Should C.A.F.E standards be raised even higher?

[ZZman]

With all this worry about oil and prices going up should CAFE be raised even higher and at a quicker pace?

This would probably force a downsizing of our SUV's and Pick ups.

I think it should be increased. It was fought my manufacturers tooth and nail for years. If they had not fought it so badly early on we might be in a better spot.

However we as humans are never satisfied. Even if current vehicles got 30 mpg avg we would probably want 35 mpg.

 

[Kestas]

Raise CAFE standards all you want. You still can't mandate demand.

Also, you can't just snap your fingers and expect manufacturers to make cars more fuel efficient without passing on the costs to the consumers. How much more are you willing to pay for this fuel efficiency?

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
Raise CAFE standards all you want. You still can't mandate demand.

At the same time you can't just snap your fingers and expect manufacturers to make cars more fuel efficient without passing on the costs to the consumers. How much more are you willing to pay for this fuel efficiency?

Well, people are sheep anyways. You only have to look at the Volt's pricetag to see where things are heading. I'm sure the automakers can do it (just look at ford's improvement), but less and less will buy new...

 

[kender]

Of course it should be raised higher. SUV's and huge, ridiculous pick up's use 2 to 3 times the gas to go the same distance as economy cars would. As far as we know, oil is a finite resource. Leave it to Americans to continue to waste oil, and then complain about the price of gas. Back in 1978 my Dad got rid of his '71 Javelin, and bought a 1978 Ford Fiesta. Lots of people did likewise back in the late 70's, and 80's. People still had some common sense back then.

 

[fsskier]

Perhaps some reductions in the "attractive loopholes" would be desirable.

Example: If a passenger vehicle is called a car it gets one standard, if a truck it gets another. SUV's exploited this loophole....even Subaru raised the Outbacks ride height slightly to let it be a truck.

E85 vehicles: If a truck gets 15 mpg, then using E85 it is getting 100 mpg of gasoline. This is averaged with the 15 in a complex formula that provides a loophole for large flex vehicles. Most owners of these vehicles report never or almost never using E85.

I doubt any regulatory system will ever be truly effective.... except for high fuel prices. I note a local high school student uses a remote starter to start a pickup, which idles for 20 minutes before school each morning, so that he may go to school without adequate winter clothing.

Sadly, this has also caused a confrontation with a neighbor who does not like the fumes and the noise (glass packs) in his bedroom each morning.

 

[chubbs1]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
Raise CAFE standards all you want. You still can't mandate demand.

At the same time you can't just snap your fingers and expect manufacturers to make cars more fuel efficient without passing on the costs to the consumers. How much more are you willing to pay for this fuel efficiency?


How much are we willing to pay for fuel is the bigger question.
Oil makes little difference on consumers gas mileage anyway (from 0w20-5w30) I have tried it all with only slight increases, it is the car manufacturers that see the saving through volume of cars sold.

 

[Kestas]

MPG is not the be-all for economy in transportation... at least for myself. For me it's getting from point A to point B as cheaply, safely, reliably, and comfortably as possible.

We can achieve a CAFE of 35 mpg today if everyone would buy a small, slow, fuel efficient vehicle. For everyone who thinks raising the CAFE to 35 mpg will solve everything is fooling themselves and very far removed from the big picture.

People also have short memories, or are too young to remember the nonsense when CAFE was first implemented in the 70s. I already mentioned that you can't mandate demand. Well, CAFE forced automakers to lower the prices on econoboxes that nobody wanted, and raised prices on the big cars that everyone wanted. They also had to keep track of their sales to make sure enough econoboxes are sold before they could sell the cars that people truly wanted. You'll see a very topsy-turvy market, where sales on popular cars are restricted by government mandate.

I notice a lot of people posting in this thread drive fuel-efficient vehicles. Let's hear what the people who own trucks and SUVs (who make up a large portion of the driving public) have to say about CAFE.

 

[Spazdog]

It would be quite easy and cost efficient to raise fuel efficiency. But we would have to leave something else behind.

All that heavy safety stuff, ABS, etc...

Assuming that Toyota hasn't destroyed the tooling for the Tercel,(or Honda the Civic VX, or Mazda the GLC...) I'm pretty sure they could make a car that would get 45-50 mpg. Simple roll up windows. Plain vinyl interior. Make some aerodynamic improvements.

But would anyone survive a collision?

 

[JHZR2]

I would hope that people would vote with their pocketbooks. Alas, given the significant debt and "Im OK" feelings that people have, I dont see that happening.

The biggest problem is that supply and demand IS a real force on the pricing structure of fuel. All the folks who hang onto the "I can do whatever I want" banner can do so all they want. The problem is that their decisions DO effect other peoples' bottom lines. SO we are all stuck in this together...

I just hope that I can repay the favor to the folks causing excess demand who bring my costs up for something else... That said, the prius driver could likely say the same thing to me.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Before they raise CAFE (which I'm personally against) we should mandate lower HP in vehicles. Also lower the speed limit to 60 MPH for vehicles that get over 30 MPG, 55 for 25MPG and 50 for anything less than 20mpg.

You get caught speeding (and speeding is 2-3 mph over) then the FIRST ticket is $500. Second one is $1000 and loss of drivers privileges for 6 months. Operating a vehicle on a suspended would get you $5000 plus loss for 3 years. Next time after that would be serious.

Take all the trucks off the cross country trips. Put their loads on trains and they deliver from local hubs. Then use that fuel saved to power personal vehicles. Tell the EPA and their anti-diesel where to put it.

The lowering of the speed limit plus semis would do more for "saving" fuel than ANY CAFE joke.

Bill

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
The lowering of the speed limit plus semis would do more for "saving" fuel than ANY CAFE joke.

Absolutely. My 04 saab, which was EPA specced (before the 10% derating from a few years back) at 34 MPG, returned 39.2 the last time. Why? Light throttle and staying at 65 MPH and no higher. This did include stop and go stoplight type roads with 45 MPH limits for some of the use, but most was interstate.

Still, the current EPA sticker for my car is 31 MPG, Im getting 39. Shows what a little bit of care can do.

Alas, most "deserve" an AT car that they can stomp the go pedal on and burn excessively. Its safer that way, right??!?

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: fsskier

E85 vehicles: If a truck gets 15 mpg, then using E85 it is getting 100 mpg of gasoline. This is averaged with the 15 in a complex formula that provides a loophole for large flex vehicles. Most owners of these vehicles report never or almost never using E85.


Just FYI - MPG is worse on E85 than it is on regular gas and E10( E15 ). It isn't better. If the truck you mention that gets 15 MPG on regular/E10 will get maybe 11-12 at best on E85 and possibhly worse. I know just going to E10 dropped my MPG almost 2 MPG when it arrived here over stright 100% gas. That is mainly why people don't use it.

There is such a drastic drop off in MPG you need to see a huge difference in the price of E85 over regular/E10 to make it worth the loss of MPG. There really isn't that much of a price difference most places. Not only that but good luck finding E85 in many areas even if you want to run it outside of the midwest. None here local or even within 200 miles.

If you meant the car mfg's were somehow using the fact the vehicle got it's MPG on 15% gas that is not how it works with CAFE and EPA ratings. That is not a loop hole they can exploit. The testing takes into account if the vehicle is run on regular/E10 or E85 and the results noted accordingly. Seeing as E85 gets worse MPG the mfg's do not want to use those numbers.

When you buy a vehicle that can run E85 you will see a regular rating for MPG and then one if run on E85. For example. I had a 2007 Chevy Silverado with the FF 5.3L. The regular/E10 rating was 16/20 but the E85 rating below it in the small print was 12/15. The 16/20 was used towards the company's CAFE.

 

[pidster]

Wow. I'm a little stunned at the amount of people who think free choice in what we drive and how we drive it should be regulated further.

Certainly, there is pollution and oil supply to be considered. I make do with a little Ranger to do what most would have bought an F150 or larger for, because it CAN do it and it saves me money. Before I had need for a truck I was driving a Toyota Tercel and hung onto it for 7 years, again because it saved me a lot of money and did what I required of it. But I don't begrudge anyone who buys an F350 super duty or a Cadillac Escalade just to commute to work.

That's their money and their choice. Gas prices alone have made the vast majority of people buy just as big and powerful of a vehicle as they need. The ones that "over-buy" are either rich or real car nuts and represent a very small part of the market.

Let's not force anything else down anyone's throats, life in general is over-regulated and anything automotive ridiculously so already.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: pidster
Wow. I'm a little stunned at the amount of people who think free choice in what we drive and how we drive it should be regulated further.

Certainly, there is pollution and oil supply to be considered. I make do with a little Ranger to do what most would have bought an F150 or larger for, because it CAN do it and it saves me money. But I don't begrudge anyone who buys an F350 super duty or a Cadillac Escalade just to commute to work.

That's their money and their choice. Gas prices alone have made the vast majority of people buy just as big and powerful of a vehicle as they need. The ones that "over-buy" are either rich or real car nuts and represent a very small part of the market.

Let's not force anything else down anyone's throats, life in general is over-regulated and anything automotive ridiculously so already.


I agree 100%!

And for the record when I bought my 08 Ram I was working construction and used the truck for work as well as my DD. I used the truck for truck like purposes and had a legit need for it. However I was constantly harrassed and verbally assaulted by the same type of folks you find here out at the gas station. It gets real old fast. Not everyone can get by with a little 3 cyl Geo metro( I am 6' 3" and over 300 lbs ).

I don't do much for entertainment other than hunt and fish either so the truck is used to haul my boat. I am now sick and disabled and really do not "need" this full sized truck anymore. I could get by with a small 4WD Jeep( I like the Patriot )or something similar. I would lose my shirt however if I tried to sell/trade it after just 2 years though. Add in rising fuel costs which lower the value of my truck and it would be financial suicide to sell it. I would lose thousands upon thousands which would easily negate any savings in MPG.

It always makes me laugh the way so many people assume and how they think their needs are the same as everyone else. "I" don't need a truck so no one else does. Get a life ok.

 

[MNgopher]

At this point, let the market drive things. With expensive fuel, the market will respond and start with more fuel efficient offerings. You can't have it both ways - cheap fuel and fuel efficient. You are going to pay somewhere...

Tiered speed limits are a terrible idea that have traffic safety implications. How states ever thought that was a good idea is a mystery to me. There are some conditions, such as steep grades, that warrant slower speed limits for heavy vehicles, but as general practice it is a terrible idea.

As far as shifting cross country truck traffic to trains, while that sounds like a great idea, it completely ignores the fact there are some types of services trains do well, and some it does not. Living in the part of the country I do, the delivery times on products train versus truck would surprise you. As a result, there is a reason so much traffic went to trucks. Perishable product in particular is an issue that trains cannot compete easily on.

 

[JHZR2]

The problem is that if I am harmed by excess demand, then those who are "demanding" excessively are a major accessory to the problem.

If Im trying to watch my bottom line, I can start by making choices to minimize my costs. That may mean the 4-cyl.low-powered econobox because it maximizes MPGs. However, if excess demand as a whole drives prices from $2.50 to $3.50, then no matter what choices are made on my part to minimize my use, my real costs are still rising. Blame it on the Escalade commuter or the Chinese or whomever else you want to, it still effects my bottom line.

And that is the problem when it comes to commodity products... They are very supply and demand dependent. I don't see how it is any more fair for the escalade commuter to draw excess demand that drives my costs UP, then it is for the prius driver to regulate CAFE that drives choices for the escalade driver.

Neither are good, neither are fair, the question is how do the most folks become protected from cost increases.

In my view, a LOT more folks need to be considering fiscal care and closure of debt. Alas, many of the escalade drivers who "deserve" excess consumption also have fat mortgages, credit card debt and HELs to pay for this lifestyle. It is self-destructuve, and they become a double whammy when I then have to pay for them due to being reliant on Social Security and whatnot due to poor financial choices.

Let's face it, most of the folks doing this stuff arent really the "super rich"...

 

[Cutehumor]

I still see lots of young women driving full size suburbans/expeditions by themselves shopping. Only reason why I noticed was because yesterday I couldn't help but laugh at this lady backing out her suburban out of a parking spot. it took her three times to back out to finally get out of the parking lot. It reminded me of austin powers movie where he was backing up the go kart up and moving it back a few feet then back and forth.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Before they raise CAFE (which I'm personally against) we should mandate lower HP in vehicles. Also lower the speed limit to 60 MPH for vehicles that get over 30 MPG, 55 for 25MPG and 50 for anything less than 20mpg.

You get caught speeding (and speeding is 2-3 mph over) then the FIRST ticket is $500. Second one is $1000 and loss of drivers privileges for 6 months. Operating a vehicle on a suspended would get you $5000 plus loss for 3 years. Next time after that would be serious.

Take all the trucks off the cross country trips. Put their loads on trains and they deliver from local hubs. Then use that fuel saved to power personal vehicles. Tell the EPA and their anti-diesel where to put it.

The lowering of the speed limit plus semis would do more for "saving" fuel than ANY CAFE joke.

Bill


Hear hear! My less draconian measure would put trucks and SUVs up to Class B in a 55 zone if they only had a single passenger. If you "NEED" it, you need to slow down.

The issue with crazy CAFE rules is they do nothing for the existing fleet. Now if we could make 2nd (efficient commuter) vehicle registration and insurance free, covering the revenue gap with a gas tax... naaah, would never fly politically.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Now if we could make 2nd (efficient commuter) vehicle registration and insurance free, covering the revenue gap with a gas tax... naaah, would never fly politically.


That is what I do anyway. I like cars and dont mind owning a few, so having commuter and other cars isnt a bad deal.

Plus, given that I can get 30 MPG fairly easily out of my 300HP car, I guess Im doing OK.

But Id love to have free registration on my efficient commuter. Wont hold my breath though...

 

[fdcg27]

Yes.
The vehicles we all drive are part of a national transportation system, and our choices impose externalities on all other users.
Higher demand produces higher fuel prices for all, not just those who use 5000 lbs+ vehicles as commuters/daily drivers.
I'm not refering to those who actually need large pickups or vans to make their living, either.
They too are paying higher fuel prices as a consequence of those who choose a large SUV or pickup to perform the transportation functions best suited to either a small car or minivan.
Also, outsize vehicles imperil the safety of those who have made more socially, environmentally and economically responsible choices in their daily drivers.
Finally, would you rather have higher CAFE requirements, or would you rather have the market impose the same discipline through much higher fuel prices?
Make no mistake, fleet fuel economy is going to improve.
The only question we should have is whether we would rather plan and mandate that improvement, or await the impact of market forces to impose it.
I suggest that a planned approach is likely to be financially less painful for us all.