1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Featured CAFE Review

Discussion in 'Prius, Hybrid, EV and Alt-Fuel News' started by bwilson4web, Aug 3, 2016.

  1. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,673
    15,667
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Source: CAR Management Briefing Seminars | Fuel Economy Debate Heats Up | CAR Management Briefing Seminars content from WardsAuto

    Christopher Grundler, director-Office of Transportation and Air Quality at the EPA, says a newly released report on existing CAFE and greenhouse-gas rules shows they are effective.

    The 1,200-page technical assessment draft report is the first step in firming up proposed 2020-2025 CAFE standards calling for a fleet average of 54.5 mpg (4.3 L/100 km).

    “This policy is working spectacularly,” he says. “It is indisputable.”

    Automakers already are meeting future rules, and technology exists to satisfy the 2025 bogey, Grundler says, while sales are at all-time highs. He says early concerns the standards might put consumers in cars they do not want were unfounded.

    “That is wrong,” he says.

    Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, shoots down the report that claims automakers have the technology to meet projected 2025 rules.

    “Our view from a lobbyist perspective is there is an over projection of technology performance,” Bainwol says during Tuesday’s throw-down here.    ​

    Regardless of where this article winds up, it has an effect on the future of fuel efficient cars.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #1 bwilson4web, Aug 3, 2016
    telmo744 likes this.
  2. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,341
    3,596
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Consumer Reports had a recent blurb in their magazine, said they were lobbying to make sure that the EPA's CAFE rules were followed, and fighting against any auto maker who was suggesting it was too hard. This is consistent with my idea re: autos, Consumer Reports has gone political.
     
    #2 wjtracy, Aug 3, 2016
  3. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,673
    15,667
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    From the anti-efficiency group: Will Fuel Economy Rules Cost 1.1 mil Jobs – or Save Consumers Billions? | TheDetroitBureau.com

    In fact, some players will get their chance today to express their frustrations – or support – about the looming new standards during the House Energy and Commerce committees midterm review hearing. According to one study, hitting the 54.5 mile per gallon target would cost the country 1.1 million automotive jobs and saddle consumers with significantly higher costs for new vehicles. CAFE proponents, however, dismiss such claims as alarmist and conclude that, if anything, more jobs will be generated while consumers could save billions of dollars on fuel costs.​

    What I find amusing is how "jobs" seems to be a common thread in the anti-efficiency crowd. It seems to be common with a lot of 'buzz' about public policy. Regardless, I think a better argument is high-MPG cars are a 'cheap gas' strategy.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #3 bwilson4web, Sep 23, 2016
  4. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,341
    3,596
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    This thing is such a political football...it's like the Cap and Trade version of Clean Power Plan for cars. Nobody's going to make 54... they are going to do 30 or something and then get credits for sucking up to various EPA suggested extra credit schemes. But I agree with the article give Hillary a say after she gets in. I am assuming a slightly less deaf ear new EPA.

    The auto industry gets good marks for being such good sports so far on this. They have been very cooperative with EPA. which maybe they should have pushed back sooner. The autos may have made a strategic error, EPA was giddy with excitement that the autos accepted the super aggressive 54 target a few years back. Autos just figured if you can't beat em, join em, but now look where they are: in a pickle.

    It's another impossible dream like the cellulosic ethanol mandate.
     
    #4 wjtracy, Sep 23, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2016
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,673
    15,667
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Well now we know it takes '1.1 million' workers to build crappy cars.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #5 bwilson4web, Sep 23, 2016
    Prius Maximus likes this.
  6. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    22,462
    11,770
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Gas cost more back when this was proposed, and the auto companies were expecting their fuel efficient offers would be in demand and not deep large discounts. An oil tax is needed to keep fuel prices at a floor where the demand from consumers for fuel efficiency is there to support the higher CAFE targets.
     
    #6 Trollbait, Sep 23, 2016
  7. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,602
    4,136
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Remember the rules of unintended consequences. If cafe moves too fast, auto sales drop, employment drops, and efficiency of the fleet is worse relatively than reasonable changes.

    Exactly more expensive liquid fuels would increase efficiency of the fleet more than artificially high cafe rules.

    Currently income taxes are paying for roads, and toll roads are built more expensive because fuel taxes are kept artificially low. This also encourages people to keep inefficient vehicles longer, especially in states like california that tax newer vehicles more than older vehicles.
     
    #7 austingreen, Sep 23, 2016
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)