Not that I'm against the environment or anything, but it was a real dirty trick to wait until Camaro and the Zeta platform were announced then spring a 10-year timeclock on the platform. On top of that implementing guzzler taxes.

I think it is only fair that all automobile platforms and engines under construction prior to 2008 be grandfathered in until 2035. That is excluded from CAFE until they are no longer profitable. If they aren't it will cause undue hardship to an industry already under attack from offshore competition.

I don't think I'm the only one here uncomfortable with the time constraint. I understand that smaller cars are the future, but fair warning should have been given.

 

That stands about as much chance of happening as a UFO landing on the front lawn of the White House in prime time while CNN and Fox are covering an event. I think we stand little chance of getting the CAFE legislation repealed or changed, but I think we need to get car enthusiasts writing, calling, and emailing their legislators to make them aware that we are very unhappy with this legislation (and we could hound the media with our opposition at every opportunity also).
Clyde

 

Dumb idea

 

Got something better? Don't hold back. Oh wait, maybe you don't want to do anything? Enjoy your Japanese electrocart in 2020:

 

Gotta agree. what you proposed is actually a dumb idea, and I'll point out the reasons , first targeting the 10 year "timelock". Regardless, sarcastically adding that silly notion that we'll be driving golfcarts doesn't help with any credibility or seriousness to offering alternatives.

Forget enviromentalism, forget treehuggars, forget the Sierra Club. China & India are industrializing at a rate that's nothing short of phenominal. This is a threat to us because not only does both India and China each have over 4 times our population and therefore a absolutely massive market compared to the US, but as they industrialize, they will be gulping up far greater amounts of oil. You don't need complex math to tell you what that's going to do with price and availability. To make matters worse, when you look at the amount of oil we use compared to what countries produce, the US economy simply an implosion waiting to happen. Google oil production and oil consumption. The US is the world's 3rd largest oil producer, yet we need a variety of high production countries to keep our needs meet. That doesn't even address the problem of Political Blackmail we're currently venerable to from our oil suppliers. Greenhouse gases is a red herring (and eventially I'm sure that will be apparent). The real issue is reducing our venerability to world events and the upcoming increased demand for oil by countries that are far bigger than us in population (and soon, perhaps, in industry).


Getting back to cars, there is no problem with a 10 year timecock. The only cars today with platforms lasting 10 years are hopelessly outdated and the result of automanufacturers squeezing the chassis into overtime.

1. Today it takes 3-4 years to completely engineer a new chassis.

2. The actual investment in the Zeta platform is pocket change next to, say, the Espilon.

3. The entire Camaro program apparently cost no more than what a normal interior-exterior revision typically costs.

4. To say that this hurts the US auto industry that is under attack from offshore competition is misguided. A car coming out in 2009 and staying in production till 2035 is like someone selling a 1982 car today. Any car maker doing something like that should just quit and build something that doesn't need to compete... perhaps building milk crates.

5. Excluding cars from CAFE is silly. Suppose there are cars today that actually help CAFE numbers? Should they be excluded? Should industry pick and choose what vehicles they should count? Finally, cars aren't the problem with meeting CAFE. Cars are currently selling at an average of 30 mpg overall, and anyone who doesn't think the alone market isn't going to raise that number past 35mpg by then isn't living in the real world of soon to be higher oil prices.

The issue isn't a "timelock" or any percieved dirty tricks. The issue is to get most automakers to actually move. DaimlerChrysler dragged it's feet to bring the Smart over (someone else had to do it). GM wasn't even serious about selling the small Chevys we voted on last year at New York's show till CAFE. Zeta didn't even have a diesel planned for sale for the US till CAFE made GM take another look at it. Ford's entire Post-Nasser business plan was relying on big F-series trucks to finance the company, now that's changed.

Ironically, it's most all offshore automakers that are going to have the worst time meeting the standards. Almost every Toyota, Nissan, and Honda conventional gasoline engine gets worse mileage than a comprable engine from GM, Ford, and even in many instances, Chrysler. Toyota absolutely HATES CAFE. But they don't publically say it because they don't want to take a hit to their "Green" image.

Honestly, I strongly and completely believe CAFE is going to become a non-issue. The increase is smaller and the amount of time given far exceeds what was given in the 70s version of CAFE. Fuel economy increased 1 mpg the past year by CAFE standards simply because gas rose less than $1 per gallon. Gas is going to almost certainly go through another period of explosive growth in the coming few years if not sooner.

Mark my words. Within 3-5 years, we'll be looking at people on TV pushing to raise CAFE standards higher simply because the market is going to make it too easy for automakers not only to reach those goals, but to blow past them.

 

When you consider that almost all of the bread and butter models sold by GM Ford and Chrysler are large platforms - because that's what people want - will have to be replaced with 35mpg vehicles in 10 years you are talking a lot of money. At least three other RWD models were planned for the Oshawa Plant and more for the one in Detroit. $2.5 billion to create a mass market RWD platform is not pocketchange when you're already losing billions due to foreign competition.

The Japanese have cut their teeth on small cars like Corrolla and Civic. Those models are their best sellers and they are already well above the CAFE standards. In fact their mid-size cars are almost there too.

You sound like you're in complete denial. The consequences of this will be far reaching, starting with the death of RWD on just about everything. There will be 'performance' cars, but they will be far short of what would have transpired had there been no CAFE. And FWD is the way to go for fuel mileage.

20 year lifespans for platforms are very common. Mustang, 4th gen F-bodies, Acura RSX/Honda Civic, were all built on 20-30 year platforms. The small block Chevy (the real 1955 one) lasted until 1997. Don't tell me platforms change every 10 years just because the models change.

 

Most posts I read (here and on other boards) seem to think "CAFE = The sky is falling...ahhhhh!" I don't really believe all that and guionM, you seem to have some common sense, I REALLY hope your right.

 

Heck how many times has the world ended before. 1970 muscle cars die the first time, 1974 the 455 SD dies, 1979 the last Pontiac 400-1982 the V8 is said to be gone-1987 Last Buick Turbo-2004 F body dies-2008 new CAFE.

We have been throught this before. While it will make things more expensive and more difficult for the MFG we will get through this Too.

Just another bump in the road. They can try to stop performance but we will always find a way around the rules as there will still be demand by the public for more power.

 

"Building what the people want" is a cop-out for 2 reasons.

1. The reason why both GM & Ford damn near bit the dust a few years ago was because they simply assumed that they could continue selling large SUVs and trucks forever and forfeit cars. GM was lucky in that they had a group of people who started investing in cars again before the bottom fell out.

2. What people want today isn't what people are going to want 2 or 3 years from now. It takes longer than that to engineer a new car. If fuel prices suddenly jumped $2 per gallon within the next 6 months, Ford is dead, GM is nearly decimated, and Chrysler isn't going to be all that great either.


You come from 2 directions on this. You say that these cars are their best sellers, yet you say US automakers are simply making what sells.

Although you posted a conflicting statement, you are correct on both counts, and you also prove a point. US automakers historically go for the cheap buck instead of competing. GM would have never done a Chevy Beat for the US if it wasn't for new CAFE standards. Ford's Fiesta would be destined to remain in Europe, and the Dodge Hornet actually was killed and then ressurected.

Not in denial. I'm just not a shrill diving for the bunkers, holding my crucifix and rosery beads thinking it's the end of all civilization simply because I have to adjust my thermostat at home a few degrees.

RWD is irrelevent to CAFE. The Zeta Impala and the Espilon Impala had a 1 mpg difference as far as sales weighted averages. A difference that would be more than made up with a sub-Cobalt vehicle available, let alone simply using an updated 5.3 instead of a 6.2 in the car.

As far as performance cars, the idea that they will transpire farther without CAFE is completely and utterly insane. Why?

1. VOLUME performance cars today are pretty much at their limit. If you expect cars today that reach 60 mph in 4.5 seconds to reach it in 3.5 seconds without CAFE is living in a fantasy world.

2. CAFE will force vehicles to be lighter and perhaps smaller, meaning better handling.

3. Combine CAFE forcing less weight along with smaller less powerful engines producing the same or better performance results and overall we have much better performance cars.

I really can not believe you understand what's going on in the market!

Name a single new car on the road today save the Crown Victoria dinosaur that has been around 20-30 years.

4th gen Camaro?
It's sales were in the toilet after the 5th year.
Mustang?
The fox Mustang was an antique when it was retired in '94, and the SN95 version lasted 10 years, and it was the only vehicle of it's kind on the market when it died.
RSX? Honda Civic?
You'd really be well served by learning about the cars you use as examples before.

1. The Integra lasted 7 years, before it was replaced with a re-engineered chassis, which also lasted 7 years.

2. The 2002 RSX was an all new, ground up chassis, which was based on the all new 2001 Civic's chassis.

Currently, the oldest chassis on the market outside the Crown Vic-Town Car-Grand Marquis (which itself was re-engineered in 2001 with a new hydroformed frame, rack and pinion steering, and redesigned differential case, effectively making it a new chassis) is the old as dirt W chassis which dates back to the late 80s.

The W-chassis hardly an example of an automotive industry that's staying competitive with anything offshore. Even Ford's midsize cars have gone through 3 chassis since it came out (original Taurus, the all new '96 version, and the FiveHundred-nee-Taurus).

 

First and foremost I urge everyone to take 10 minutes of your life.. and read this page. Until you do and reference the facts herein your just blowing hot air.

NHTSA Cafe Explanation

Now.. For the sky is falling.. Just like in the example on the CAFE page, just by adding 1, yes count them ONE, high volume, decent MPG vehicle a corporation can go from out of compliance to in compliance WITH CREDIT LEFT OVER..

So now you know why GM is pushing the volt through, 100MPG will offset their ENTIRE current lineup if they sell enough of them.

The sky isn't falling, CAFE, like GuionM said is forcing the auto industry to look at and develop alternatives instead of dabbling in them. RWD V8's are not going anywhere.

 

The rules for the new CAFE haven't been written yet. It would be an assumption to say that they will be the same as the 2004 and earlier rules.

 

I'm gonna have to go agree with the GuionM side of this debate...mostly cause I can't take much more of the "sky is falling" attitude (in general).

CAFE is a change...yes. Is it a little bit of a pain? Damn straight! But what do we do about it? Ignore it, try and argue against it, or even boycott it? No. We meet: it like everyone else is gonna do.

Quit worrying about it.

 

I agree the new rules haven't been written, So.. we are arguing something that hasn't even been created yet. In other words its a waste of a post because we currently live under the CURRENT cafe rules.

Anything else is just pure speculation(see my PS below for MY version of the speculation).

PS. Really in all honesty the only thing thats going to change is the MPG number to meet is going to go up, thats NOT that hard to plan for.

 

This is about the proposed CAFE standards, which would lay waste to all vehicles under 35mpg. Don't confuse any legislation you see today with it. And speaking of the 'sky is falling' hysteria, what about the global warming exaggeration that brought this nonsense about? The world will not come to an end because of large automobiles, and we are definitely NOT running out of fossil fuels, or any other fuels for that matter.

The CAFE agenda will make true high performance sports cars a thing of exclusivity. Cars like Camaro and Mustang will absolutely not survive. And this is just the tip of the iceburg, if you think they're done with us you're living in fantasyland. By 2017 CAFE proposals will likely be 50mpg or worse. There's zealots behind this legislation that believe everyone should be taking public transport.

All I'm saying is a simple letter or phone call to your politician can make a difference. I'm all for smaller cars, in fact you all know I want a smaller Camaro, but we might be faced with no performance cars long before 2020 because there's no future for them. That's not a sky is falling scenario, that's reality. It was 25 years after 1970 before we started to see real performance return. That 20 years was a sad, sad period in automotive history.

 

guinM,

Your post is funny. Too bad I haven't got the will to respond to every point. You tend to confuse platforms and chassis, which is not always the the same thing. The Fox Mustang was built on the 1979 Fairmont platform. The Civic, despite Honda's false advertising to the contrary, was built on a production platform first conceived in 1980. It costs a lot of money to do a ground-up redesign on a production line platform.

I'll be short and to the point about the rest of your post: I disagree. CAFE (and other standards) are a problem. We need to support the auto industry in its fight against them.