Featured Slightly Toyota funded coalition calls for weaker CAFE

hillary will bring the hammer.

 

From the article:

U.S. regulators have underestimated the cost and difficulty of achieving their vehicle fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas targets for 2025 and are giving California too much power to shape the country’s policies on those issues, an automaker group said.

Even with the current government estimate of $1,800 a vehicle in added costs, “the payback period for alternative technologies extends beyond the timeframe most consumers consider; it is likely to remain that way,” the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said . . .​

No need to read further. This are the same jerks to supported CNW Marketing's bogus "Dust-to-Dust" report and are having their butts handed to them by Tesla, Nissan, and others.

Bob Wilson

 

I can sympathize with the auto makers to a point. They have to meet higher CAFE targets. Which isn't just making more efficient cars, but getting people to buy them. With low gas prices, the people are opting for thirstier models.

Time to raise the gas tax.

 

why does the title say toyota?

 

what about gm, ford and chrysler?

 

I do have to agree, the title implies that Toyota alone is opposing this.
"Toyota, among others, ..." might have been more clear.

 

it's classic editorializing. did you work in the newspaper business?

 

agreed. 'GM, et al', fits perfectly.

 

Perhaps it might be better to list all of the companies supporting this 'group' or just cite the group's name.

Driving around this evening, I've been thinking about "The Alliance of Automotive Manufacturing" and how many times I've found them or their executive officers and agents standing near past shenanigans: (1) "Bell the Hybrid"; (2) runaway acceleration, and; (3) "Dust-to-Dust." I am beginning to see a pattern suggesting they have both a 'public' and 'private' face that often works to against Toyota's business interest.

Calling out just Toyota would be the type of trick I expect from "The Alliance of Automotive Manufacturing." I think they are one step removed from a criminal organization providing 'cover' for dirty-tricks that GM knows better than to pull again.

Bob Wilson

 

One would think Toyota is in decent shape to meet 2025 CAFE.

 

Toyota has higher environmental ethics. That is a fact, not an opinion. Making 9 million hybrids, each emitting less than 2/3 of the equivalent ICE-only cars is very well understood of being a real leap. Not building BEVs is a drawback, but still Toyota is the FCV first manufacturer.

 

I kind of agree with the sentiment that California has too much power here. Remember california was given special power to reduce unhealthy polutants. Since then it has improved, but is the most polluted state in the Union. That is saying something. Now they want to turn away and push fuel cells and bevs with special powers. Its up to the congress to spell out how ghg should be regulated, but they are derilict in their duty. Clean air act is very old and moldy and needs to be modified. Instead it is modified by the court system.

Now in the pie we have the DOE, NHTSA, EPA, and CARB all to regulate mileage, because somehow one agency can't do it. Hey if ghg is a pollutant to be regulated, I'm all for moving the power all to EPA, with DOE just helping with the math and incentives for alternative tech (how do you score, test, and subsidize, -ethanol blends, hybrids, phevs, bevs, fcv, ngv, lngv, etc). Its all a mess with 4 agencies doing the work of one with a lot of extra people and lower productivity, and legalized bribes (campaign contributions).

From a free market persepecive the cafe/zev standards are expensive because with low gas prices they force car makers to make cars that people don't really want then subsidize them so they will buy. Now if you raised the price of gas (higher oil tax, lower other taxes) then people would ask for the cars. In this way the mangled cafe standards with size and other wierd incentives are more expensive than a tax, but its much more palitable to arbitrarily raise the standards politically because people don't understand the tax.

Still without any cafe standards (really the period from 1988-2006) that force more efficient cars, car makers in their oligopoly didn't make the cars people wanted, they made the ones that made short term profit. There is no free market in cars, its controlled by a small number of companies. Many of these got bailed out by governments. They need a stick, but perhaps a better one that the current regulations. Still current regulations are much better than those in 1997, which gave incentives to building SUVs, especially monstrosity class ones.

 

What was the price of gasoline back then?
Mostly, I feel the car companies can STFU with their whining, but consumer behavior and low gas prices weren't considered in that deal. Telling them to just pay the fines, when there are steps the government can take to encourage the sales of fuel efficient cars, is not the path to take if you want cooperative corporate citizens.

Toyota sells about as many Tundras in the US as they do Prii. Kind in mind North America is the largest hybrid market after Japan. This truck is the largest 1500 class pick up truck that can be bought. The smallest engine option is a V8 with a displacement north of four liters, and it might be getting a 5L diesel V8 option soon. They will sell whatever they think will make a profit. On the other hand, Honda doesn't even make a V8, and was founded on the idea of making an efficient engine.

Toyota has sold a lot of hybrids, but likely may not have bothered with them without carrots from the Japanese government through the LEV programs. Same with FCEVs. And really, how is Toyota first? Honda and Mercedes both had a FCEV available to the general public in California years before the Mirai arrived, and Hyundai had one a year or two before. With plans for only about 3000 over three years being put on the road, the difference between actually selling the car vs. lease only is tiny.