Senate OKs CAFE hike

WASHINGTON -- The Senate has approved a streamlined energy bill that will raise vehicle fuel economy standards 40 percent to 35 mpg by 2020.
The Senate voted 86-8 Thursday night for the measure.
The phase-in of higher standards for cars and light trucks would begin with the 2011 model year. It would be the first congressionally mandated hike in the corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, since its creation in 1975.

Senate approval came after Democratic leaders bowed to veto threats by President Bush. They removed tax hikes and provisions to require utilities to use more renewable fuels.

The measure is expected to get a final vote of approval by the House of Representatives next week and then be signed into law by President Bush.

That sucks, I hope Bush still vetos the bill.

They wanted to remove subsidies to big oil (who has been making record profits) and the republicans made them cut that part out :mad:

With out the tax subsidies to big oil they probably would need this bill. $4-$5 gas would have the consumers demanding better mileage and smaller cars would probably be profitable for the big 3. Instead or Ford working to make a 500HP Mustang they could be working to make a 3000lbs. Mustang.

That sucks, I hope Bush still vetos the bill.

He won't because this helps the oil companies and make Detroit look like the enemy.

Dammit. I'm okay with the Fuel economy part. but not the big oil crap...why can't the democrats (the side I like) grow a backbone. This is going to be a bar that makes or breaks the big three. GM's safe, I should say...but I worried about the other two.

So when are they gonna raise the CAFE on coal fueled electricity plants?

Yeh, the big 3 need the help, not the oil companies.

That sucks, I hope Bush still vetos the bill.

He will.

Imagine if they had to cut their spending by 40%................by 2020, lol

He will.


Actually no he won't

"The bill now goes to the House, where a vote is expected next week. The White House issued a statement saying President Bush will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk, as is expected. Bush had promised a veto if the oil industry taxes were not removed."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071214/congress_energy.html

Imagine if they had to cut their spending by 40%................by 2020, lolQFMFT.

CAFE is a giant, steaming deuce on the steps of capital hill.

B@stards.

He won't because this helps the oil companies

How does this help the oil companies?

He was threatening to veto when there were tax hikes for oil companies; those have been removed. As far as I can tell, the oil companies will only be hurt by this bill (since we'll be using less oil).

How does this help the oil companies?

He was threatening to veto when there were tax hikes for oil companies; those have been removed. As far as I can tell, the oil companies will only be hurt by this bill (since we'll be using less oil).

It helps them by keeping tax subsidies in place. Big Oil clearly doesn't need any tax breaks yet they keep getting them.

Oil companies dont care if they get taxed...they'll just pass it all over to you and me by much higher prices @ the pump...taxes wont hurt them at all.

Oil companies dont care if they get taxed...they'll just pass it all over to you and me by much higher prices @ the pump...taxes wont hurt them at all.

Higher price means you buy less. You buy less that means less profit.

Oil companies dont care if they get taxed...they'll just pass it all over to you and me by much higher prices @ the pump...taxes wont hurt them at all.
If they don't care, why are their lobbyists making such a stink over this? :rolleyes:

Toyota President Jim Lentz Congratulates the U.S. Senate on Passage of Cafe Legislation

To be attributed to Jim Lentz, President, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Senate's action
today is a clear signal to our entire industry that it's now time to move
into overdrive to meet these ambitious new national standards.

Toyota is wasting no time in our pursuit of 35 miles per gallon in
2020.

Toyota congratulates the Senate for persevering to pass this CAFE
legislation. This is a critically important vote for the auto industry and
the nation.

We at Toyota have long said that we want a CAFE bill passed this year
that will provide the certainty of one national fuel economy program. The
U.S. Senate has delivered, as their colleagues in the House of
Representatives did last week. We thank all the Senators who provided
leadership for today's historic vote on CAFE.

The Senate action represents a major step in the right direction that
will result in significant oil savings and reductions in CO2. It provides
important new goals and targets for our entire industry to achieve. Toyota
will strive to meet them.

We look forward to the concurrence of the House of Representatives next
week and to the President's signing it into law.

It surprises me that they approved it, seeing as how CAFE testing changed making an even bigger gap now to fill.
A lot of cars dropped in MPG just to to test methods, just maintaining 30 mpg would be asking for an improvement in CAFE.

It surprises me that they approved it, seeing as how CAFE testing changed making an even bigger gap now to fill.
A lot of cars dropped in MPG just to to test methods, just maintaining 30 mpg would be asking for an improvement in CAFE.

CAFE is calculated using different numbers than those that you use on the window sticker, and thus the recent change in MPG estimates didn't affect CAFE one bit.

So we've got Congress, Bush, the automakers, and the oil companies getting together to pass a fuel-economy bill. This is going to be one gigantic clusterf*ck. Not only has CAFE been historically ineffective in this country, but the new regulations will likely kick in much too late to help our current situation. I hope that many of you enjoy walking to work...

CAFE is calculated using different numbers than those that you use on the window sticker, and thus the recent change in MPG estimates didn't affect CAFE one bit.

So we've got Congress, Bush, the automakers, and the oil companies getting together to pass a fuel-economy bill. This is going to be one gigantic clusterf*ck. Not only has CAFE been historically ineffective in this country, but the new regulations will likely kick in much too late to help our current situation. I hope that many of you enjoy walking to work...Quoted for truth.

I'm curious.....what has been "ineffective" about CAFE? What was/is the purpose of CAFE, and how has it not been effective in achieving what it is that is was designed to achieve?

It surprises me that they approved it, seeing as how CAFE testing changed making an even bigger gap now to fill.
A lot of cars dropped in MPG just to to test methods, just maintaining 30 mpg would be asking for an improvement in CAFE.

CAFE testing didn't change, EPA testing changed. What is on the window sticker is different from what C.A.F.E. uses.

I'm curious.....what has been "ineffective" about CAFE? What was/is the purpose of CAFE, and how has it not been effective in achieving what it is that is was designed to achieve?

CAFE was supposed to improve the fuel economy of the US fleet. The economy of the US fleet peaked in 1991 (if my memory serves me correctly) and has slipped since then. The unintended consequence of CAFE was the proliferation of the usage of light trucks as passenger vehicles, which either get by with a much lower average economy (in the case of trucks under 8600lbs GVWR) or don't need to comply with CAFE at all (in the case of trucks over 8600lbs GVWR). GM can sell all the H2s they want and Ford can sell all the Excursions they want, without penalty, to people who'd probably be better served by the sort of large sedans and station wagons that CAFE obsoleted. That's what I'd call ineffective legislation.

I'm sure you're aware of the above history, but I'm repeating it here in the hopes that you'll reply with your perspective on the legislation (I'm curious, given previous hints as towards your philosophy on the role of government).

CAFE was supposed to improve the fuel economy of the US fleet. The economy of the US fleet peaked in 1991 (if my memory serves me correctly) and has slipped since then.
Did CAFE not force (right or wrong) car companies to improve gas mileage? Assuming this is so, and that car makers still meet CAFE requirements, it seems hard to argue that it has been ineffective, when put in the context of its original purpose (again, right or wrong).

The unintended consequence of CAFE was the proliferation of the usage of light trucks as passenger vehicles, which either get by with a much lower average economy (in the case of trucks under 8600lbs GVWR) or don't need to comply with CAFE at all (in the case of trucks over 8600lbs GVWR).
I think you're stretching here. I don't see how CAFE had anything at all to do with the explosive popularity of light trucks (and SUVs).

GM can sell all the H2s they want and Ford can sell all the Excursions they want, without penalty, to people who'd probably be better served by the sort of large sedans and station wagons that CAFE obsoleted. That's what I'd call ineffective legislation.
If there was a demand for large sedans and station wagons, they'd have sold (there were still available as late as the mid 90s...long after the last increase in CAFE ratings), regardless of CAFE. Again, my opinion is that you are stretching things.

I'm sure you're aware of the above history, but I'm repeating it here in the hopes that you'll reply with your perspective on the legislation (I'm curious, given previous hints as towards your philosophy on the role of government).
Personally, I don't like what I consider to be "unnecessary" gov't interference in business and in our lives. The problem begins with the 300 million different definition of "unnecessary". In a perfect world, we'd need neither CAFE nor the possibility of increased gas tax. However, one or the other are coming - it is inevitable. Given the choice, I'll choose the CAFE option.

At the same time, I'd like to see ALL subsidies for oil companies cease. I'd like to see a big increase in gov't funding of alternative sources of fuel (not just for cars). And I'll never agree to a tax increase.

My simple thoughts from a simple man. :)

Bob

Here is an idea....

Rather than raising the CAFE standards, why not increase the use and application of the Guzzler tax. The fact that people are still buying performance cars/SUV's today prove that people will pay a premium in extra gas use to get teh vehicle they want. If that is the case...rather than punishing a business for making what people want, why not "punish" the people who buy offending vehicles with a tax that increases based on how far below CAFE standards the car performs. I may not like paying an extra $1-2K in taxes on a Corvette or Camaro...but to me as an enthusiast, it is a better option than the cars I lover being force to extinction by legislation leaving me to drive a overpriced, high tech econo ****box. Then take the revenue generated by the tax, and distribute it back to the car makers based on who has has the highest fleet gas milage on down the line as a reward for improving gas milage.

Here is an idea....

Rather than raising the CAFE standards, why not increase the use and application of the Guzzler tax. The fact that people are still buying performance cars/SUV's today prove that people will pay a premium in extra gas use to get teh vehicle they want. If that is the case...rather than punishing a business for making what people want, why not "punish" the people who buy offending vehicles with a tax that increases based on how far below CAFE standards the car performs. I may not like paying an extra $1-2K in taxes on a Corvette or Camaro...but to me as an enthusiast, it is a better option than the cars I lover being force to extinction by legislation leaving me to drive a overpriced, high tech econo ****box. Then take the revenue generated by the tax, and distribute it back to the car makers based on who has has the highest fleet gas milage on down the line as a reward for improving gas milage.

No thanks, it wasn't a bad idea till you got to the part about paying an auto manufacturer twice. I'd rather see Guzzler taxes go to you know something like reducing the deficit.

Besides, its an easy fix to get around the tax for a performance car, reduce the ouput of the engine and let it lug along at idle while going down the highway.

This will mark the end of the high performance era and the begining of the $hitbox era. They better not mess with vehicles over 8600GVW. I dont see the new Camaro lasting more than 5 years. GM will have to kill the Camaro to save the Corvette. Sad, sad times ahead.

Performance cars are only a teeny tiny part of the MPG problem. The only real issue is that they tend to use engines primarily developed for trucks.

But there's a sticky about this.

Here is an idea....

Rather than raising the CAFE standards, why not increase the use and application of the Guzzler tax. The fact that people are still buying performance cars/SUV's today prove that people will pay a premium in extra gas use to get teh vehicle they want. If that is the case...rather than punishing a business for making what people want, why not "punish" the people who buy offending vehicles with a tax that increases based on how far below CAFE standards the car performs. I may not like paying an extra $1-2K in taxes on a Corvette or Camaro...but to me as an enthusiast, it is a better option than the cars I lover being force to extinction by legislation leaving me to drive a overpriced, high tech econo ****box. Then take the revenue generated by the tax, and distribute it back to the car makers based on who has has the highest fleet gas milage on down the line as a reward for improving gas milage.

#1 $1-2K isn't enough to make a difference. The manufacurur will just take that out of their profit margin. If you want people to stop buying Tahoes you need to make it a $10,000 tax to work (which I don't think is fair.

#2 What about used cars? I'd just buy 1 year used if there was no tax.

#3 Based on your above plan GMs profits from cars like the Tahoe, Silverado, Camaro, and large cars would be seized by the government and given to companies like Honda who are not as good at making Trucks and Sport/large cars. Every maker has there niche.

This will mark the end of the high performance era and the begining of the $hitbox era. They better not mess with vehicles over 8600GVW. I dont see the new Camaro lasting more than 5 years. GM will have to kill the Camaro to save the Corvette. Sad, sad times ahead.

Naw, might mean.... gasp.... 14 second Camaros in the future, but I doubt you'll see the return of the $h!tbox and people will do as they have always done, modify the engines for increased power.

Why even worry about it, lets say GM decided to put a 5.0 liter cap on "small rwd coupes" like the F5 combined with a 2.XX something rear gear using the LS2 block and capped power in the 300-350hp range.

Still tons pf 450-500+ hp there using the usual go fast techniques. Granted, you'd be paying for it, but the potential is there.

The $h!tboxes were the result of more than just the CAFE, wall street and environmental concerns had as much to do with that as CAFE did.

If you wanna get scared, wait till congress starts touting carbon limits like europe is considering.

V8s will be DEAD. You need to look at vehicles that now get 35mpg. Civics and Corollas that arent very exciting. A 40% increase in CAFE will all but kill the V8. A 3 liter V6 will become the big motor. A Smart Fortwo only gets 36mpg and weighs under 2000 pounds. There is no way in he11 that ANY of the large, heavy offerings from GM, Ford or Chrysler will even come close to 35mpg.

Coperate Average Fuel Economy

Doesn't mean V8s are dead, might mean alot of commonly purchased vehicles will see a reduction in power and engine size, but If V8's sell Camaros you will see a V8 Camaro, they might only be 250 cid buzz bombs, but they will be there. The addition of 2 extra cylinders is inconsequential in terms of weight and power consumption for the average vehicle in the engine speeds road cars typically operate in. So again, you might not like a 300hp 250 cid Z/28. but as long as the potential is there to build a 500hp 389 cid Z/28 from exsisting parts I'd say things aren't as dim as they seem. It's been my observation that in the case of parts commonality GM does a good job of making the most out of what they have rather than try and reinvent the wheel every time a specific application comes up.

V8s will be DEAD. You need to look at vehicles that now get 35mpg. Civics and Corollas that arent very exciting. A 40% increase in CAFE will all but kill the V8.

If the two-mode hybrid transmission can take a pig of a vehicle like a Tahoe and allow it to get 21 MPG with a 6.0L V8, then I'm not yet convinced that V8 pony cars will die off because of CAFE. On the other hand, gas prices in the $5+ range might indeed be problematic.

$5.00+ a gallon would be more than problematic for just vehicles, wonder what deisel and kerosene would cost when gas is sitting on 5.00 a gallon (since gas is really just crap at the top and deisel and kerosene are down there where they really fight for the useful stuff).

If the two-mode hybrid transmission can take a pig of a vehicle like a Tahoe and allow it to get 21 MPG with a 6.0L V8, then I'm not yet convinced that V8 pony cars will die off because of CAFE. On the other hand, gas prices in the $5+ range might indeed be problematic.

I agree, 2 mode and the proper overdrive gearing and I wouldn't be surprised to see a Camaro that gets say 28/32.

Plus we really haven't seen what GM can do with the Gen IV. Evey car and Concept is designed for performance, not economy. What if the goal was a 350HP V8 Camaro that gets the best mileage possible.

Plus the Gen V engines are coming out around 2010/11 and will have direct injection. Sure we might be driving 330HP 4.0L V8 and 8 speed auto but at least it will still be a V8. Even at $5 a gallon people will still want V8's, they will just be happier with ~5.5L instead of 7.0L

since gas is really just crap at the top and deisel and kerosene are down there where they really fight for the useful stuff.

I definitely would not agree with that statement - it might have been true 100 years ago, but today the refineries put a lot of work into "cracking" the heavier distillates into lighter fractions.

More oil goes into making gasoline than any other product, and by quite a large margin.

Bob Lutz was considering killing GMs new V8 RWD sedans when he first heard of mandatory 35mpg CAFE legislation. The DoD/AFM only gets an extra 1 mpg for GMs large SUVs. You are moving too much mass with high drag to get close to 35mpg. What will the cost of future technology add to the price of a high performance car?
India and China are nations with emerging economies and a growing middle class that can afford and will buy vehicles for transportation with internal combustion engines. Government regulations and the law of supply and demand (rising fuel prices) should all but kill reasonably priced high performance vehicles within 6 to 8 years. Hail to the 600hp Vipers, Vettes and Mustangs, for they will be the end of an era as the US Government makes us buy Aveos and Focus'.

While that may or may not turn out to be true, similar 'gloom & doom' was predicted in the 70s.

Where are we now?

While that may or may not turn out to be true, similar 'gloom & doom' was predicted in the 70s.

Where are we now?

Importing more oil than ever and spending a hundred billion or so a year to defend our ability to do so.

China and India only have 8 or 9 vehicles per 1000 population. Thats about to dramatically increase. A gallon of unleaded fuel will hit about $5/gal in the US, which is about right when adjusted for 25 years of inflation. Fuel in the US has actually been a bargain over the years and had an average US price of $1.47/gal when G.W. took office. I guess its finally time to find alternative ways to propel vehicles. Maybe I've been watching too many Mad Max films, but I'm gonna put away a force inducted hi-po car to bring out when all the gas guzzlers have been outlawed.

Bob Lutz was considering killing GMs new V8 RWD sedans when he first heard of mandatory 35mpg CAFE legislation.
Lutz talks a lot of crap. These cars have a pretty borderline business case even without CAFE. GM's has survived without large RWD for a decade, and the sales of the big cars they do have (Lucerne, DTS) are in free-fall. Hopefully the Zetas won't end up crowding the rental lots like Chrysler's LX models.

Hail to the 600hp Vipers, Vettes and Mustangs, for they will be the end of an era as the US Government makes us buy Aveos and Focus'.I dunno, are people on this board really worried about the $90,000 cars of the world?

I think the concern is mainly affordable pony cars -- and a lot of people have said that they would be more happy with a light 350HP car versus a heavy 450HP one.

The 6th Generation Camaro could end up being 300-400lbs. lighter than the 5th gen for all we know. Plus we already know the next get V8's will have DI.

Like what was already said, it is called Coperate Average Fuel Economy. Every 30 MPG V8 Camaro will be canceled out by a 40mpg Cobalt or Malibu. If they go Diesel then it will be even easier. Plus it is 13 years away. I'm not worried at all.

Importing more oil than ever and spending a hundred billion or so a year to defend our ability to do so.

And when adjusted for inflation and population, its the same "doom & gloom" we heard in the 70s.

Not saying we don't need to do something about it (we very obviously do), but I'm not ready to stick my head in the sand and cry uncle just yet.

GM makes much more money on its SUVs than its passenger cars. Lets say they will make $3000 on a new Camaro vs $8000 on a large SUV. What vehicle will the bean counters tell them to drop because only so many vehicles will be produced that are under the CAFE target that will balance out with the 35+mpg econoboxes? A 6th gen Camaro would have to be the size of an Opel GT. Hopefully the Vette will remain unscathed thru all this, since they only sell 30-35 thousand units a year. Whens the Volt coming out? And how will future electric cars be considered in the CAFE mix?

There is much to be done, but the sky isn't really falling. Alternative fuels are the answer and we need to push that development as hard as we can.

The 6th Generation Camaro could end up being 300-400lbs. lighter than the 5th gen for all we know. Plus we already know the next get V8's will have DI.

Like what was already said, it is called Coperate Average Fuel Economy. Every 30 MPG V8 Camaro will be canceled out buy a 40mpg Cobalt or Malibu. If they go Diesel then it will be even easier. Plus it is 13 years away. I'm not worried at all.
I'd read this whole quote, and all others like it in this thread; Over and over and over. Because there is nothing closer to the truth. No worries here.

Other than $4/gal gas, there wont be any worries in the next 5 years. People will be enjoying their LSX Camaros, hemi Mopars, and 5.4L powered Mustangs. But if you dont think a 40% increase in CAFE wont radicaly change the offerings of vehicles in 10 years, you got another thing coming. GM is trying to hire 300 or 400 engineers to study alternative energy sources for vehicles, to be on the cutting edge of new technology, which is a good thing.
GM has the capability, thru the current generation of OnStar to shut a vehicle down if it has been reported stolen. Let me plant a seed into your head to see where this could go. Say there is a tight fuel supply in the future for whatever reason. You can only drive a V8 gas hog on even or odd days (like watering your lawn during drought periods). Your vehicle can be shut down from a satelite on the days you arent allowed to use it. With black boxes and other electronics (navigation) being introduced into vehicles now, this could be an industry wide possibility in under 10 years. I'll be the first to admit I have a vivid imagination, but I see more value now than ever before in old muscle cars with no electronics.

I definitely would not agree with that statement - it might have been true 100 years ago, but today the refineries put a lot of work into "cracking" the heavier distillates into lighter fractions.

More oil goes into making gasoline than any other product, and by quite a large margin.

noted, still diesel is down there around where there are alot of industrial uses for petroleum, it was my understanding that gasoline helps to subsidize the somewhat competitive cost of diesel fuel (not sure about kerosene).

I certainly think this will kill off any hope for a large RWD V8 4 door American car from Ford, GM or Chrysler.

My intreptation for the future and maybe by 2020 is that American's will go back to a low volume SUV/Truck buyer and focus more on smaller cars. And where possible people will look to live closer to work. The days of a 50 mile commute in your F350 may be comming to an end. Gas is certainly going to rise in cost there is no stopping it now. CAFE rules while powerful won't make up for higher gas prices. Public Transportation will also grow.

Living in So Cal from my Michigan roots I've already noticed the changes in how the average American drives and works with expensive gas. People here do buy hybrids and they do monitor how far they travel and I often here people say I didn't go out to Vegas this weekend or didn't really make that trip down to San Diego because it costs too much.

For GM and the other brands, Toyota too their trucks and SUV's are no better and maybe worse than the domestic brands for CAFE, need to focus on new technologys. The Volt and other plug in electric vehicles that offer a gas free trip for a certain number of miles is certainly an option. Overall it just transfers the CO2 burden to coal but that's another issue that from the car companies perspective isn't their problem.
The hybrids are just a transition to the next form of propusion and while the world was build on oil it was only done so because of supply and demand making it the cheapest.
So that opens up new options that were not economicly feasable in the past to be used.

I'm a bit worried about our beloved performance cars and until some of these questions are answered their "performance" could be compromised.

(on Bush vetoing the bill)

He won't because this helps the oil companies and make Detroit look like the enemy.

Exactly!

I can't believe there's anyone here actually capable of reading comprehension whose followed Bush the past 7 years who actually still believes Bush cares a damn about the US auto industry, let alone who've yet to realize that this is all about oil companies (which have a far greater stock growth potential than any US based car industry).

Guys, Bush's background is in the oil industry and Cheney's is in energy.

Traditionally, it's been Oil Industry versus the Car Industry,

Bush has barely passed up a chance to slam the auto industry
He refused to meet with auto industry execs until recently, and then only a short meeting.

Higher CAFE standards mean that the burden is placed on the auto industry, while the oil industry is free to charge more for selling less and make even bigger profits.

To simplify things for the "Reasoning-challenged", we need less oil from places that aren't particularly fans of the US of A, the guys who import & refine oil, and sell fuel won't need to move, refine, or develop as much (reduced operating costs), yet are free to make even bigger profits than they already are.... and the whole burden of making all this happen has fallen on the US auto industry.

That's about the best way to explain it without resorting to crayons and pictures.

Oil companies dont care if they get taxed...they'll just pass it all over to you and me by much higher prices @ the pump...taxes wont hurt them at all.

The taxes were based on profits.
Simply passing it on wouldn't haved worked.

Are there any who care, the US auto industry is the whipping boy for the feds and the tree huggers (because its so in your face). Then again its obvious the bufoons in DC care little for any industry in this country, I guessd they figure industry is so last millenium and a service based economy is where its at now and in the future (with maybe the exception of the aero industry).

I think you're stretching here. I don't see how CAFE had anything at all to do with the explosive popularity of light trucks (and SUVs).



CAFE led the industry to design smaller cars with FWD and V6 engines to replace older models with RWD and a V8. If you wanted a vehicle with a V8 engine and RWD for towing, you previously could have used a large station wagon, but by the mid 90s, you had to get a truck.

Yes, the Chevy Caprice wagon was around until 1996, but it was pretty much all by itself and it was obsolete.

The other thing that led to more trucks was the gas guzzler tax, which has never applied to trucks but hit cars that got less than 22.5mpg on the EPA combined test (before adjustments for window stickers).

Dodge got around all this with the Magnum by classifying it as a truck, thus avoiding a hit to CAFE, and the gas guzzler tax on the SRT model.

There's no way to know for sure without rewinding time and changing reality a bit, but I believe that it's likely that we'd have kept more V8/RWD cars in the U.S. without guzzler and CAFE, as was the case in Australia.

Exactly!

I can't believe there's anyone here actually capable of reading comprehension whose followed Bush the past 7 years who actually still believes Bush cares a damn about the US auto industry, let alone who've yet to realize that this is all about oil companies (which have a far greater stock growth potential than any US based car industry).

Guys, Bush's background is in the oil industry and Cheney's is in energy.

Traditionally, it's been Oil Industry versus the Car Industry,

Bush has barely passed up a chance to slam the auto industry
He refused to meet with auto industry execs until recently, and then only a short meeting.

Higher CAFE standards mean that the burden is placed on the auto industry, while the oil industry is free to charge more for selling less and make even bigger profits.

To simplify things for the "Reasoning-challenged", we need less oil from places that aren't particularly fans of the US of A, the guys who import & refine oil, and sell fuel won't need to move, refine, or develop as much (reduced operating costs), yet are free to make even bigger profits than they already are.... and the whole burden of making all this happen has fallen on the US auto industry.

That's about the best way to explain it without resorting to crayons and pictures.



The taxes were based on profits.
Simply passing it on wouldn't haved worked.

This just demonstrates how little you know about the oil industry and the commodities market in general. Your attempts to smear the intelligence of people you disagree with don't do a lot to hide your own ignorance.

Lets leave the President out of it entirely, since IMO he's way to easy a target. You might say he is a perfect deux ex machina for anyone who wants someone to blame.

Its a giant waste of time to buy oil ONLY from friendlies. The price is set based on global demand. So even if we got 100% of our oil from people we like, the oil we don't buy would go to other counties who don't care. As long as demand and supply are both allocated globally, it really doesn't matter where the gas in your tank started out as oil.

Here's another lesson on oil company profits. They don't set the price of oil. Again, that's pretty much done by the market, which is semi-captive to OPEC's quotas. The price is made up of several parts, including speculation, fear, and the fact demand is continuing to outpace supply. Most of the "Profit" from a barrell of oil, usually like 80%, goes to the host country, with the Exxon's and Shells getting their costs plus the other 20% of net. They're not making their money on oil, they're making it on a relatively small per gallon of gas profit. We're just using an incredible amount of gasoline, and thereby ringing up the profits for the oil companies.

Frankly I find the new CAFE bill a waste of time. You can conserve all you want, but OPEC will just cut production in order to maintain the price. Unless the impossible happens, and we drop our consumption by 50% overnight, there will not be any relief from prices.

The only way to break OPEC would be to get off foreign oil. The only realistic way to do this is through a combination of massive new exploration for oil here at home plus a huge drive to alternatives like switch-grass sourced ethanol (corn based is a waste of time and an energy loser). The idea isn't to actually get off foreign oil, but to consume as if we were not. It still wouldn't really matter where exactly the oil comes from, as long as what we're bringing isn't more than what gets exported out. Ultimately you'd have to get all the way off oil though, for this to work.

Honestly this bill doesnt have a sharp teeth. This part is kinda cool:

SEC. 241. LIGHTWEIGHT MATERIALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General- As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a research and development program to determine ways in which--

(1) the weight of vehicles may be reduced to improve fuel efficiency without compromising passenger safety; and

(2) the cost of lightweight materials (such as steel alloys, fiberglass, and carbon composites) required for the construction of lighter-weight vehicles may be reduced.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.

Congress throwing money into weight reduction seems like a good ideal. $300,000,000 is a good amount of change.

Anyway. Back to the no teeth thing.


BASELINE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILES- The Secretary shall prescribe average fuel economy standards for automobiles in each model year beginning with model year 2011 to achieve a combined fuel economy standard for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles per gallon for the fleet of automobiles manufactured or sold in the United States. The average fuel economy standards prescribed by the Secretary shall be the maximum feasible average fuel economy standards for model years 2011 through 2019

It doesnt require any raise for another 3 years. Which isnt a long time in automotive terms. But it isnt to soon. They are requiring 1 MPG each year after 2011. And damnit. I could have sworn a seen a part that allowed for automakers to apply for time grants if they cant make the standard goals. But im missing it.

This bill isnt just a bill that focuses on CAFE and Cars. Lots of otherstuff too.

(a) In General- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act or not later than 18 months after test procedures have been developed for a consumer electronics product category described in subsection (b), whichever is later, the Federal Trade Commission, in consultation with the Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate regulations, in accordance with the Energy Star program and in a manner that minimizes, to the maximum extent practicable, duplication with respect to the requirements of that program and other national and international energy labeling programs, to add the consumer electronics product categories described in subsection (b) to the Energy Guide labeling program of the Commission.

(b) Consumer Electronics Product Categories- The consumer electronics product categories referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Televisions.

(2) Personal computers.

(3) Cable or satellite set-top boxes.

(4) Stand-alone digital video recorder boxes.
(5) Computer monitors.


Read for yourself. Instead of going by what CNN or FOXNews says about it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1419:

Oh. Here we go:

(b) Rulemaking-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue regulations to carry out the amendments made by subsection (a).

(2) HARDSHIP EXEMPTION- The regulations issued pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include a process by which a manufacturer may be exempted from the requirement under section 32902A(a) upon demonstrating that such requirement would create a substantial economic hardship for the manufacturer.

1. Fuel Economy should be regulated by a free and open market. At $3 a gallon, who is going to buy a car that gets poor fuel economy (and even that is relative to the end user)?

2. How do you demand higher fuel economy and expanded use of ethanol when you will take a hit to mpg just by using E85? This makes no sense. If you want to expand the use of ethanol, then eliminate the MPG regulations and let the free market (you and I) decide if we want to live with this fuel.

3. Energy independence will not come from conservation - it will come from domestic sources of energy - duh! The USA sits on a sea of energy, but the same Enviro-Mentals that hail the passage of this Bill inhibit us from pursuing energy independence. By the way, when was the last time this country built a new nuclear power plant? How about a coal-to-liquids or gas-to-liquids fuel plant? We don't need new fuels to power our vehicles, but rather new sources of fuels we are already familiar with. Don't underestimate the positives of petroleum-based fuel!

4. If I were to purchase a Camaro or a Corvette, believe me when I say fuel economy would not be on my list of reasons to buy. Nor would these cars be my daily drivers. I should have total freedom to decide if fuel economy is my top purchase decision - and that will be determined by how I intend to use the vehicle.

5. Keep in mind that Toyota can just import more vehicles. They may assemble some vehicles here in the USA, but there is very little about them that originate here. If the Domestic Auto Industry is legislated out of existence, there will be an economic earthquake in this country that will not leave any aspect untouched.

1. Fuel Economy should be regulated by a free and open market. At $3 a gallon, who is going to buy a car that gets poor fuel economy (and even that is relative to the end user)?

I'll agree to that.


2. How do you demand higher fuel economy and expanded use of ethanol when you will take a hit to mpg just by using E85? This makes no sense. If you want to expand the use of ethanol, then eliminate the MPG regulations and let the free market (you and I) decide if we want to live with this fuel.

CAFE standards are not going to go off the MPG when a car is using E85. It doesnt call for cars to be only E85.


3. Energy independence will not come from conservation - it will come from domestic sources of energy - duh! The USA sits on a sea of energy, but the same Enviro-Mentals that hail the passage of this Bill inhibit us from pursuing energy independence. By the way, when was the last time this country built a new nuclear power plant? How about a coal-to-liquids or gas-to-liquids fuel plant? We don't need new fuels to power our vehicles, but rather new sources of fuels we are already familiar with. Don't underestimate the positives of petroleum-based fuel!

Conservation will help a lot in energy dependance. This bill isnt for just for cars. It is a complete energy bill. I'll agree that we need more Nuke Plants though. Sure would like to see some of those built.


4. If I were to purchase a Camaro or a Corvette, believe me when I say fuel economy would not be on my list of reasons to buy. Nor would these cars be my daily drivers. I should have total freedom to decide if fuel economy is my top purchase decision - and that will be determined by how I intend to use the vehicle.

You still do. And GM still has the total freedom to make the Camaro get 5mpg if they wanted to.


5. Keep in mind that Toyota can just import more vehicles. They may assemble some vehicles here in the USA, but there is very little about them that originate here. If the Domestic Auto Industry is legislated out of existence, there will be an economic earthquake in this country that will not leave any aspect untouched.

I really doubt that this is going to impact GM much if at all. The hard part is that it lumps SUVs and Trucks in with the normal cars. Hell, the fact that GM has the hybird Tahoe and alternative fueled Hummers comming up could once again mean that it will be the king of Big trucks and SUVs. This could really impact the Tondra and Titan.

Imports still need to meet the standard too.

Besides, if I company cant meet the standards they can claim hardships.

CAFE led the industry to design smaller cars with FWD and V6 engines to replace older models with RWD and a V8. If you wanted a vehicle with a V8 engine and RWD for towing, you previously could have used a large station wagon, but by the mid 90s, you had to get a truck.

Yes, the Chevy Caprice wagon was around until 1996, but it was pretty much all by itself and it was obsolete.

The other thing that led to more trucks was the gas guzzler tax, which has never applied to trucks but hit cars that got less than 22.5mpg on the EPA combined test (before adjustments for window stickers).

Dodge got around all this with the Magnum by classifying it as a truck, thus avoiding a hit to CAFE, and the gas guzzler tax on the SRT model.

There's no way to know for sure without rewinding time and changing reality a bit, but I believe that it's likely that we'd have kept more V8/RWD cars in the U.S. without guzzler and CAFE, as was the case in Australia.

I disagree completely with your line of reasoning - but I will agree to disagree and be done. :)

Bob

I disagree completely with your line of reasoning - but I will agree to disagree and be done. :)

Bob

Well either CAFE had an effect on the type of vehicles offered for sale or it didn't. My line of reasoning, which you completely disagree with, is that it did.

You argued that it had a positive effect, but if it had no effect on the type of vehicles sold, then what effect did it have?

I will agree that you disagree with yourself. Once you have that worked out, we may be able to have a discussion. Until then, I agree to be done :D

Ok, ok - you talked me into it....lets have some fun, shall we?

Well either CAFE had an effect on the type of vehicles offered for sale or it didn't.
Correct - and I never stated that it had no effect. I am simply disagreeing with your conclusions on the effect that it had (or did not have).

My line of reasoning, which you completely disagree with, is that it did.
Lets go back to your "line of reasoning", and instead of making general statements, I shall get more specific on what I do and do not agree with. Ok?

CAFE led the industry to design smaller cars with FWD and V6 engines to replace older models with RWD and a V8.
Initially, I concur. And now what is happening? Are we not heading back to larger cars? Certainly GM is heading back to V8s and RWD, are they not?

If you wanted a vehicle with a V8 engine and RWD for towing, you previously could have used a large station wagon, but by the mid 90s, you had to get a truck.
Wow - and I bet this just influenced so many people. I can see Mr Griswold now.... "dammit, no more cruiser for me! I'll have to go on vacation with this lousy pickup!"

Ya, big station wagons went away, and the tens of thousands that used to buy them at partially because they could tow......something....had to look elsewhere.

Sorry, I'm not buying it (no pun intended).

Say....why do you think the Coupe market pretty much tanked in the late 90s/early 00's? CAFE? Something else?

Yes, the Chevy Caprice wagon was around until 1996, but it was pretty much all by itself and it was obsolete.
What made it obsolete? I would suggest lack of consumer desire for it - not CAFE.

The other thing that led to more trucks was the gas guzzler tax, which has never applied to trucks but hit cars that got less than 22.5mpg on the EPA combined test (before adjustments for window stickers).
Ok, back in the 90's, Which "big cars" were subject to the gas guzzler tax? How much was it?

Personally, I think you've been reading the opinions offered on wikipedia too much.

Dodge got around all this with the Magnum by classifying it as a truck, thus avoiding a hit to CAFE, and the gas guzzler tax on the SRT model.
I agree with you here, thus my original statement that I "completely disagree with you" is completely incorrect.

Sorry.

There's no way to know for sure without rewinding time and changing reality a bit
I agree again. Shame on me.

but I believe that it's likely that we'd have kept more V8/RWD cars in the U.S. without guzzler and CAFE, as was the case in Australia.
I believe it is pure conjecture. You believe otherwise, thus we can agree to disagree (or not) on this one.

So I guess I agreed some, but disagreed more, thus making my simple "completely disagree" statement above inaccurate.

I'm sorry.

You argued that it had a positive effect, but if it had no effect on the type of vehicles sold, then what effect did it have?
I argued no such thing. Please quote my statements if you think otherwise, and we can talk about that, too.

Or perhaps we can agree that you disagree with yourself, after you go back and find where I didn't argue about any positive effect. Once you get that straightened out, perhaps we can then have a discussion?

I will agree that you disagree with yourself.
I do? I guess you're right - see above.

Once you have that worked out, we may be able to have a discussion.
I've had a talk with myself, and worked it out. Thanks for the advice.

Until then, I agree to be done :D
So long as it is in your benefit, no doubt.

BTW....the original reply wasn't directed towards you anyway. Are you and Eric in cahoots or something?

Bob

BTW....the original reply wasn't directed towards you anyway. Are you and Eric in cahoots or something?


Yeah - Teal picks up my slack when I'm busy at my day job.

:p

Damn.....I need to get one of those. http://www.ls2.com/forums/images/smilies/222val.gif

I don't know how to get the multiple thread inclusion, without which the discussion will be a bit difficult to follow.

The <xthread> button looks interesting, but when I click it, nothing happens.


Initially, I concur. And now what is happening? Are we not heading back to larger cars? Certainly GM is heading back to V8s and RWD, are they not?


Advancing technology has helped with that. You can now build a 4150 pound car with a V8 (typical Chrysler 300C) and not get hit with a guzzler tax. For years, the Camaro skirted on the edge (auto LT1 and earlier), despite being down 50-100hp and 600 pounds. The Crown Vic and Caprice barely avoided it.


Wow - and I bet this just influenced so many people. I can see Mr Griswold now.... "dammit, no more cruiser for me! I'll have to go on vacation with this lousy pickup!"

Ya, big station wagons went away, and the tens of thousands that used to buy them at partially because they could tow......something....had to look elsewhere.

Sorry, I'm not buying it (no pun intended).

Actually, not just station wagons. But also sedans and even two-doors (I'm having a hard time calling a 4500 pounds 18-foot long behemoth a coupe).


Say....why do you think the Coupe market pretty much tanked in the late 90s/early 00's? CAFE? Something else?

Child seats?


Ok, back in the 90's, Which "big cars" were subject to the gas guzzler tax? How much was it?


No domestic cars, because GM and Ford wouldn't build them. If you wanted V8 or RWD, you had very little choice in cars.


Personally, I think you've been reading the opinions offered on wikipedia too much.


Nope. I haven't read them. I just know that all through the 90s, I cast a wistful glance at trucks, even though I don't really like them, because you could get RWD and a good old V8. I never liked the Crown Vic or the Caprice, because they were just too big and old fashioned.

So for me, it was pretty simple:

A. CAFE caused U.S. automakers to build FWD boring-mobiles, and to abandon RWD and V8 for new designs.

B. I wanted a RWD V8 interesting-mobile.

The truck fit closer than the cars, though neither fit well. I never actually bought a V8 truck, but I liked them better.


At least it's nice to know that there is partial agreement :)

A. CAFE caused U.S. automakers to build FWD boring-mobiles, and to abandon RWD and V8 for new designs.

I'm not so sure about that. I recall reading that the GM's "second downsizing" in the mid 1980s was motivated by some terribly wrong internal projections about the price of gas going to $5/gallon. That caused them to cancel everything RWD with cars like the Camaro and Caprice only surviving on lifesupport into the 90s.

Remember that GM was fully compliant with CAFE even when they were still selling the RWD B/D/F/G cars in the 1980s. They dropped those cars for other reasons.

Also those FWD cars were boring for many other reasons than having a only V6 - generic styling, badge jobbing, and so on. If GM had built something like a BMW or an Audi Quatrro I wouldn't have called it boring.

I'm not so sure about that. I recall reading that the GM's "second downsizing" in the mid 1980s was motivated by some terribly wrong internal projections about the price of gas going to $5/gallon. That caused them to cancel everything RWD with cars like the Camaro and Caprice only surviving on lifesupport into the 90s.

Remember that GM was fully compliant with CAFE even when they were still selling the RWD B/D/F/G cars in the 1980s. They dropped those cars for other reasons.

Also those FWD cars were boring for many other reasons than having a only V6 - generic styling, badge jobbing, and so on. If GM had built something like a BMW or an Audi Quatrro I wouldn't have called it boring.

I remember what GM sold in the 1980s. CAFE is very complicated. The current 27.5mpg standard didn't really take full effect until the very late 1980s, by which point, the FWD revolution was nearly complete.

The Camaro was going to be replaced with a V6 FWD until GM came to their senses.

And yes, if Detroit had made more interesting FWDs, then maybe they would have sold a few more cars and a few less trucks. Still, people needing big vehicles or towing vehicles were pushed towards trucks due to cars having been downsized. I suppose one could argue all day (well, a lot longer) as to the extent of that. One could even argue with one's self.

Trucks. Still, people needing big vehicles or towing vehicles were pushed towards trucks due to cars having been downsized. I suppose one could argue all day (well, a lot longer) as to the extent of that. One could even argue with one's self.

Can't disagree, it was a loophole you could drive a truck through (groan).

Still, I think GM could have developed a RWD midsized platform to underlie the F-Bodies and the G-Body personal coupes without breaking CAFE -- it was other business factors that caused them to drop RWD across the board.

Yup, we do agree on some things - but I don't think CAFE had a significant effect on pushing people towards trucks, nor did it kill the station wagon.

And I argue with myself all the time.....what's wrong with that? http://www.ls2.com/forums/images/smilies/argue.gif

Yup, we do agree on some things - but I don't think CAFE had a significant effect on pushing people towards trucks, nor did it kill the station wagon.


I feel the opposite, but to be honest, I don't have any definitive data on my side (I do have on my side the conventional wisdom of the automotive press working for me, but I wouldn't put much faith in that).

I also found it interesting that the sales of large sedans started climbing in late '05/early '06 as SUV sales decreased. Once again, I don't have a way to correlate that data, but my gut says that these figures aren't unrelated.

I think, for the most part, station-wagons were just plain ugly. Even the ones Honda and Toyota gave a shot at looked really weird.

SUV's were popular in movies, music videos, etc...don't remember seeing many station-wagons in videos...young people hated them like a plague.

And the SUV's offered more versitility, in a better looking package.

And as people were given more, better choices in SUV's, the wagons were just abandoned.
I think it was just a culture shift...

I agree with the culture shift idea....but I have no hard data to back up my opinions either. :)

And the SUV's offered more versitility, in a better looking package.


Arguing the relative appearance of one two-box design vs. another seems a bit silly; next, can maybe we talk about which minivan is the least ugly? :lol:

I, for one, do not understand how SUVs ever became fashionable. Maybe that's at the root of my belief that CAFE killed sensible cars and led to the rise of SUVs.

I think,SUV's were popular in movies, music videos, etc...don't remember seeing many station-wagons in videos...young people hated them like a plague.

I think it was just a culture shift...


First young people didn't want to drive station wagons, because that's what their parents drove. People moved on to minivans. The next group didn't want minivans because that's what their parents drove. They moved on to SUVs. Pretty soon we're going to have a group that grew up in SUVs and won't want them, because that's what their parents drove. Wonder what will be next?

I disagree that there weren't attractive wagons. There were quite a few cool ones up until the 80s - when nothing was particularly good looking.

I think it was a lot easier for the manufacturers to build large vehicles called "trucks" to meet a 22.5 CAFE than it was to build large vehicles called "cars" to meet a 27.5.

I think that affected the types of vehicles that Detroit built. Since CAFE was an average, of course they could still have built cars at 22.5 and then sold cars at 32.5 to make up for it, but conventional wisdom was that Detroit lost money on small cars.

So if they could build a truck that didn't require them to sell a money losing small car, they would.

Maybe another way of putting it is that the cars that Detroit built as a reaction to CAFE were so undesirable, that they caused people to look at trucks.

All over the world, trucks did increase in popularity -- just not to the same level that they did in the U.S. The other factor is that retail sales of new U.S. label cars in places like California dropped so low, that trucks would have become a much larger percentage even if their sales had stayed constant.