CAFE Standards

"450X_FTW" (mistermic)
04/08/2015 at 18:34 • Filed to: None

So on today’s Morning Shift I !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and how they are bullshit. Some responses were thought out and made good points, some were hateful, and there’s always the obvious trollers. Stay with me, don’t just scroll to the bottom and start commenting.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I also !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! so that people will stop complaining their car does not achieve the MPG as advertised.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Corporate Average Fuel Economy for those that don’t know are MPG targets put in place since 1975 that requires automakers to meet fuel economy numbers, helping decrease emissions output, and decrease our nations dependence on oil. It worked, big time. We can drive 5500 pound trucks today that are rated at 29 mpg (Ram 1500 3.0L), something that 10 or even 5 years ago never would have been imaginable.

As far as I’ve found, the auto industry is the only industry today that has to meet targets based on sales, or else face a fine from the government. It’s the only industry that the government has put regulations on the the supply and demand. Appliance makers do not have to sell X number of LED tv’s over plasma, McDonalds does not have to decrease the calories and fat count in all their foods offered by 5% each year or sell X number of salads vs. Big Macs to combat the growing obesity (pun) problem in the US.

Auto industry is the only industry that if they don’t sell enough of certain products, are punished by the government for it. Why? Why punish a company who sells too much of something that the people want?

My proposal: do not base CAFE standards on sales, base it on vehicles offered and yes there will be restrictions. No more separating trucks and cars. If the vehicle has an FE label on the window sticker, it gets counted in the group (so this does not included commercial or HD trucks). That means whether it is an F150 or a Fusion Hybrid it is in the same group for Ford’s CAFE number. Now some people will just say that companies will make 1 vehicle that gets 100 MPG and make it cost $500,000. AH HA! I’ve thought of this too. The vehicle fuel economy is counted if it is:
1) the vehicle has a MPG combined rating below the CAFE combined MPG requirement, regardless of the number of vehicles made. (Those limited edition hyper and super cars are all counted individually if they have a different label)

2) the vehicle has an MPG combined rating above the average fuel economy MPG requirement, then they must make 5000 units of them each model year or it does not count.

Let me give you an example. CAFE standard is 45 MPG. Vehicle A has a combined MPG combined rating of 15 MPG. Vehicle A counts towards the CAFE regardless of how many vehicles they make or sell. Vehicle B has a combined MPG rating of 50 MPG. Vehicle B ONLY counts towards the CAFE if they make at least 5000 units. Make sense?

People are going to buy what they want/need. They’re not going to buy what the government says we should drive. And if the government wants to lead by example, start changing those secret service vehicles over to hybrid or electric.

Okay let your hate spill on in the comments section, I’m ready for it.

DISCUSSION (16)

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > 450X_FTW
04/08/2015 at 18:43

So your proposal eliminates any chances whatsoever of something like the VW XL1 coming to the US. They would never make 5,000 of those, but a car like that is still very important to prove the viability of future technologies.

Also, allowing the public to decide what they want would leave us with the same scenario we had when gas prices spiked in 2008; too many people stuck driving incredibly inefficient vehicles because the public has a very, very short term memory.

The auto industry is a prime example of how you use government regulation to shape the future of an industry while still allowing it to remain profitable. Some regulation is actually good.

Could it better? Sure. I do not think what you have proposed is though.

450X_FTW > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
04/08/2015 at 18:47

High gas prices leading up to 2008 made people realize oh shit getting 13 mpg is not good for my wallet. Today people demand high MPG cheap vehicles, and Toyota is pretty much leading the way in that. The other automakers took note and decided to change their ways. The economy taking a shit, sadly, was one of the best things that could have happened to the US auto industry

Then what is your proposal? Leave it as is today?

450X_FTW > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
04/08/2015 at 18:49

One alternative. If Vehicle B exceeds the CAFE requirement by X percent they only have to build 100, 500, or 1000 whatever it be, for it to count, allowing your XL1 to be built.

dogisbadob > 450X_FTW
04/08/2015 at 18:57

CAFE is itself a silly idea. It makes them produce fuel efficient cars, but does nothing to make people actually *want* them. Raising the gas tax might do this more effectively than CAFE.

Reducing emissions != improved fuel economy. In fact, some of the things impair mpg.

As for car/truck, I agree, but if the separation needs to remain, I have the following guidelines:

In order to be a truck, it must fall into one of the categories:
Pickup truck
Interior bed dimensions at least 6' L x 5'W x 16"D (not including the wheel wells' intrusion into the bed), with the tailgate CLOSED
—AND—
FULL SIZE spare tire
—AND—
all tires the same size (no staggered fitments allowed), sidewall height must be at least 60% of the section width (aka a 60-series or higher tire)
—AND—
20 mpg combined MINIMUM if capable of running on gasoline
(no minimum for diesel)
—AND—
Payload capacity at least 1000 lb

Van
MINIMUM 20 mpg combined if capable of running on gasoline
(no minimum for diesel)
—AND—
same tire requirements as trucks above (all same size, full-size spare, sidewall 60 or higher)
—AND at least one of the below—
at least 150 cubic feet of cargo space
-or-
seating for at least 9, including the driver

Anything with four wheels and under 10000 lb GVWR that falls outside these criteria would be a car.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > 450X_FTW
04/08/2015 at 18:59

The automakers wouldn't even have tried to make more efficient cars if not for the CAFE requirements. Sure, the spike in 2008 increased demand, but now that it has dropped again, people are buying larger, less efficient vehicles.

But, because of the CAFE requirements, these less efficient vehicles today are more efficient than before because the automakers HAD to make them that way.

Letting the "market" decide is not always the best solution. Thinking ahead and realizing that regardless of one's views about the environment, using less gas is a good idea.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > 450X_FTW
04/08/2015 at 19:01

I really do not agree that there should be any rules that preclude such futuristic vehicles from being included. They probably aren't even counted right now, but having to meet a production run might possibly keep an automaker from building it in the first place, and we need them to keep innovating without penalty.

450X_FTW > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
04/08/2015 at 19:04

Hence why I propose to still have a requirement for the companies fleet of vehicles. Not eliminating CAFE, but changing them. And if they don't meet the requirement, they are find millions for ever 0.1 MPG they don't meet.

450X_FTW > dogisbadob
04/08/2015 at 19:05

Great ideas. Agree 100%

450X_FTW > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
04/08/2015 at 19:07

So then there should not be a minimum number built requirement?

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > 450X_FTW
04/08/2015 at 19:22

Nope. Something as experimental as the XL1 should not have any minimum production numbers.

I'm not saying that selling something like the Signet to boost manufacturer numbers doesn't warrant a minimum production number, only that your proposal might cause an automaker to hesitate building something like the XL1 or those Honda hydrogen cars.

And, as was mentioned, dictating mileage requirements still does not create the demand.

But, I am in favor of dictating what choices people have. The public would choose large, inefficient vehicles because its what they know and change is difficult. So of they can only buy a slightly smaller and much more efficient vehicle, we all win.

450X_FTW > ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
04/08/2015 at 19:57

That we can both agree on.

Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man > dogisbadob
04/08/2015 at 20:09

I would be all for raising the gas tax a few cents (not to the level of europes average gas tax because people in the US actually have to use their cars to get places) if the US actually took the money raised from the gas tax and used it on fixing and upgrading the roads and US infrastructure.

dogisbadob > Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man
04/08/2015 at 20:14

I think 12c per gallon is fair and probably sufficient. Raise it gradually, 1c per month over the course of a year.

And yeah, stealing from the highway fund is stupid and should be banned.

Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man > dogisbadob
04/08/2015 at 20:28

yeah, with the volitality of gas prices, you wouldn't really even notice, where I live, the roads are okay, not great, but elsewhere around where I live, the roads are truly like they haven't had any maintenence done to them since they were built.

1.21 JIGGA WATTS!!! > Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man
04/09/2015 at 07:29

SD raised their gas tax 6 cents when the new road bill went into effect in April. Prices went from $2.13 to $2.19 on April 1st. They also haven't moved since. A solid week and a half with no movement. And people lost their goddamned minds ... Here is my story on how SD raised the gas tax, registration fees, excise tax (aka our sales tax for vehicle purchases), and the interstate speeds to 80 mph. Of the $85.75 million in revenue that is supposed to be raised the first year, every. single. cent. is designated to go towards roads or bridge repair at either the state or local level.

I just can't fathom how SD can do this and people not lose their shit, but Congress proposes just a gas tax hike tied to inflation, and everyone loses their goddamned minds... It's just mind boggling...

Jordaneer, The Mountaineer Man > 1.21 JIGGA WATTS!!!
04/09/2015 at 14:24

I know, its weird for people to lose their minds over, especially considering how volatile the price of gasoline is in the US, it will change 10 cent overnight, and its really weird considering that the gas tax hasn't changed for 22 years, I have only been alive for 18 years, I am now a licensed driver, the conditions of US roads are crap, and people don't want to fix them?

I really would only be for an increase in gas taxes if the taxes actually were used to fix roads and infrastucture though.