Right you are, sir. Sometimes I wonder if Congress is really uneducated after all, or if they are just crooked.

But then the really scary thought intrudes my consciousness: What does that say of the people who keep re-electing these boobs? Michigan keeps re-electing Dingell term after term after term. Does it help Michigan? I don’t know, but it sure hurts the nation.

Politicians like to say that they are for the “little guy,” but the fact is that government usually stands in the way of progress.

This was understood by the Founding Fathers, who created the Bill of Rights not to list the rights of the people, but to LIMIT the abilities of an overreaching government.

The Founding Fathers were 100% correct in their fears. However, I think they didn’t go far enough to prevent that which they feared most (a collapse/takeover from within), because government intrusion continues to worsen each year.

I do think that if they dilly-dally on requirements, then they’ll get bailed out in 2018 from the requirement in some way….

I still don’t get exactly how CAFE averages are figured out. If you drive a Ford Fusion 4-cyl manual, you might get an EPA average of 28mpg. If you drive the 6-cyl AWD version, 22mpg EPA average.

Are all trim levels averaged together to create a model average? Is a manufacturers CAFE standing determined by a the number of models each mfr sold?

I.e. If Honda sells 100,000 Fits with an average of 32mpg, and 100,000 Accord V6s with an average of 22mpg, does that mean their CAFE average in 27mpg?

If CAFE is not weighted this way, then mfrs such as Ford/Dodge/Chevy would be penalized for making work trucks such as the F250/350. Unless those are excluded from CAFE. Are they? How is that line drawn?

A few things about trucks: there is a TON of technology out there to improve large truck fuel economy. Start-stop technology, decoupling alternators and electric on-demand water pumps, hydraulic drives (especially designed for trucks which can handle their size) have been shown to increase fuel economy up to 60%, hybrid technology for low-load situations, and of course some plug-in capacity since it’s just such a darn good idea.

I think bringing truck fuel economy up is going to become a much easier proposition than people think. A 30% increase in fuel economy on most trucks comes out to ~4.5mpg. That shouldn’t be that hard to do, just given the items I listed above.

Joe

So assuming equal volumes, the CAFE average of your 26mpg Highlander and 46mpg Prius is only 33mpg. That still does not cut it . . .

Is this rule in the new bill? I haven’t found reference to it yet.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy#Calculation

“Fuel economy calculation for alternative fuel vehicles multiplies the actual fuel used by a “Fuel Content” Factor of 0.15[13] as an incentive to develop alternative fuel vehicles.[14] Dual-fuel vehicles, such as E85 capable models, are taken as the average of this alternative fuel rating and its gasoline rate. Thus a 15 mpg dual-fuel E85 capable vehicle would be rated as 40 mpg for CAFE purposes, in spite of the fact that less than 1% of the fuel used in E85 capable vehicles is actually E85. [5]”

Sickening. Far from getting rid of big SUVs and muscle cars, it seems to be protecting them for decades to come with extra welfare checks going to US farmers.

The US market wants a car that hauls up to 7 people, goes to 60 in up to 7 seconds, costs up to 7 grand and that rides like it’s up in 7th heaven. But the market is not unreasonable, people will buy the thing that comes closest to their ideal. CAFE is essentially a tax credit for fuel efficiency so will shift the market’s buying patterns in that direction. How much will it cost? …how much do you want to tow?

The glass-is-half-full perspective is that the 2020 requirements will force domestic manufacturers to direct 20:20 vision on the future, a faculty that Toyota and Honda have exhibited since the release of their hybrids many years ago. The domestics have lacked vision for long enough, I say.

You’re basically asking if the camel is relieved of its current burden if the huge bail of straw destined to break its back is never placed. Of course it isn’t. It just remains a piece of straw short of having its fate absolutely sealed. So what do you do? Place the straw anyway because the tribe has decided that the camel hasn’t performed as well as it should have in the past and some ungulates just need killin’?

How about the 2007 4-cylinder Accord sedan with automatic? 24/34 means 34.3 MPG. The stick-shift Accord makes more then 35 MPG. All versions of the Civic pass 35 MPG, with the automatic sedan boasting 30/(1-0.1)*0.55 + 40/(1-0.22)*0.45 = 41.41 MPG.

Also note that the CAFE fleet average is calculated as an arithmetic mean of each vehicle’s score. So, if you sell a 100 MPG vehicle and a 10 MPG vehicle the fleet average is (100+10)/2 = 55 MPG even though if both vehicles drove 100 miles a total of 11 gallons would be consumed for an actual fuel consumption average of 200 miles / 11 gallons = 18.18 MPG. Anyway, this means that every huge luxury truck sold could just come with a free economy car (perhaps just put it in the trunk so the buyer can take it home).

Criticizing CAFE on account of unintended consequences, eliminating the freedom of a gearhead to drive a performance car and pay the $4/gallon gas is going to be even without increased gas tax, all of these are valid reasons to oppose CAFE.

Opposing CAFE because it will hurt the Big 2.8, I don’t properly know how to put this. No, TTAC doesn’t have an editorial policy or a party line or any such thing. But one of the themes underlying the criticism of the Big 2.8 on these pages in editorials by many writers and many commentators is that the problems of GM, Ford, and Cerebrus are ones of their own making.

The leadership of the Big 2.8 have this long list of things of why life is so unfair: the runup in gas prices, the health insurance meltdown, the inflexibility of the UAW, the prime lending crisis drying up home building and truck sales, and on and on. On the other hand, do you think that Ford or anyone else would hire economists or other experts to give them a heads up about oil price trends and what a heavy reliance on frame-rail vehicles is going to do to the business?

Suppose this CAFE legislation simply went away. Are the Big 2.8 now no longer doomed to failure?

Niche doesn’t necessarily mean small numbers

But that was quite clearly the way in which Robert was using the term.

As for “want” versus “need” – if SUVs didn’t get CAFE exemptions today, people wouldn’t “want” as many of them because they’d cost a heck of a lot more than they do now. Likewise with their favorable treatment (compared to, say, station wagons) on emissions and safety interactions.

In other words, “want” is just a spot on a demand curve. And we’ve artifically pushed the demand curve for a long time with SUVs – to the point where it’s incredibly disingenuous to complain that “we’re just giving them what they ‘want’”.

I pull into the left-hand turn lane to make a left turn at a light on a fairly busy highway. A motorist driving a big honkin Yukowatchamacalit with illegal window tint pulls into the opposite-direction left-turn lane, completely blocking my view. I suppose I could kinda guess if it is safe to pull out by counting cars, but the opposing traffic is going well over the speed limit, assisted by a downhill run in that direction, and it is snowing pretty hard. So I do the safe thing under any circumstance and wait it out.

So what happens next is that a Jeep Cherokee pulls up behind me in the left-turn lane. And honks their horn. The kind of what-kind-of-idiot-can’t-see-the-traffic-is-clear honk. I don’t think High-and-Mighty has a clear view past the Yuko either, but I certainly don’t way down in my Taurus sedan.

There is already enough resentment towards SUVs as it is, so you honk at a sedan with the view blocked by another SUV because you are way up high and can see? Does this engender support for resisting CAFE standards? No, I don’t think so.

I hate to complain, but why couldn’t you have posted this five hours sooner?

Based on Farago’s reasoning, he should be pleased with this development: it means he can keep cranking out “GM deathwatch.”

Until you can give me real values for ALL of it, you may not clamor for gasoline taxes.”

Here’s an analogy, Strippo- It’s Monday, time to go to work again. “The heck you say!”, you say. “Unless I the exact value of X (how many minutes it usually takes to get to work), Y (what delays may happen on this particular commute) and Z (how many days I can miss before the boss fires me), I can’t do anything at all. So I’ll just go back to sleep.”

But wait, hasn’t the continued annoyance generated by huge Big Oil profits just made people want an alternative MORE? I’ve heard more good news about fuel cells and ethanol in the past year than I’ve heard in the 20 years before it. Necessity is the mother of invention, or words to that effect.

1. Remove the gas guzzler tax expemtion from luxury SUVs – exempt all working trucks.

2. Raise the tax on gasoline but exempt diesel to minimize the impact for freight and commercial transportation.

I hate taxes as much as anyone but its the only way to do it.

Chris

http://www.thetorquereport.com/2007/08/what_are_the_top_20_best_selli.html