Okay, so there's one politician that puts his money where his mouth is.

I'd like to see more politicians like that. Regardless of party.

 

Makes me nervous as an auto enthusiast, but happy as an American consumer. As I've said in other places, GM is in great shape to meet these requirements, if they use their assets wisely.

They have a great 4-cylinder engine (that in itself might make the purchase of Saab look smarter than it ever has before), a very good hybrid technology, V8's that are more efficient than the rest of the field, and a potential game changer in the Volt.

In unrelated news, I test drove the Astra XR today (maybe I'll write a review later). That is one slick car.

Yes, 31.6 mpg is a good thing.

 

I don't understand what they hope to accomplish with this...
I want to use an example of what's going through my head:

Right now it costs ~35 bucks to fill up the tank in my Cobalt. I can go ~320 miles on tank. And the car cost roughly 15 grand.
Over the first 10,000 miles, it costs me $16,093.75 to own this car.

Say GM ups the Cobalt's mpg rating to 36 from it's current 31 (result of CAFE), and I buy a new one. Tack on an estimated 4 grand premium to the MSRP for improvements necessary to meet CAFE. And gas is now about 6 dollars a gallon.

I will now be able to travel 371 miles on a tank @ roughly $66.50 a tank. Over the first 10,000 miles, it will cost me $20,792.00.

That's a 4 thousand dollar difference...none of this is saving me any money, yet....

Pretend I kept my current Cobalt @ 31mpg...and gas still rose to 66.50 a tank. I will only have had to spend 17,078.13 for the first 10k miles........I'm still not seeing any savings resulting from CAFE.

Here's a chart I prepared showing my costs of ownership of these vehicles. Assume I buy both vehicles in full, in cash. (CAFE Cobalt = 20k, mine = 15k.)Assuming gas rises approx. a dollar every year for the next 5 years, and I drive 10,000 miles a year. Also assume the Fuel economy rating (hwy) is 31mpg in my Cobalt, and 36mpg in the "CAFE Cobalt". Here is how the "CAFE Cobalt" will perform cost-wise versus my current Cobalt will perform.

...............................Year 1...........Year 2...........Year 3..........Year 4..........Year 5.......Total 5-year life
Cost of gasoline:.........3.50................4.50........ .....5.50...............6.50............7.50...... .......of vehicle

Cost of Ownership
CAFE Cobalt:..........$21,012.55.......$1,301.85....... $1,591.15.....$1,880.45......$2,169.75..........$2 7,956.75
My Cobalt:.............$16,203.13.......$1,546.88.... ...$1,890.63.....$2,234.38......$2,578.13......... ..$24453.15

CAFE Savings........................................... .................................................. ....................-$3,503.60



Granted this is not scientific, but I think it's darn close. And you can see that the "CAFE Cobalt" does pay off some of it's CAFE-induced premium despite rising gas prices. But only about 1,000 dollars worth, and only after a full 5 years of owning it.

That's a 3 thousand dollar "markup" if you will, that the brainiacs in Government are imposing on us. More for some vehicles, and yet less for others. But the principal is the same, imho; CAFE is not worth it in terms of economics, and finances. I don't like being charged 3,000 dollars, when an equivalent vehicle not influenced by CAFE will still be cheaper to own, and fill up.

I think GM can reach, and even surpass the standard without a doubt...but I'm afraid at what cost. If they need to mark up vehicles as shown...this is a stupid idea.

 

True.

First: Where are you getting this 4k or 5k markup? And using 4k in your first example and then changing it to 5k in your second example hurts the credibility of the analysis.

Second: Most people drive more than 10k miles a year. I think the national average is 12-15.

Third: By increasing CAFE, one goal is to reduce the total fuel consumption in the US. Decreasing consumption, theoretically, will result in lower gas prices.

Fourth: Something in your favor. If you didn't pay in cash or you account for the time value of money, the increase in MSRP has a financial impact greater than just the difference in the MSRPs.

Those are just a couple I can think of off hand. Don't expect me to do an actual scientific analysis on this, too much work.

 

$4,000 extra because of CAFE Why so much???? Maybe add that much for a 2 mode hybrid version. GM already has a Cobalt that gets 36mpg it is called the Cobalt XFE and it just came out in March, it cost $0 extra compared to a non-XFE Cobalt.

Plus the average American car owner drive ~15,000 a year. After 5 years the Cobalt XFE vs. your Cobalt would save around $2000 worth of fuel using your prices.

 

I could not agree with you more. Simply put the new Cobalt is going to need to be as big of a jump as from the last Malibu to the new Malibu. GM needs to change perception and that takes a big leap in design, and engineering.

 

Didn't GM say that prices of vehicles will be rising in order to meet CAFE? I did pull the number out of my butt, though. I've heard "up to 6,000" being thrown around, and I figured less for the Cobalt....

Anyways, if they can raise fuel economy ratings without adding much cost, then go for it, I say - what i posted was a purely hypothetical situation. (probably more applicable to other, bigger, vehicles than the Cobalt....)

....And I'd never heard of this Cobalt XFE before now..

 

Here's your problem...

Third: By increasing CAFE, one goal is to reduce the total fuel consumption in the US. Decreasing consumption, theoretically, will result in lower gas prices

Just because the car gets better mileage doesn't mean people will drive less, in fact, people may be swayed to drive more now that they can afford it. It may make a msall dent in total usage, just not in cars on the road.

 

Really? Please elaborate....

 

That $4K-6K figure might have been for SUV/Trucks like the Tahoe hybrid, or maybe all 2 mode hybrids

All 2009 Cobalts will be getting updated 2.2L's with VVT and there is a Turbo 1.4L coming out for 2009 that will get even better mileage. All relatively cheap improvements.

Malibu is getting a 6 speed for its 4cyl. and hwy mileage jumps up 2 mpg putting them ahead of Toyota and Honda. GM probably could downsize the 4 cyl and get even more mileage at almost no cost.

The easiest improvement for GM would be to get rid of those 4 speeds and make sure every GM has a 6 speed auto. That alone would probably raise GMs CAFE number by almost 2 mpg. Next step after that needs to be VVT and Direct injection on every engine.

Lots can be done for under $500 per car.

It will be rated at 26 MPG with the new 2008 EPA rating, I don't have exact #'s but that should translate to about 30mpg+ with the CAFE rating system. CAFE #'s are higher than even the old window sticker #'s

 

Oil is a world market, not just US. We may decrease out need for it, but developing nations will continue to use more. I don't see price going down, at least not significantly.

I completely agree with your second statement. I love my silverado, but drive it as little as possible. BUT on the weekends, my fiance and I drive all over hell in her corolla.

We will keep our "gas suckers" for as long as possible (silverado and tacoma DC prerunner -both get about the same mpg) because both are paid for. So until that time when the cost of fuel outweighs the cost of buying another vehicle and "saving" on gas, we'll continue to drive the "biggies," BUT try to keep it to a minimum. The corolla has had A LOT of miles put on in the past few months...

The "Reality" has already hit me that I may not be buying a Camaro... or I'll have to get the "sissy" version I've done the math, $400-450 payment, plus insurance, plus $$$ fuel = too much money for a nitch car

 

I guess it all depends on what the EPA calculation for the Traverse is. I've heard GM is estimating 25-26 highway, which would be a couple MPG gain over the non DI 3.6 Lambdas.

 

GM currently as of 2007 has a CAFE average for cars of 31.9 MPG and 22.6 for Trucks
Honda cars are at 39.6 MPG
Ford cars are at 29 MPG
BMW cars are at 27.5 MPG

link = http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhts...FE_Summary.pdf

 

That's actually kinda funny how "low" BMW is!

 

Aston Martin is at 18mpg and Ferrari is 16.2mpg