vehicles today really are tied directly with the Bush/Obama directive of improving vehicle fuel economy by 2016. This Old/new CAFE fuel economy crap is only for the Monroney Sticker that the consumer sees. That number on the Monroney sticker is directly derived from the original CAFE formula that has been in use since the 70s and is still used to this day. Bush/Obama did in fact raise the original CAFE numbers requirements that the automakers use when testing for the standard. For an idea of what I'm talking about, the Prius gets 50mpg on the Monroney Sticker but on the CAFE fuel economy test cycle, it's rated at 70mpg...


RE: Well...
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 5/8/2013 3:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, raising the gas tax to reduce consumption makes a lot more thermodynamic and libertarian sense than forcing automakers to comply with a MPG mandate or (by trickle-down thuggery) forcing buyers to buy them.


RE: Well...
By Mint on 5/8/2013 3:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that it's political suicide, even if you use the revenues to give people tax breaks.

Even in supposedly tree-hugging Canada, the Liberal Party leader concocted a carbon tax scheme paired with lower income taxes that would result in net savings for most families, and that formerly ruling party got absolutely hammered with its worst result in decades.


RE: Well...
By Philippine Mango on 5/9/2013 1:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think that a gas tax is better than a gas guzzler tax? That makes no sense unless you think it's better because it's a tax on everybody instead of a tax on idiots.


RE: Well...
By rountad on 5/9/2013 1:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about him, but I would rather see a higher gas tax than the increased CAFE standards.

The increased tax will incentivize the creation of more efficient cars and make people spend more money.

The CAFE increase will limit choice of vehicles, force auto manufacturers to make certain types of vehicles, and make people spend more money.

Both involve increased costs, but one limits choice and freedom less.

Even better would be to let the free market come to an equilibrium.

We are exporting large quantities of gasoline. We aren't hurting for it. Not even close.


RE: Well...
By Philippine Mango on 5/9/2013 2:05:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

The CAFE increase will limit choice of vehicles, force auto manufacturers to make certain types of vehicles, and make people spend more money.

Both involve increased costs, but one limits choice and freedom less.

Even better would be to let the free market come to an equilibrium.

We are exporting large quantities of gasoline. We aren't hurting for it. Not even close.


How does having a high gas tax not limit vehicle choice but the CAFE tax limits vehicle choice? That doesn't make any sense. The automakers can and do make vehicles that violate the MPG rating needed to not get penalties so the idea that raising it will limit vehicle choice but a gas tax won't is just ridiculous. If people are dumb enough to buy a gas guzzler price be damned, then they'll continue to do so and automakers will continue to make those vehicles. Fact of the matter is, vehicle choice is already limited by the auto manufacturers because they build what is most profitable at the cost of choice so it's all a wash. You want a gas guzzling vehicle I want a fuel sipping pickup truck, as it currently stands, I'm not getting what I want and you're apparently not getting what you want either so who gives a shit.


RE: Well...
By rountad on 5/9/2013 5:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
It limits vehicle choice at the automaker level.

If they want to avoid penalties
If they are willing to pay penalties but the car in question isn't cost effective with the penalties
The opportunity cost of producing cars that the automakers don't want to produce, but feel like they are forced to to comply with regulation

Didn't one of the Italian automakers, Fiat or Maserati, just say that hybrids were crap but they'd soon have to be making them?

Anyway, my point is that CAFE will stop many high HP cars from seeing the light of day, but you'll get more and more fuel efficient trucks either way.


RE: Well...
By Nutzo on 5/9/2013 6:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
So someone's an idiot because they need a large car?

We currently have a mini van so the wife can carpool the kids.

Before that I and a SUV because I was hauling alot of contruction stuff.

I guess we would have been smarter to buy a Pruis and made 2-3 seperate trips everytime we needed to haul several people or lots of stuff.


RE: Well...
By Jeffk464 on 5/8/2013 3:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Likewise a government can't force me to dump my old gas-guzzling beater to buy a new econobox.


Really, you can buy a super stylish and sporty 2013 mazda 6 that gets 35mpg's, who said anything about an econo box.


RE: Well...
By cyberguyz on 5/8/2013 3:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but government mandates can't force me to do it ;)


RE: Well...
By danjw1 on 5/9/2013 10:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
So, you are saying that I can't buy a Mustang, Viper, Corvet, Porsche, Ferrari or Lamborghini? Nope, that just isn't true. So your post is just silly.

No they wouldn't. Why push gas millage unless they are required to? While there are lots of car brands out there, the number of actual companies competing in the market is small. This leads to malaise. Why innovate faster then your competitors?

We are on the path to being a net energy export. This is both an economic and national security issue. We will have move leverage with our Middle East "allies" when this happens. When we no longer depend on them for fuel, we can start pressuring them to move forward on their atrocious human rights. Maybe, at some point, women in those counties could actually have the same rights they had when Mohammad was alive.


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














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