TALKING MILEAGE STANDARDS WITH AUTOMAKERS...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,038
Location
WI.
Trump talked with the executives from leading auto makers — including the CEOs of General Motors GM, +0.16% and Ford F, -0.18% — about loosening emission and freezing fuel-economy standards. “We’re working on how to build more cars in the United States,” Trump told reporters before the meeting. “We are going to be talking about environmental control, CAFE standards and manufacturing millions of new cars within the United States.”
 
The problem this gives the manufacturers is what they should plan to build.
They're already planning future development based upon sharply higher fuel efficiency standards.
They're now being told that those standards will be relaxed, although whether the incumbent administration can actually do this is an open question, since they'd need to provide the technical backup to make this action last through the inevitable court challenges.
At the end of the day, companies value certainty and the future outlook for CAFE requirements is now less certain.
This is therefore not a positive for GM or Ford.
 
What I see is polarization within a brand’s lineup. At one end they’re pushing (sub)compacts with puny engines and at the other end pickup trucks and SUVs with humongous engines. The middle segment (pleasant to drive, spacious sedans with decent engines) doesn’t exist anymore except in luxury brands. So people have little choice between unpleasant, underpowered drives and gargantuan SUVs. Guess what they’ll chose. Then everybody complains about “american market has gone SUV”. Maybe they could tweak that CAFE thing to fix this.
 
Last edited:
Neither CAFE nor emissions is going to make more vehicles here.

We now have to compete with a wage base of the third world. We ourselves are to blame. To say CAFE is affecting our ability to produce vs UAW wages of likely $35/hr, non unionized wages of what, $25-3/hr... or third world lanorers getting a few dollars at best??
 
One problem with the Obama fuel efficiency standards is that they were initiated by executive action, not by Congress, so they can be rescinded just as easily.
Another problem with the Obama fuel efficiency standards is that it was never explained in the regulations how the CO2 emissions standards could be created to force automakers to meet a 54 mpg fuel economy goal without changing the CAFE standards, which Congress must act to change, and they never did. The EPA basically usurped the power when they issued the finding that CO2 is a gas they have the authority to regulate, even though long-standing emissions laws never regulate it.

What needs to happen is the elimination of California's authority to enact their own emissions standards. Then the automakers won't have to develop cars to meet two sets of emissions standards.
 
Last edited:
Maybe if we could concentrate on making highly appealing vehicles instead of meeting some arbitrary administrative standards....

confused2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: nap
Maybe if we could concentrate on making highly appealing vehicles instead of meeting some arbitrary administrative standards....

confused2.gif



And people will poop in their drinking water if it's convenient and cheap.

There's some happy medium between over regulation, power and efficiency.

I don't miss highly stinky,,polluting vehicles, and I'm a 1980s baby... I love old cars, but I can't imagine the stink in the 50s and 60s.

Higher specific power and being more efficient do go hand in hand.

Calling a 50 mpg diesel a "gross polluter", and an 8 mpg SUV a "partial zero" emissions vehicle is ridiculous.

But taking steps backwards from where vehicles are now is also dumb.
 
Fortunately no sane person would accept that one single tire model would be optimal from Alaska to Texas, or they’d mandate some low rolling resistance eco hockey pucks, under the threat of voiding warranties if you use any other type of tire. Like they did with oils.
laugh.gif
 
The water example is interesting, because if you look at closely, we can notice that:

- no matter what you do, it will eventually end up in the water
- trying to “fix it” by placing a quota on how much you’re allowed is silly

laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The problem this gives the manufacturers is what they should plan to build.

The real problem isn't the fuel economy standards, per se. Getting high fuel economy isn't that difficult. Meeting high fuel economy standards with what North Americans prefer to drive is another matter altogether.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
One problem with the Obama fuel efficiency standards is that they were initiated by executive action, not by Congress, so they can be rescinded just as easily.
Another problem with the Obama fuel efficiency standards is that it was never explained in the regulations how the CO2 emissions standards could be created to force automakers to meet a 54 mpg fuel economy goal without changing the CAFE standards, which Congress must act to change, and they never did. The EPA basically usurped the power when they issued the finding that CO2 is a gas they have the authority to regulate, even though long-standing emissions laws never regulate it.

What needs to happen is the elimination of California's authority to enact their own emissions standards. Then the automakers won't have to develop cars to meet two sets of emissions standards.


Never happen. Kali is now the 5th biggest economy in the world w/o the rest of the US ... Kali has carbon cap and trade with Canada and other w/o the US. CARB will continue down the road as planned. We have laws and guidelines out to 2050 and beyond already in place.

You'all do what you want, but Kali will go it's own way on emissions. Already have a mandate for 2M electric vehicles per year or something like that by 2020 (or maybe 2025, I can't remember ...). Since we are the biggest market, we get to say what sells here. The OEMs will build for this market. Have since 1975.

If Ford and GM don't wanna play, that's OK, everybody else will
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The problem this gives the manufacturers is what they should plan to build.

The real problem isn't the fuel economy standards, per se. Getting high fuel economy isn't that difficult. Meeting high fuel economy standards with what North Americans prefer to drive is another matter altogether.
wink.gif



People will buy what's available. I know that there are those here who'll say that they'll just keep their current vehicles forever, but that isn't a realistic proposition for 99% of those who own and use vehicles.
There is, of course, another way of forcing very rapid and permanent improvements in the fuel efficiency of the national personal use vehicle fleet, one used in Europe for decades.
This solution would offer the virtues of both bringing an almost immediate reduction in the miles driven with thirstier vehicles and would also generate a huge stream of revenue to fund the infrastructure improvements everybody seems to think we need. You wouldn't even have to go to the extremes seen elsewhere to achieve both a more fuel efficient national fleet and an ample revenue stream with which to fund transportation infrastructure. Another fifty cents a gallon would do it.
We'd also hate it a whole lot more than we hate CAFE. While we're all grumbling about the recent increases in fuel prices, we should consider what a bargain those prices would be for drivers in most of the industrialized world.
 
When it comes to issues involving politics this one (this thread) is among the most intelligent I've read here.

Stuff needs to get done. Modern engines goes hand-in-hand with efficiency/cleanliness.

Remember, someone will always grouse about something (and often interject politics clumsily).

Goals aren't a bad thing. Neither is cleanliness.
 
Originally Posted By: Kira
When it comes to issues involving politics this one (this thread) is among the most intelligent I've read here.

Stuff needs to get done. Modern engines goes hand-in-hand with efficiency/cleanliness.

Remember, someone will always grouse about something (and often interject politics clumsily).

Goals aren't a bad thing. Neither is cleanliness.


Im not sure this is quite so "political". Just because a politician's name is mentioned doesnt make it so.

OP showed that the intent was “We’re working on how to build more cars in the United States,”.

People can politicize anything if they try hard enough, but dissecting that specific statement and how that happens is an interesting topic that doesnt have the be the usual commentaries from polarized people.
 
If they want to encourage people to drive subcompacts or motorcycles than they can give those people a tax deduction, zero tolls, free use of the express lanes.

You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
 
Originally Posted By: Kira
Goals aren't a bad thing.


Except when they’re unrealistic. Then all kind of things like dieselgate and LSPI happen.

I’ve googled a little bit on the subject and it seems that the manufacturers do not oppose having goals, they just want to ensure that meeting them is feasible. Like in really feasible, without involving cheating of some sorts.
 
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
V8 muscle cars are going to be cheap again. The 2020s are going to be like the 1960s!
They already are.
 
Also maybe the goals could be ammended so they don’t take just one single aspect into account. How about passenger’s comfort and safety too? Technologies that sacrifice them should probably get some demerit points.

Here are some examples to ponder on:

1.Energy efficient automatic transmissions with 6 speeds or more. Not only do they help saving fuel, but they also increase passenger comfort at highway speeds

2. TGDI with LSPI and fuel dilution; they do save fuel but at the expense of comfort and safety

3. CVT - your take on them
laugh.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top