CAFE What's it doing to the industry?

[Angrybird 12]

I know that they use a different formulaa for the MPG for CAFE, but us as consumers don't have a clue what that formula is.
So what would be the AVEO's figure under that formula? The EPA rating is 34 HWY. what would the CAFE rating be?

My wife used to have a Cobalt. It eas rated 32 HWY, BUT we constantly got 36-38 on the Hwy... and that was Before they downrated the EPA mileage ratings.

[Camaro_Corvette]

One of several things that bothers me about CAFE is that it shouldn't apply for performance vehicles at all, If the damn public wants to own 550 hp monster that only gets 10 mile to gallon then GM, dodge, or ford should be allowed to supply that demand. I know politicians are mostly ignorant about cars, but they should have broken CAFE up into categories, trucks, cars, performance, etc. Because they stupidly gave a big FU to porshe. I hate CAFE, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it! some politicians just deserve a :slice:

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Punk_rider

damn, greens are killing the car industry ... how many people are gonna loose their jobs because of that?

It isn't just the greens. I don't like 'em either, but a vast portion of the people supporting CAFE believe it will reduce the USA's foriegn fuel consumption........maybe in the next decade..........

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It isn't just the greens. I don't like 'em either, but a vast portion of the people supporting CAFE believe it will reduce the USA's foriegn fuel consumption........maybe in the next decade..........

I'm definitely in favor of reducing foreign fuel consumption. I believe every American should use E10 because it reduces foreign fuel consumption by 10%. If the laws of supply and demand work, then it would reduce the profit margin of foreign oil by about the same percentage. It would also encourage agrarian societies to grow resources that the US can import. If we have to depend on foreign resources for now, then we should try to depend more on allies who will treat American right than OPEC. :flag2:

[GTAHVIT]

here's a article I found that I thought was interesting. It's a year old but I think he hit it right on the head...

Top 10 Reasons Why the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Law is D-U-M-B - Column

BY CSABA CSERE
June 2007



Now that gasoline prices are rising again and Al Gore has proven the existence of man-made global warming by winning an Academy Award for his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, and even George Bush is talking about reducing energy usage, there's much talk in the halls of Congress about tightening up the CAFE law.

Most of you know CAFE stands for "corporate average fuel economy," a law setting minimum average fuel-consumption levels for cars and trucks sold in America. The law has been in effect since 1975, two years after the first U.S. fuel crisis. Since 1985, the law has required that an automaker's line of cars average 27.5 mpg. The current truck standard of 22.2 mpg was raised 1.5 mpg over the past three years.

Now Congress wants fuel-economy averages raised much higher. A group of senators led by California's Dianne Feinstein wants to bump both the car and truck standards to 35 mpg by 2019. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois went even farther, proposing last year to raise CAFE for all vehicles to 40 mpg by 2016.

But there's a problem. CAFE has always been a dumb law that's not only wrong-headed but also doomed to fail. Here are my top 10 reasons why CAFE standards make no sense:

1. CAFE laws do absolutely nothing to reduce fuel consumption in the short term. Because increased CAFE standards only affect the fuel efficiency of vehicles yet to be made, they have no effect on the fuel used by America's existing fleet of 247 million vehicles.

2. By making driving less expensive, higher CAFE levels actually encourage more driving. Bump an SUV's fuel economy from 20 mpg to 40 mpg, and you reduce the cost of gasoline (at $2.40 a gallon) from 12 cents to 6 cents a mile. Uh-huh, that's really going to encourage less driving.

3. Because CAFE laws make driving cheaper, they do nothing to foster the use of public transportation or encourage housing choices that reduce commuting distances.

4. CAFE laws put the entire burden of fuel and carbon conservation on cars and ignore industry sources, home energy use, airlines, agriculture, trucking, locomotives, etc. Yes, cars and trucks do consume a great deal of energy, but of America's total energy consumption of about 100 quadrillion BTUs (in 2005), the vehicles affected by CAFE only account for some 18 percent of that total. That's not much more than the 14 percent of our energy that is generated by nuclear and renewable sources. Doesn't the CO2 produced by the other 68 percent also cause global warming? Why should SUVs be demonized when Al Gore, in the largest of his three homes, uses 20 times as much electricity as I do in my not-insubstantial house? Meanwhile, other energy-conservation advocates jet around in Gulfstream 5s that burn 17 times as much fuel as an Escalade does getting from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

5. CAFE puts the burden on automakers to produce products that buyers don't necessarily want. Last year, when gas prices went over $3 a gallon, Americans, for the first time in nearly five years, started buying more cars than trucks—at least for five months. By February of this year, after gas prices dipped in the low $2 range, trucks once again were outselling cars, by 20 percent. Forcing manufacturers to sell fuel-efficient vehicles in America without the encouragement of high fuel prices is like trying to make steakhouses sell tofu-fillet sandwiches for the same price as a chateaubriand.

6. CAFE laws imply that Americans can continue to drive the vehicles they want, if only the stingy automakers would spend a few more pennies on efficient technologies to improve vehicle mileage. Not only is this nonsense, but it also denies the reality that major reductions in energy consumption will require changes in the habits and lifestyles of most Americans.

7. Because CAFE increases keep gasoline costs low, buyers have no reason to invest in energy-saving technologies, such as lightweight materials, that would actually improve efficiency.

8. CAFE puts the burden on car manufacturers to reduce consumption rather than on the drivers who actually burn the fuel for their own benefit. It's like those lawsuits that sought to blame McDonald's because the food its customers bought and ate of their own free will made some of them fat.

9. CAFE laws create unanticipated distortions in the market, such as the rise of SUVs to replace station wagons, the EPA labeling of cars such as the Dodge Magnum and Subaru Outback sedan as trucks, and the enlargement of trucks to get them out of the CAFE pool. Selling more vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 8500 pounds sure saves fuel.

10. Finally, CAFE will accomplish nothing because its glacially slow effects are offset by the growth of trucks in the U.S. vehicle fleet. For example, if the Feinstein bill to raise both car and truck CAFE to 35 mpg by 2019 were enacted, fuel use by America's vehicles would not decrease at all, as the CAFE gains would be more than offset by the inexorably increasing number of cars and trucks (about four million vehicles annually) and the increasing proportion of trucks on the road.

The bottom line is that CAFE doesn't save any fuel because it fails to motivate drivers to worry about fuel economy. Anyone who professes to be worried about conservation and thinks the solution can be found in some version of CAFE law is too simple to understand the problem, too cowardly to ask voters to make some sacrifices, or sufficiently cynical to promote a law that accomplishes nothing other than capturing self-aggrandizing headlines.

[Design1stCode2nd]

The problem with CAFE for GM and the rest of the big 3 is they have an unnatural balance of trucks to cars in their portfolio. You don't see this in Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. The big 3 also have very few small cars that are competitive also hurting their CAFÉ score. I don’t know if rasing CAFÉ like this si actually necessary as I believe the market will adjust itself. We have seen it. People going from Explorers and Tahoes to sedans instead of smaller car based SUV’s. Woulda thunk that most people don’t need a large SUV.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Design1stCode2nd

The problem with CAFE for GM and the rest of the big 3 is they have an unnatural balance of trucks to cars in their portfolio. You don't see this in Toyota, Honda, VW, etc. The big 3 also have very few small cars that are competitive also hurting their CAFÉ score. I don’t know if rasing CAFÉ like this si actually necessary as I believe the market will adjust itself. We have seen it. People going from Explorers and Tahoes to sedans instead of smaller car based SUV’s. Woulda thunk that most people don’t need a large SUV.

One of the biggest problems with Detroit is that they build so many trucks that they aren't selling cars. Even if the cars are better than foreign cars, the proportions are all wrong. They aren't selling what people buy. They are selling what they've sold forever, big V8s. When GM gets name for engines in general, it can sell all cars in the proportions that people actually buy them. In other words, if 1 in 10 people buy trucks, they should build 1 truck after building 9 cars. Instead, GM builds 3 trucks after every 7 cars, wondering why people don't buy their products. Now all 3 trucks are staying on lots, all 7 cars just got sold, and 2 customers go buy a Prius because it has amazing fuel efficiency. Eventually, dealer lots will be full of trucks, cars will be sold before they are built, and Toyota makes a killing on Americans who wish they could drive American cars but can't get one because all the dealers have are extended cab trucks. If Detroit just built more cars, CAFE might not even matter because the cars would bring up the average.

None of the above numbers have been researched. Don't hold GM or me to those numbers.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

One of the biggest problems with Detroit is that they build so many trucks that they aren't selling cars. Even if the cars are better than foreign cars, the proportions are all wrong. They aren't selling what people buy. They are selling what they've sold forever, big V8s. When GM gets name for engines in general, it can sell all cars in the proportions that people actually buy them. In other words, if 1 in 10 people buy trucks, they should build 1 truck after building 9 cars. Instead, GM builds 3 trucks after every 7 cars, wondering why people don't buy their products. Now all 3 trucks are staying on lots, all 7 cars just got sold, and 2 customers go buy a Prius because it has amazing fuel efficiency. Eventually, dealer lots will be full of trucks, cars will be sold before they are built, and Toyota makes a killing on Americans who wish they could drive American cars but can't get one because all the dealers have are extended cab trucks. If Detroit just built more cars, CAFE might not even matter because the cars would bring up the average.

None of the above numbers have been researched. Don't hold GM or me to those numbers.

*dons the misinterpreted 'fanboy' coat*

GM, Ford, and Chrysler made mostly trucks over the years becuase people bought them, because people want them. Somehow, the general public has this misconstrued impression that the big three forced these big SUV's and trucks on people...I...I haven't got a clue one how to figure that one out.

But the fact is that trucks were, and still are - in essence, VERY good money-makers. Per vehicle, GM, Ford, and Chrysler make much more money off of an SUV or Truck than they do off of a car. So, as a business, which type of vehicle would you primarily invest in?

Then, gas prices went up. And those -- not CAFE-- gave people incentive to move into smaller cars. Now...based on the above, GM had plans for real great cars, but not many actual great cars ready for people to buy...and so they lost that bet. So did Ford, and so did Chrysler. And to a slightly lesser extent, so did Toyota, etc. Did you notice how just before the gas crunch started, Toyota had a crapload of SUVs and Trucks being introduced? If they're the 'smart' ones, they wouldn't have done that. So I don't buy into the idea that this gas issue could have been forseen by any of them.

Now, GM has said multiple times that 18 or it's next 19 introductions will be cars or crossovers. And they show good promise in the car sector: They lead the class in fuel economy with Cobalt (36mpg hwy), they do the same with Malibu(31mpg hwy with 2.2L + 6-speed). Impala is impressive (29mpg, and one of their best sellers), and all three are selling exceptionally well. With the Cruze's release, GM will gave a blockbuster on their hands. ~45mpg hwy? That's hybrid territory....

Then there's talk of the new Equinox with a new 2.3L 4-banger. They expect to offer class-leading fuel economy...and I believe the current class-leading number is 28mpg hwy. So...a possible ~29mpg out of an SUV.

I've gone off on a tangent here...but clearly, GM was not as unprepared for this as some would believe.

*/takes off coat*

EDIT: This wasn't directed at you, Blur...more of just me talking to anyone who'll listen.

[Wm Holden]

We the People....

need to stand up for the big three and tell our law makers what we really want.

[shadowed_Stranger]

The problem I see with that is that it is about how many they sell. If GM made 10 million aveos or some other subcompact and 50000 corvettes, and only the camaros were bought they would still get hit by CAFE.

^^From what I understand by reading the thread anyway

[diddiyo]

Originally Posted by Wm Holden

We the People....

need to stand up for the big three and tell our law makers what we really want.

why? GM apparently supports CAFE:

GM continues to believe that a single set of tough national fuel economy standards is the best way to focus the industry’s efforts and to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions nationwide.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by diddiyo

why? GM apparently supports CAFE:

GM can't say that it doesn't support the government. That would be dangerous to its green image. I'm sure that plenty of opposition exists within GM.

[Wm Holden]

Originally Posted by diddiyo

why? GM apparently supports CAFE:

That's just corporate double talk....

[diddiyo]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

GM can't say that it doesn't support the government. That would be dangerous to its green image. I'm sure that plenty of opposition exists within GM.

well then they shouldn't put it on that website imo. If I can't believe in this one, why should I believe in all the other things they're saying?