I am about tired of beating this dead horse anyway.

Just showing that the SRA is not automatically inferior to the IRS. even on bad roads.

 

This whole subtopic is a huge canard. GM does CAFE planning, which involves going through each model range and estimating the sales of each model. If the actual numbers are different, such that their estimates were too high, then they have to figure out how to avoid the penalties. It's the same with Eco versus standard Cruzes, AWD versus FWD LaCrosse, etc., etc.

The penalties are not actually all that much -- $55 per car per mpg short. So if the difference in CAFE number between V6 and V8 is 3mpg, it's essentially a $165 tax. Since the difference in profit between V6 and V8 is much greater, GM will be crying all the way to the bank!

 

I got this off of the GAO website:


Model year: 2010;
CAFE standard (mpg), Cars: 27.5;
CAFE standard (mpg), Light trucks (single standard), unreformed: 23.5.

Model year: 2011;
CAFE standard (mpg), Cars: 30.2;
CAFE standard (mpg), Combined cars and light trucks: 24.1;
CAFE standard (mpg), Light trucks (single standard): 27.3.

Model year: 2012;
CAFE standard (mpg), Cars: 33.6;
CAFE standard (mpg), Combined cars and light trucks: 25;
CAFE standard (mpg), Light trucks (single standard): 29.8.

Model year: 2013;
CAFE standard (mpg), Cars: 34.4;
CAFE standard (mpg), Combined cars and light trucks: 25.6;
CAFE standard (mpg), Light trucks (single standard): 30.6.

Model year: 2014;
CAFE standard (mpg), Cars: 35.2;
CAFE standard (mpg), Combined cars and light trucks: 26.2;
CAFE standard (mpg), Light trucks (single standard): 31.4.

Model year: 2015;
CAFE standard (mpg), Cars: 36.4;
CAFE standard (mpg), Combined cars and light trucks: 27.1;
CAFE standard (mpg), Light trucks (single standard): 32.6.

Model year: 2016;
CAFE standard (mpg), Cars: 38;
CAFE standard (mpg), Combined cars and light trucks: 28.3;
CAFE standard (mpg), Light trucks (single standard): 34.1.

 

The combined cars and truck numbers are less than the individual numbers -- my guess is you switched light trucks and combined.

I posted a link to a writeup a couple of days ago to this forum (not this thread).

The numbers are not absolute, as the new standards are actually g/mi of CO2, but manufacturers can get credits with new A/C systems, etc. The info is in the writeup.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regu.../420f10014.htm

I highly recommend reading this link if you're interested in a high level overview of the new regs.

 

38 by 2016.

Cue Dumb and Dumber, "SAMSONITE, Man I was WAY OFF!!!!"

 

Every little bit helps. Camaro doesn't get a free pass here. It'll be expected to at least be CAFE neutral. Your point on Epsilon's weight only shows that GM won't have CAFE credits to waste. Those Cruzes/Aveos/Volts are also going to have to offset LaCrosses, XTS's, CTS-V's, Silverados, Corvettes, Acadias and Tahoe's.

CAFE-wise, (certainly in the current political climate considering GM's current...umm..owners), Camaro will need to stand on it's own two feet.

 

Are you kidding, do you think I typed all that? I just copied and pasted, but yeah I see what you're saying. It looks flip-flopped.

I'll check out the EPA link you posted.

 

Which years? Where did you get this info?

I expect the Camaro will run a small CAFE deficit in the later years -- at least on Zeta -- but that it's making enough money to easily cover that, at least for now. If they could strip some weight off, a DI 4cyl could help the base model and still be a good drive. If they don't lose much weight, you'd want a LP turbo like in the Regal GS.

But GM will get lots of credits for Volts, which would be partially subsidized by Camaro profits.

 

For 2010, here are the base CAFE numbers for the Camaro, before credits. I don't know whether any apply, but if it were EPA certified, there would be credits.

28.35 3.6 A6
27.06 3.6 M6
24.65 6.2 A6
24.34 6.2 M6

It's pretty clearly not going to make 27.5. If GM sold nothing more than 6.2 M6 Camaros for 2010 and had no credits from prior years, etc., they'd be paying something like a $176 fine per car.

I don't know what the 2011-2016 target for the Camaro would be. It depends on how the footprint is calculated and what the numbers are for that footprint.

BMW and Mercedes have been paying CAFE fines for years. They consider it a cost of doing business in the U.S.

 

All years, before new CAFE.

However, I think it's safe to say that the current Camaro will start creeping deeper and deeper into CAFE (-) territory as the new standards take effect. That's not to say that GM is ready to say "screw it" with Camaro's CAFE numbers. The V8/V6 mix is important.

 

For 2010 CAFE, all they need to do is make it E85 and it's positive.

I agree that V8/V6 mix will affect CAFE. But as long as they can get an extra $4000 in profit from the V8, I'm sure they'll gladly take it, using the money to subsidize economical hybrids, if necessary.

 

The way I'm reading you teal98 is that GM just pass on the tax (i.e. cost of CAFE) to the consumer... much like the oil companies pass on taxes to consumers...

At the end of the day, the consumer pays. Simple.

So CAFE is no real burden as some seem to think. It only serves to keep the gummint mildly happy.

 

That is essentially correct. If a company is not worried about the political aspects of paying CAFE fines, they can just treat it as a tax of $55 per MPG below the standard.

I don't know what the fines are for the new standard, but you have banking and trading credits, which will presumably assume some market value. I don't know whether the fines for missing the number go up or not -- it looks like it's still $5.50 per .1 MPG, so the market value will be less than that, potentially much less if there are plenty of credits to go around.

The CAFE standard will push fuel efficiency improvements faster than the market would otherwise demand them. In a way, that's good for us as enthusiasts, as it will encourage manufacturers to spend extra money on lightweight materials. But those who want an affordable V8 Camaro in 2016 will probably be disappointed. On the other hand, the V6 model should be fantastic and the I4 model should also be pretty decent. I still don't foresee the return of a 3500 pound V8, but that number should be a piece of cake for a V6 model (if Hyundai can do it, so can GM).

 

I actually think you will see an affordable V8 in 2016 from GM.

But I do believe it will be a smaller displacement OHC motor.

 

What do you base that on?