backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by toyotabedzrock.. on Jan 25 at 3:52 PM


  (Source: blog.thesietch.org)
U.S. regulators say it isn't a big deal, since consumers will save on fuel over the vehicle's lifetime

A National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) official said a new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal could add as much as $5,000 to the sticker price of a new vehicle.

The new CAFE proposal aims to increase the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold here in the U.S. to 54.5 mpg by 2025 in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil.

Don Chalmers, chairman of NADA's government relations committee, announced in a Detroit hearing for the proposal that nearly doubling today's fuel economy standards would force manufacturers to use expensive "fuel-saving technologies" that would bump up the sticker price of a new vehicle an extra $5,000. NADA is expected to release a study next month showing that the costs for the new higher fuel-economy standards will overshoot government estimates by over 60 percent (meaning an extra $5,000 to the sticker price for new 2025 models).

Chalmers argued that an extra $5,000 would put many potential buyers out of the new-car market because it could add another $60 to $70 to a monthly car payment and hurt a customer's chance to receive financing.

"I want to sell more fuel-efficient cars," said Chalmers. "If the customer can't get financing, it makes no difference."

U.S. regulators see the situation differently, though. Many believe the extra $5,000 wouldn't be an issue because customers save on fuel over the lifetime of the vehicle.

"We're hearing broad support," said Margo Oge, director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality at the Environmental Protection Agency. "What we heard is that this standard will create green jobs. This is what the consumer wants. This is where the companies want to invest. So, overall, it's been very positive."

Other supporters for the new CAFE proposal by the Obama administration include 13 major automakers, such as Ford Motor Co., General Motors, and Chrysler; United Auto Workers (UAW), and environmental groups like the National Wildlife Federation.

"These proposed rules will reduce the pollution that contributes to climate change, significantly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and save American families money at the pump," said Bob King, UAW President, who added that the proposal could save customers around $4,000 over the life of the vehicle. "They will also create jobs in the auto industry and throughout the economy."

"This proposal provides our industry both a single program moving forward, as well as regulatory framework that enables manufacturers to plan and invest for the future with confidence," said Sue Cischke, Ford Motor Co.'s vice president of sustainability, environment and safety engineering. "We are committed to working with you to finalize these regulations. The standards proposed are aggressive, but so are the demands from our customers for greater fuel efficiency."

Others, such as Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG, are on Chalmers' side with opposing the new CAFE proposal. They say the new proposal offers "no new incentive for diesel cars."

The hearing for the proposal was one of three that will be held to give the public a chance to comment. The other two are scheduled for January 19 in Philadelphia and January 24 in San Francisco.

Source: Automotive News



Comments     Threshold


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

By quiksilvr on 1/18/2012 10:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
I mean honestly. The next lithium ion battery upgrade is less than 5 years away. Once that happens, the electric car market will explode, meaning by 2025 gas powered cars will become a rare purchase.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/18/2012 10:16:36 AM , Rating: 1
I think you're being incredibly optimistic. I just saw a report yesterday saying that the average age of vehicles on the road today is something like 10.4 years, the highest its been in quite some time.

With this economy, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Gas is here to say, at least for the next 50+ years or so. Hell, until electric "quick charging" infrastructure is as robust as gas stations, it may take even longer.


By Stuka on 1/18/2012 10:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Very optimistic there.

There's no way electric will replace gas until you can provide the equivalent experience. We're 50+ years away from having an electrical source that can recharge/refuel within a reasonable amount of time to demote gas and be fully market ready and scalable. There are only so many elements on the periodic table, there are only so many ways they can interact to release energy, and beyond that there are finite amounts of each of them on the planet, and most likely only a third of which are accessible due to political constraints. There are a lot of problems, a lot of equations, and a LOT of testing... which means dollars. Research is not a natural resource which grows in a field in Iowa. It can not be forced into submission. It cannot be legislated. It is real work, and it can only be done so fast.


By Mint on 1/18/2012 2:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
While he was wrong saying "running", I don't think he'll be far off if he instead said "buying".

By 2025, I think the vast majority of new cars sold would be PHEV. By then we'll easily be getting 10-20k cycles from a battery before it dies, so it'll be much more cost effective than gasoline/ethanol over it's lifetime, which will cost more than today due to India, China, and hopefully Africa developing.

Even from a performance point of view, electric will soon be the way to go. Going from 100kW to 400kW will cost and weigh much less than gasoline.


By Jedi2155 on 1/19/2012 5:29:47 AM , Rating: 2
CARB (California Air Resource Board) has many scenarios on expected new vehicle purchases. 2025 is still optimistic to say most vehicles won't be Gas (or Diesel).

Here is one (of many)scenario
http://www.hybridcars.com/files/zev-2050.gif

I feel price is still the biggest hurdle but by 2020, I expect an EV to be comparable in everyone single aspect to a Gas powered vehicle. Other factors though, will still make gas powered vehicles more desirable (high MPG will make cost to fuel less of a factor), quick fill up etc.

I do not believe our electric infrastructure to be able to handle 40% EV's at its current state BUT there is plenty of capacity right now. California can handle up to 2 million simultaneous EV's through SPARE capacity during the night no problem (that's 6.6 to 20 gigawatts), and if we use other generation and import power from other states. However 2 million though, is just 1/16th of the 32 million vehicles registered in California alone. Each new average (3 GW) nuclear plant though, can handle another million or so we can easily expand provided we will build that.

Still, I think a good healthy mix is the best way to handle our future transportation needs, but EV's are still in their infancy stage. I'm doing my part, just ordered my Volt last weekend :D.


By PrinceGaz on 1/19/2012 9:22:49 AM , Rating: 1
Not every EV needs to be fully charged every night.

In fact according to some research I've just made up, current EVs with 100 mile range on average only require 28% charge each night, so provided the charging points are designed to use power intelligently that means there is capacity to cope with 3.5x as many vehicles; so the spare Californian capacity could handle 7 million vehicles rather than only 2 million.

Unless all 7 million EV owners all decide to go out one day and fully drain their batteries.


By mgilbert on 1/18/2012 10:26:45 AM , Rating: 3
Until an electric only car can travel 500 miles on a charge, be fully recharged in three minutes or less, batteries last at least 15 years, and there are as many charging stations as there are gas stations now, I will not own one, and neither will 99% of the drivers out there. And you think that is going to happen in less than 15 years???


By twhittet on 1/18/2012 10:47:11 AM , Rating: 1
I can't:
Travel 500 miles in my car without refueling
Fuel my car in three minutes or less
I doubt it will last 15 years

So am I in the 1% because I own a normal car?


By mgilbert on 1/18/2012 10:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
I might have to refuel, but my car can travel 400 to 500 miles on a tank. It only takes a few minutes to refuel a gasoline or diesel car. Any car will last at least 15 years if halfway taken care of. Don't get caught up in the semantics. You know what I mean.


By FITCamaro on 1/18/2012 11:23:44 AM , Rating: 1
Idiots thrive on semantics.


By GotThumbs on 1/18/2012 2:08:30 PM , Rating: 4
The REAL key is...how often do you drive 500 miles...400 miles...300 miles...in one go? Most drivers do nothing like this. So for those who commute between 20 and 50 miles each day...an electric car would be fine. Most families have two cars. Use one for daily driving...and the other for when the family DOES go on a 100+ mile trip.

The reality is that Americans don't live in the reality of a global society. It all revolves around YOU...the single person. How else can you explain the tons of garbage people freely toss from their cars. I just see that as evidence of the number of low class people on the road. fyi...low class has nothing to do with your wealth. There are very wealthy people who are still low class. Low class exemplifies the dung of society who are do nothing to help...but are almost always a drain on our system and of course are always the victims. Lack of self-responsibility = Low Class Person. IMO.

Best wishes to all.


By Spuke on 1/18/2012 3:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most families have two cars. Use one for daily driving...and the other for when the family DOES go on a 100+ mile trip.
Most families have two cars because Mom drives one way to work and Dad drives another other way. One car is typically "upsized" to accommodate putting extra people and stuff in it for trips or the kids extra activities or to accommodate visiting families.

quote:
The reality is that Americans don't live in the reality of a global society. It all revolves around YOU...the single person.
LOL! Then you go off the deep end.


By FITCamaro on 1/18/2012 11:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fuel my car in three minutes or less


Then you're doing it wrong.

quote:
I doubt it will last 15 years


Then actually take care of it. Don't wait until things fall off to replace them.

My parents had an 88 Honda Accord with over 300,000 miles on it. The only reason it was replaced was because my parents totaled it. It didn't leak oil, it shifted smooth, and the suspension was in good shape.


By brybir on 1/18/2012 11:42:43 AM , Rating: 3
But, there are plenty of cars that even when taken care of, will not last 15 years.


By brybir on 1/18/2012 11:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
That is your line in the sand, so to speak, about what you would require before you would buy an electric car.

I for one would be happy to drive 300 miles, charge in 10 to 15 minutes, and have my car last 10 years. But that is just me. I suspect that "line in the sand" is different for everyone.


By Qapa on 1/18/2012 9:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you mean (I read the replies on semantics, below), but I think your going about it the other way: if you had all those conditions 99% of the drivers would buy one!

I also agree that current electrics are niche cars useful for some (very) specific cases (usually, double car families living in/very near cities).

But supposedly, Nissan Leaf's batteries have 5 years warranties and after 10 years still have 80% range - that's not bad (initial range I discuss below).

Charging stations vary a lot, but in my country (and specially my city) there are chargers in dozens of public parking places and most malls. Adding to that, my work place has them as well, and at home I can also charge (private parking place already with electricity).

So, for me only 2 problems still exist: range and price.

Range, is definitely a problem. On the other hand, I usually need ~40km (~25 miles) per day (home-work-home), which means I can always go visit family or friends, shopping, dinner, go out, whatever. As for trips, I do a few small ones, within range. And 2-6 longer trips per year, some still within range+"quick 30min recharge", so I could almost live with this, maybe renting a car for a couple of weekends per year.

Also, most people don't mention but, on your daily chores, if you have charging places, you can keep charging, increasing the range - for instance, if you can charge at work, you can pretty much live on the edge of your range and don't stop for recharging on the way home, ok more reasonably would be to work up to 70 or 80 miles away from home being fine.

Price: I already mentioned (in other posts) that in Europe the prices are higher than in the US... like this:
~30% more (before taxes and incentives)
~60% more (after taxes and incentives)
So this simply sucks!!

In other words, for the US price I would already own one.

Granted, I started complaining you're mentioning it isn't for you and as a consequence it wouldn't be for anyone - you can't generalize like that. So I'm also not saying it is for everyone, in fact I started by saying it is a niche car, for now. But for some/many, and some statistics say most people drive less than 50 miles per day, this can already be something to consider... but I'd say, just increasing the range to 200-250 miles would make a lot of people really start considering this, specially in Europe but with US prices :P


By x10Unit1 on 1/18/2012 12:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, it will take a while for a new technology to exceed gasoline. First, we have to pick a technology. Then we have to build an infrastructure to support it. And finally, we have to phase out gasoline powered vehicles.

Also, specifically for battery tech, we would have to have major advancements in battery and electric motor technology for battery tech to replace heavy duty towing vehicles.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2012 12:35:48 PM , Rating: 1
It's not a new technology, it's an inferior one. It's important that we understand that distinction before adding more context to this debate.

quote:
First, we have to pick a technology. Then we have to build an infrastructure to support it. And finally, we have to phase out gasoline powered vehicles.


You're taking the logical approach. The Government isn't logical. Here is how they are doing it:

Step 1. Make the mandate regardless of it's feasibility. I'm sure someone will figure it out.

Step 2. ???

Step 3. Success!


By Paj on 1/19/2012 7:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
If you were to factor in the damage that gasoline does to the environment, its cost would be much higher. The price of oil will not be going down.


By IcePickFreak on 1/18/2012 3:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
Surely we won't be paying $1+ per kwh for all our electricity at that point. No way they'd do that to us.
/sarcasm


Pulling numbers outta their arse
By Beenthere on 1/18/2012 10:49:10 AM , Rating: 3
The crack addicts in DC like to pull MPG numbers outta their arses. They are totally out of touch with the technical realities of trying to implement these absurd mandates.

Since these MPG goals are unattainable by anything other than hybrids and EVs, you can see that your purchasing options are going to be determined by clueless A-Holes in DC from now on. Until we get people with a clue in DC - at all levels and positions - we all lose.




RE: Pulling numbers outta their arse
By brybir on 1/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: Pulling numbers outta their arse
By Spuke on 1/18/2012 2:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
suggesting that it is possible to achieve.
Once again, this is NOT the point. Of course it can be achieved. If you throw enough money at it, anything can be done. The WHOLE point of this article is not achievement but AFFORDABILITY. As much as I see people griping about todays car prices (not to mention the clueless that are expecting certain car prices to fall...cough EV's cough), I can't imagine the gripes when an extra $5k is added to car prices. And this doesn't include added cost for new safety regs either. If no one or hardly anyone can afford a new car, these regulations are pointless. And if people are keeping their cars for 10 years now then it will be MUCH longer before THESE cars show up in drivers hands.


RE: Pulling numbers outta their arse
By Paj on 1/19/2012 8:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
Diesel cars regularly meet these numbers without much difficulty (yes thats in US mpg too). Hybrids exceed them easily.

It might be time to face the facts that the age where everyone has a car might be drawing to a close. Roads are already at burtsing point. Investment in modern public transport is a far better solution.

BUT THEN I WONT HAVE MY 6000HP F150 SO I CAN DRIVE TO THE SHOPS DOWN THE ROAD AND COMMUTE 150 150 TO WORK


RE: Pulling numbers outta their arse
By Mahazy on 1/19/2012 8:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
You realize a lot of families have 2 working people/parents don't you? And often the places where those two people work are separated by a significant geographic distance?

So no, I think your comment is absurd and it's abvious your brain isn't geared in reality, it's geared in the eco-nut, save the planet, everyone must sacrifice so we can try to attain some ethereal utopia where we all bike to our jobs (even in winter) and we drive 500lb. electric cars.

I don't like pollution, it's probably the cause of of a lot of poeple's allergies and lung issues (mine included), but I'm not going to risk our economic future, give up some of my freedoms and lower my standard of living to accelerate the change artifically.

We're getting there... just settle down and drink a beer while things improve and evolve. Think how much better we have it now compared to just 200 years ago.


RE: Pulling numbers outta their arse
By Mahazy on 1/19/2012 8:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
You realize a lot of families have 2 working people/parents don't you? And often the places where those two people work are separated by a significant geographic distance?

So no, I think your comment is absurd and it's abvious your brain isn't geared in reality, it's geared in the eco-nut, save the planet, everyone must sacrifice so we can try to attain some ethereal utopia where we all bike to our jobs (even in winter) and we drive 500lb. electric cars.

I don't like pollution, it's probably the cause of of a lot of poeple's allergies and lung issues (mine included), but I'm not going to risk our economic future, give up some of my freedoms and lower my standard of living to accelerate the change artifically.

We're getting there... just settle down and drink a beer while things improve and evolve. Think how much better we have it now compared to just 200 years ago.


50 years
By DrApop on 1/18/2012 10:43:20 AM , Rating: 1
CAFE standards were first enacted in 1975 with a standard of approx 17 mpg and then around 25 mpg in 1985. Nothing happened (because of the auto industry lobby)until 2007. In fact, overall fleet mpg had actually gone down slightly up until 2007. So in a total of 50 years they are being asked to go from 17 mpg to 50+ mpg. Hell, we put a man on the freakin moon in 1/5th the time.

So I am not feeling sorry for an industry that will have had 40 years (since 85')to increase their engine efficiency but did nothing but sit with their thumbs up their arses for 20+ years.




RE: 50 years
By CBRworm on 1/18/2012 1:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
Right, the cars of today are not better in every way than the cars of 1985.

In 1985 a regular 305 V8 4 barrel Camaro made a whopping 155HP and got a cool 17mpg.

A 2012 V6 Camaro makes 323 HP and gets 10mpg more.

Todays cars are safer, faster, and more comfortable than anything from 1985. They are also more reliable and more efficient. The biggest downside is complexity.


RE: 50 years
By Reclaimer77 on 1/18/2012 3:02:43 PM , Rating: 1
Whoa whoa WAIT slow down!!?? You're saying automotive companies improved and innovated without the Government telling them to??

*thousands of Liberals just had an aneurism somewhere*


RE: 50 years
By Spuke on 1/18/2012 3:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're saying automotive companies improved and innovated without the Government telling them to??
I have a friend that considers himself a liberal although he never takes things at face value (questions everything) and he can't wrap his head around that little tidbit of fact. Fact is there have hardly been any improvements in CAFE until just recently yet the automakers continue to push on improvements in fuel economy.


Soooooooooooo
By JackBurton on 1/18/2012 11:00:39 AM , Rating: 4
Sooooooo, California is already having problems keeping up with their power demands (rolling blackouts), how will adding more electric vehicles help that?

You know what they say, "be careful what you wish for, because you just may get it."




RE: Soooooooooooo
By Spuke on 1/18/2012 3:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Our state government simply does not give a f#$k. Their plan is to simply raise taxes at the last moment to fix any problem that they can't ignore.


Two observations:
By rangerdavid on 1/18/2012 10:52:01 AM , Rating: 1
Q: What will world population and energy demand be in 2025, less or greater than current levels?
A: Greater, meaning higher prices for oil, a limited and non-renewable resource.

Q: Do currently produced cars meet this mileage standard?
A: Yes, so the technology already exists.

Q: Will auto makers be able to improve upon this technology to make it more affordable in the next 14 years?
A: Yes, making the claim that these standards would still cost a premium in 14 year's time just a farce. 14 years is a long time for technology. 14 years ago, Google hired its first employee. You must see this $5000/car figure as a fictional smokescreen.

I'm not sure what their motivation is, since market forces will push them in this direction anyway. Is it a ploy by the auto companies to try to avoid the R&D costs? American auto makers have often behaved this way, and it lead to two out of three going bankrupt (remember that, kids?). I'm guessing Detroit would love to lag behind in improving efficiency to make short-term profits, but lose the long game. Again.




RE: Two observations:
By Spuke on 1/18/2012 3:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
1. The government has never been correct in its estimations of anything that has a price tag. Based on this, $5000 is probably still too low, IMO.
2. Cars are more expensive today than before. Not all of that is inflation. As a matter of fact inflation has gone up very little in the past 10 years but car prices have increased dramatically.
3. Making every car essentially get 36 mpg combined is a FAR cry from making ONE or TWO cars get 36 mpg combined.
4. You are correct that the tech is there. It can definitely be done, it justs costs money. Like fuel prices (and everything else that rides on the price of fuel), costs will increase. This is why I mentioned in #1 that i think it will cost more than $5k. These cars will be produced in 2025 dollars not todays dollars.


RE: Two observations:
By hifloor on 1/20/2012 12:46:30 AM , Rating: 1
Not just you, but did you dumbasses notice it's the NADA quoting the $5k figure, NOT the government?

The NADA is the National Auto Dealers' Association, a trade group representing car dealers. Given that they represent a bunch of slimy car salesmen, they're obviously pulling this figure out of their asses, going high over what the gov't has said you will save in gas costs. Show me the engineers they have on staff that understand all the technologies involved, and I'll buy what they say. Since they probably don't even have a fundamental understanding of how better fuel economy is achieved, how do they have any credibility at all?

As to the Camaro comment above - true. But, did you take into consideration the fact that the 305 sucked? It was one of the worst engines GM ever built. That it had 155 hp alone says it wasn't tuned for shit.

Also, note the CAFE standards are 'fleet' - that is, for every model getting 50 mpg, the manufacturer can have a model getting 22 mpg, which puts them at 36 mpg average. So you have your econobox car, and your 3/4-ton, penis-compensating truck. Sales volume doesn't count, either. Rebadge a base model tuned to hit 60 mpg, but they're factory-order-only or the like, making them almost impossible to acquire, now you've got an offset for your Hummer clone.

Plus, why are they going against the manufacturers on this? Seems most of the domestics are for it (at least publicly - I'd like to see who they're paying off to make this not happen.)


EPA equivalent MPG
By dubldwn on 1/18/2012 11:23:14 AM , Rating: 3
@Tiffany could you and your colleagues make it a point to note in these articles that 54.5 mpg CAFE is equivalent to 36 mpg combined EPA?

Thanks!




Won't notice? lol
By MonkeyPaw on 1/18/2012 10:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
I love governmental justification. They say we will get the $5000 back through efficiency savings. What will probably happen is fuel prices will continue to rise as demand drops, resulting in the same net price at the pump. Gas was about $1/gal in the mid-90s, and it has since tripled in under 2 decades. What is killing our economy is that the cost of most things has gone up while wages have stagnated and unemployment has risen. Not sure who will be buying all these new car that save the planet. An unemployed man consumes very little resources already.




They are both right
By tayb on 1/18/2012 12:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
Unless we strike a never ending oil well and prices go back to $2 a gallon a 54MPG average will definitely return the initial $5k investment. It's not a matter of if it's a matter of when and that really depends on driving habits and oil prices.

Conversely you have to consider that tacking on an average $5k per vehicle WILL exclude a lot of people from the new car market.

Then you have to consider that if I had $25k and wanted to buy a car for $20k and invest the other $5k the value I am losing by taking a slow oil consumption savings as opposed to investing at say an average of 10%.

And then finally you get to the question about whether or not the federal government has any business regulating what MPG vehicles a private industry must abide by. These are not safety standards designed for your protection, mind you, just standards to "make America more efficient." I am of the opinion that the free market is demanding higher and higher MPG vehicles. The standard isn't necessary because car makers are producing more and more efficient vehicles on their own accord.




No Big Deal
By btc909 on 1/18/2012 2:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
"U.S. regulators say it isn't a big deal, since consumers will save on fuel over the vehicle's lifetime." this is assuming gas prices stay the same in 2025 compared to 2026. I see the average person keeping a vehicle well beyond 10 years in the future. I won't miss gas powered vehicles.




So what?
By Shuxclams on 1/18/2012 2:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
could add as much as $5,000


Maybe possibly the world could or might be destroyed potentially by a large asteroid or it might miss Earth altogether.




Maybe..
By GenKhan2 on 1/18/2012 3:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Doing a little math on my typical car ownership/driver habits

Drive: 8000 miles a year
Own: 10 years
Forcast the price of gas out to 2025 using an inflationary factor of 3%: $5.50/gal

So if I was to purchase a car in 2025 it would need to have 33mpg average or less to save any money. That car would be purchased in 2015 or just three years from now. What are the chances of not getting 33mpg average for a 2015 model?

I'm thinking 50/50. Of course, if you drive more miles it makes it easier to get your money back as does a higher gas price. However, shorter ownership time makes it nearly impossible to get your money back. Chances are it's only a deal if you conform to a very limited set of car habits.




No More Partisan Stories!
By toyotabedzrock on 1/25/2012 3:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
Can you post fewer stories from people who donate mostly to one party?

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/don-chal...

http://data.influenceexplorer.com/contributions/?r...




"We're hearing broad support"
By Motoman on 1/19/2012 6:11:41 PM , Rating: 1
...yeah, and what do broads know about cars?




What total BS...
By GotThumbs on 1/18/12, Rating: 0
"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














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