By on July 16, 2016

fusion-hybrid-window-sticker

Business is about to get much more expensive for automakers with thirsty fleets.

The penalties leveled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration against automakers who miss their annual corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards are about to go up in August. Way up.

According to Automotive News, the federal fine for missing a CAFE target will go from $5.50 to $14 for every tenth of a mile per gallon (multiplied by the automaker’s annual production). The penalty boost is allowed and encouraged under federal law — agencies like the NHTSA can update penalties as they see fit, to keep up with inflation and deter companies from undercutting targets.

For automakers, it means the potential for millions of dollars in fines, and a lot of budget uncertainty. The new CAFE targets also apply to 2015 model year vehicles without NHTSA compliance reports, adding to automakers’ financial risk.

Not surprisingly, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers — a lobbying group made up of 12 automakers — isn’t happy with the penalty increase. Recently, the group called on the federal government to rethink its 2025 CAFE target, describing it as difficult and costly. The target, which calls for a CAFE of 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, is undergoing a midterm review.

One automobile executive summed up the industry’s feeling of shock over the unannounced penalty boost.

“You make your regulatory plans based on a certain set of assumptions,” the executive told Automotive News. “To have it change suddenly without notice and without the ability to respond is really troubling.”

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

231 Comments on “Automakers Could Face Huge Fines After Feds Boost Fuel Economy Penalties...”


  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    The boot of the state on the necks of automakers is a state-sanctioned shakedown and it doesn’t end there.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Well, when you owe your existence to government bailouts, you learn to play along.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        Heh.. Bee Eye Enn Jee Ohhhh…..

        • 0 avatar
          jimbob457

          My God. When will you commoners learn to behave.

          Global warming and CO2 emissions are the worst scourge facing HUMANITY.

          LEARN TO OBEY!

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Yes… there will never be enough of a “penalty” or a “fine” and bailouts are only the result of their failed policies. These people fool no one with their approach. Well… except for other bureaucrats, academia and the Democrat Operatives with bylines, aka the Media. No, strike that… that’s complicity, not gullibility.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            GeneralMalaise,
            You are correct, there is a lot of poor policy. I wouldn’t necessarily state that CAFE has no achieved some of its goals.

            But why do you need CAFE? Think about this, it is your types who want cheap fuel. So, to protect cheap energy the US must use less.

            This places great constraints on models available.

            CAFE ensure cheap fuel at the expense of increasing the cost of vehicles, ie, the aluminium F-150. How much more does it cost to produce an aluminium pickup?

            So, now we have more expensive pickups, how do we protect their existence? Hmmm ….. the chicken tax.

            How do we protect the larger EU and Japanese/Korean SUVs, CUVs that are fuel hungry and manufactured in US plants??

            Call them a truck and give them different regulations and controls for their manufacture.

            This leaves cars as the only vehicle to face the full extent of CAFE in the US.

            This is just the tip of the protectionist framework supporting the manufacture of US large vehicles.

            Now the US with it’s cheap fuel and differing regulations for larger vehicles is facing a problem.

            Why is diesel not offered some form of assistance by the US government? It would be cheaper to produce clean diesels in larger vehicles than the US of hybrid or EV technology, which has money thrown at it.

            There needs to be a winding back of all the protectionist measures on vehicles. Just have emissions control.

            Then tax fuel to alter culture to reduce fuel consumption.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Is someone going to tell GeneralMalaise that the EPA was signed into being by a Republican?

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Big Al,
            I’m sure Ford really appreciates how you’ve come to their rescue in pointing out how unprofitable the F-150 is due to government regulation.

            Oh wait, the F-150 is the most profitable vehicle on the planet.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “Oh wait, the F-150 is the most profitable vehicle on the planet.”

            Citation needed.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            EBFlex,
            No carmaker releases profitability by model. However, someone who watches the industry can make reasonable inferences from volume, pricing and cost estimates.

            If anyone knows of a more profitable vehicle than the F-150, I’m all ears.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Stay on your perch, vogo… chances are you were still battling the heartbreak of enuresis when Tricky Dick signed it.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Great job introducing us to the vocabulary word of the day: Enuresis, i.e., bed-wetting.

            Really. Do you aver contribute ANYTHING that is positive? People get tired of someone who is always so combative, insulting and negative.

            Seriously. Have you gotten laid in this century?

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            I’m positive you are a snarky little prog who likes to dish it out but can’t take it, VoGo. Now go bite a pillow.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            VoGo,
            I never stated the F-150 is not profitable, but more expensive.

            If the US pickup is so profitable why are they not exported, let alone the most exported vehicle globally if they are so profitable?

            They are only profitable in the US where they have adequate protection ensuring their survival against imports.

            For pickup production to be successful in the US market it must be made in the US. So, where is the competitive imports to drive down F-150 pricing.

            It all about how the large vehicle market in the US is structured to maintain large vehicle production, at a greater profit. Is this in the consumers interest? This is why the US manufacturers will have problems meeting CAFE. This is the reason they are whining about CAFE targets.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Big Al,
            There is logic behind your post. But you sure do beat the ‘chicken tax’ drum a lot.

            While I agree the chicken tax is dumb, I would remind you that overall the US market is very open to imports. Unless I am mistaken, the US market features the most imports of any globally (in $ terms, although not as a %).

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            VoGo,
            The chicken tax and the other barriers protecting large vehicle production is at the centre of these CAFE discussions involving the manufacturers claiming they can’t meet CAFE targets, average FE rising, and now fines.

            Get rid of CAFE and have a fuel tax that is responsible.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Big Al,
            I would strongly prefer a fuel tax, combined with measures to remedy the pain it would cause the poor and other constituencies. But as others have pointed out, our leaders lack the will to raise our globally low gas tax.

          • 0 avatar
            andrethx

            GeneralMalaise — keep your bigoted, homophobic slurs to yourself, please.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Lamao at big al

            Why is the F-150 not exported? It is, to countries interested in a full size, non-commercial, light duty pickup. That isn’t a lot of places, but if it makes you feel better, I hear the new Raptor will see limited sales in China. I can assure you it won’t be built there. I guess they COULD export 5.0 Longbeds to the U.K., but perhaps some things are just too perfect for the U.S. that they don’t work much any place else.

            Toyota builds the Tundra in Texas, Nissan builds the Titan in Mississippi. How is the F-150 “protected” from this “import competition”? Was the Ranger “protected” from the US-built Tacoma? Evidently not, it eventually topped the Ranger’s number-one status.

            F-150 is protected because its twice the truck they are and wayyy more truck for the money. And customers know it. And, they know GM and Ram are the only real alternatives to F-150 for the money.

            The XD may pull some, and some will buy Nissan/Toyota based on the fact they’d rather not buy American in the first place, but really, most buy one of the three: Ford, GM, Ram.

            Has government favoritism or protection-ensuring regulation stopped Toyota from selling as many Tundra as it does, or kept it from developing a class leading, sales-dominating product?

            Were they denied resources by the FBI and had the CIA destroying development work beyond US trucks? Maybe the EPA didn’t approve Tundra’s innovative twin turbo, direct injected V-6 making V-8 slaying torque and power while getting better mileage without a load, or its innovative diesel, why if Uncle Sam hadn’t fixed it, we wouldn’t even know the names EcoBoost, EcoDiesel, etc., right?

            I bet the IRS froze R&D assets, that’s it. That would sure do it. They probably had FEMA shut down the factory because their daily output rose above how many Silverados GM could sell. That was after the FDA shut down the factory cafateria, keeping the workers hungry and unproductive.

            Toyota and Nissan also build many other models in the US. It is reasonable to assume that they would build a product here that was designed almost exclusively for this market. It would be like if Ford built the Falcon for Australia…in the UK or something. Why? Its an Aussie product built for and in Australia, just as F-150. Silverado, etc is to the US.

            Is it your contention that without tarrifs, midsize import trucks would take over and shut down full size trucks in their tracks? Keep dreaming, pal. That may be your one and only wish, but it won’t happen. Ford is even bringing in their own Ranger, mid size pickups do have some takers, but the majority here will always choose a fullsize, especially from a value standpoint, and by the amount of capability or interior room.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “If the US pickup is so profitable why are they not exported, let alone the most exported vehicle globally if they are so profitable?”

            because they’re too big and too thirsty to be desirable in countries with $9/gallon gas, displacement taxes, size taxes, and narrow roads.

            It really is that simple.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Troll 3 you don’t get the F150 because your government places punitive restrictions on Left Hand Drive vehicles and your market isn’t big enough to support the cost of engineering a RHD version. Even with that there are people willing to pay huge fees involved in importing one via grey market.

            Perhaps if your government had a more open policy regarding vehicles engineered for the side of the road the vast majority of the world does you’d get these trucks. As it is, your already niche market becomes even moreso.

            But likely the fullsized pickup is just something that is more or less uniquely American for the most part. Like those little utes you guys have.

          • 0 avatar
            Robert.Walter

            The part before “F-150 is protected because its twice the truck they are and wayyy more truck for the money”, was ok, but this statement marked the beginning of decline in the post, because, if this were true, nobody would buy anything else, at all. But they do, so it can’t be true.

            The remainder of the post is just too incoherent to put time into trying to reply.

      • 0 avatar
        Duaney

        The economic collapse occurred because of the government, so they should have helped anyway. Also, Ford never took a dime of bailout money.

        • 0 avatar
          jimbob457

          OBEY, peons!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            John,
            There will be no “demise” of full size trucks in the US in the foreseeable future. No one has even hinted at that, including myself.

            The importation of pickups will force US manufactured pickup to drop in price. This is called competition. How else can pickups make huge profits compared to cars? Not because they are in demand. Its lack of competition.

            But, this is not my discussion today. My point today is the US manufacturers must transform from building large, big engine vehicles to smaller more efficient vehicles.

            This happened with the US motor car (not SUV/CUV) the road whales died in the ass due to CAFE. The normal size for a US car is a Camry, Accord, Altima, etc.

            The US manufacturers have had protection of large vehicle production and are geared up to meet this demand. Now changes are afoot and the manufacturers will whine and cry. But, many nations around the world already have vehicle markets that meet what CAFE wants 10 years from now.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            You’ll just scamper off as usual, when asked to show the *would be* competition for fullsize pickups. For some unknown reason, you just cannot.

            Post Chicken tax, whatever China/Thai pickups we’re missing out on, and if their OEMs are willing to deal with federalizing them, put up with fleets and cheapskates/bottom feeders and whatnot, would be in direct competition with quite a few small to midsize vehicles sold in the US, but not so much vs. fullsize pickups, not even the Titan or Tundra. Barely the Tacoma, Frontier, Ridgeline, Colorado, etc.

            But the insane ’80s Mini-Truck Craze had no effect on fullsize pickups at the time, and definitely no price drop, when they flooded the US market.

            And by the way, the Chicken tax was there for the whole Craze, and exactly what effect did it have in the way of “protection”??

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Duaney,
          Just prior to GM and the UAW getting a fistful of tax dollars Ford did receive a $28 billion dollar loan with no strings attached.

          It might be called a loan, but it could be viewed differently.

          I’m not saying Ford was in as bad a shape as GM or Chrysler, but Ford did get something as well.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            And….I received a quarter of a million dollar loan with no strings attached (except that I pay it back) to purchase a house. That is what loans are for. I assume you are talking the loan they took to tool up for increased fuel economy. I think others took that too to include Nissan. I am not aware of significant portions of those loans being forgiven as with the TARP loans. Heck TESLA took AVTM loans.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            Big Al,

            you’re talking nonsense. that $28 billion was PRIVATE financing which Don LeClair arranged, all basically mortgaging everything Ford Motor Company had (including its brand.) There were absolutely “strings attached,” and those strings were “you have to pay this back.”

            And Don LeClair arranged that financing in 2006, before the bottom dropped out.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Agreed, JimZ; There were definitely strings attached to that loan to Ford… the Blue Oval itself was at threat.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @John Avan,
          Saw two days ago a Harley Davidson version of the current model F150
          Your comment, below is pure fantasy
          ” F-150 is protected because its twice the truck they are and wayyy more truck for the money. And customers know it. And, they know GM and Ram are the only real alternatives to F-150 for the money”
          They used to import Plymouth Prowlers to Australia. Why anyone in their right mind would want to is beyond me.
          F250/F350’s fit a small niche. F150, good question.
          Chinese F150’s? I would not hold my breath. Although one of the “clone”manufacturers there did a pretty ordinary copy

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Saw two days ago a Harley Davidson version of the current model F150”

            No such thing. The alliance with Harley-Davidson was wound up in 2012. If you saw a current-model one it was a custom job.

        • 0 avatar
          Silent Ricochet

          @duaney

          https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/12/blue-ops-the-clandestine-bailout-of-ford/

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “No carmaker releases profitability by model. However, someone who watches the industry can make reasonable inferences from volume, pricing and cost estimates.

      If anyone knows of a more profitable vehicle than the F-150, I’m all ears.”

      Ok. So your statement that you made as fact is simply just an opinion.

      Frankly it would less careless to say that the F-Series is the most profitable vehicle line in the world, but even that cannot be substantiated.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Pickup trucks are the most popular vehicle class in the world and as a result the most profitable vehicle class in the world. Any time you’ve got a vehicle where the manufacturer will offer as much as $7K off the MSRP and the dealer offer another $2-$3K to move that vehicle, you’re looking at a MINIMUM 20% profit margin assuming the resultant same earns no profit. However, personal experience IN the automotive sales business tells me many of those trucks carry as much as 100% profit margin before sales and incentives. Especially the higher-trim models.

  • avatar
    JustPassinThru

    Yup. Drunk with power, after their success in reducing Volkswagen to penury and probably insolvency.

    This is the wet dream of the Left…regulate the private motor industry out of its ability to survive as private business. Take it over…fashion an American British Leyland; and then they can USE the motor industry for their SOCIAL ENGINEERING. As a government arm, they can restrict sales of cars; uses of cars; require real-time data reporting from tracking devices. Subsidize sale of cars to politically-favored groups…groups often based on skin color or other silly criteria.

    Of course such an industry will not be profitable; but that’s of no worries to the Left. They can always print up more money. Nor will such an industry have cutting-edge products…but, again, the Left looks to Yugo and Lada and British Leyland to understand that. What Russian was brave enough to complain to the government commissars running Lada, that the Lada he bought at great sacrifice, was a POS?

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Yup. Drunk with power, after their success in reducing Volkswagen to penury and probably insolvency.”

      oh please. what’s the point of having a standard if it can’t effectively be enforced?

      “Take it over…fashion an American British Leyland;”

      this isn’t even worth rolling my eyes over. British Leyland failed because they took the handouts from the government as a license to continue producing the same garbage which led them into insolvency in the first place.

      take your tea party nonsense and put it where you keep all that leaded gas you’re apparently huffing.

      • 0 avatar
        JustPassinThru

        What is the point of fantasy standards, if not to destroy the subjugated formerly-private industry?

      • 0 avatar
        JustPassinThru

        “this isn’t even worth rolling my eyes over. British Leyland failed because they took the handouts from the government as a license to continue producing the same garbage which led them into insolvency in the first place.”

        Uh-huh. And isn’t that what State-run businesses DO? They’re not concerned about profits. It doesn’t matter if it’s PEMEX or Britain’s National Health Service. State-run businesses are NOT responsive to the consumer, who is in fact viewed as a nuisance.

        State-run businesses owe their allegiance to the people paying the bills and making demands. The government. If the government decrees that budget specifics be adhered to, as Ontario’s Health Ministry did a decade ago with their hospitals…then they will adhere. No matter the sacrifice; which was why SARS spread over Toronto so fast. New nurses working a variety of part-time nursing jobs in various clinics, but denied opportunity for full-time work. They got infected and carried the infection from ER to clinic to other ER with their part-time jobs.

        This is true of State owned or subsidized businesses everywhere, everything from shoes to the rotgut gas PEMEX makes and sells, to British Leyland.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @JustPassinThru – Do you actually know what SARS is or how easy it is spread? or how health facilities actually work?

          A lot of it had to do with implementation and compliance of what is referred to as “universal precautions”. That is a process of handwashing/hand sanitizer between contact with any patient and escalating the barrier methods based upon know transmittable pathogens. Even that minimal level of containment has compliance rates of 60-99%. Doctors tend to be the worst offenders and it is incredibly difficult to enforce on visitors.

          It unfortunately is a system built upon harsh lessons learned. Ebola is a prime example. One has to be extremely meticulous when dealing with highly contagious pathogens. Self contamination is rather easy under “normal” conditions. It can occur under the extremely tight procedures used for diseases like Ebola. I’m part of an “Ebola team” and that level of infection control is NOT feasible on a general duty nursing ward.

          They initially did not know what SARS was. Here is a tidbit for you, more people were dying from Clostridium difficile at that same time than with SARS.

          Having multiple casual and part-time staff cross-trained to multiple areas to reduce costs is the wet dream of the right not the left.

          Patients, visitors, direct healthcare staff, support staff have a free run of a facility even when assigned to only one area.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            SARS is not as easily spread as the mental disease of the leftoids.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @GeneralMalaise – The shift to argumentum ad hominem would indicate that one doesn’t have a viable platform from which to stage a rebuttal.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            The flak is increasing, I must be over the target…

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @GeneralMalaise – I haven’t shifted to broad vague characterizations as an attempt to denigrate and/or discredit an opposing point of view.

            I welcome opposing view points since that is how one grows and understands others.

            There is no understanding in personal attacks, just the promulgation of hate, fear and distrust.

            If you are sensing that you are receiving flack perhaps increase your ride height.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Stay on topic, Lou. I had no idea you were of the prog “persuasion”. Shouting “squirrel!” must get tedious even for you.

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            Lou_BC

            I simplified my story – as it happened, I was friendly with a nurse from Toronto at the time. I was living in Buffalo and spent a lot of my off-work time in Ontario.

            I got the story from her. Mike Harris, Premier of Ontario, was waging a war against the Health Ministry – he had frozen hiring, EVEN THOUGH they desperately needed nursing staff in all hospitals. Individual hospitals could hire “provisional” part-time nurses locally – but not full timers. So the young new nurses were working those part-time gigs; and frantically running from hospital to hospital. Often not even changing their uniforms.

            Often times the report-times overlapped, so there was haste and not much effort to clean up between shifts.

            THAT was the reason SARS spread so quickly through the Toronto hospitals. They had one infected patient; and his infection wasn’t immediately known. That happens.

            But the sort of cleanliness Americans, and yes, Canadians, expect in a modern hospital – change out of scrubs or uniforms, wash before going home and again when starting a shift – that went by the wayside.

            I lost track of my nurse-friend shortly afterwards, so I don’t know if the Ontario Ministry of Health changed its policies or put politics aside. I rather doubt it, though; political expediencies being what they are.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            JustPassinThru – most health care facilities that I know of don’t provide scrubs other than for places like the operating rooms, recovery, and labour and delivery. Oh and neonatal intensive care.
            I’ve seen first had the effects of cutting staff and reducing full time workload. What really opens up the spread of disease is not due to multiple casual or part-time staff but cutting back education and orientation. Add to that being overworked and one starts to get sloppy and make mistakes.
            Nursing tends to be the biggest hospital cost and since they also are the biggest health care unions it always gets politicized.
            In BC the provincial government has lost multiple court battles over staffing and have faced big fines. In the last contract Nurses were careful not to make wages a front and centre issue. The focus was safe staffing levels.
            Thanks for the reply.

      • 0 avatar

        You have a point about rewarding failure with handouts but the failures of British Leyland were manifold. They had obsolete factories and unions prone to strike for almost any reason. Their drivetrians were also mostly obsolete.

        I was at the Mad Dogs and Englishmen British car show at the Gilmore museum last Sunday. The mid 1970s Triumph TR6 had a pushrod engine that wasn’t even a crossflow head design.

        • 0 avatar
          JustPassinThru

          Those problems, Ronnie, wouldn’t BE if BL had been a private company. If they had those problems, they would have been liquidated – which in fact they were, but eighteen years and many millions of pounds later.

          The profit motive of private business is an amazing discipliner. Obsolete products do not sell and are taken off the market. Obsolete plants do not make money and are closed…with or without the company running them. Studebaker and American Motors were also saddled with obsolete plants. Stude opted to get out of cars. AMC opted to find a parent with deep pockets, while building new plants in Toledo and Brampton.

          The obsolete AMC cars slowly disappeared, as the grey-haired small customer base gradually went the way of all flesh. What was left was greatly modernized – like the Jeep Six, originally the Rambler six.

          BL had NO such impetus. BL labor was restive and given to strikes…why? Because they KNEW, from previous experience and from knowing the Labour politicians, that they’d be REWARDED.

          Strikes against insolvent or marginal businesses seldom happen – and when they do, as happened with Hostess, that’s the end of company, job and strike.

          While BL had many issues going on, what it came down to was a central root: Government ownership.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        I am not against EPA fuel standards.
        However, never put it past the government to knowingly count on their grab for cash. It knows it needs cash and plans for it.
        This is a set trap.
        If they set goals that are never attainable and do it only for the purposes of future tax income, then it is really a sham.

        But it doesn’t matter, really. The good fight has all been fought and lost, but the people just don’t know it. There is the illusion of democracy and freedom. The facade of participation. Government of the people and for the people now is really a self perpetuating myth.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          There will never be enough.

        • 0 avatar
          JK43123

          But I remember the auto industry saying they COULD meet these CAFE goals.

        • 0 avatar
          Paragon

          This may upset or dismay some folks, but I believe you are telling the truth when you say: “There is the illusion of democracy and freedom. The facade of participation. Government of the people and for the people now is really a self-perpetuating myth.”

          Let the truth be known. Let it be shown.

          The JFK assassination coup d’etat is often considered the beginning of it for some. The reality, for serious researchers, is that some pretty significant things happened post-WWII, and in the following years throughout the 1950’s. We’ve all been fed a ton of propaganda throughout our lives about anything and everything. Who really runs our country is not the person or persons we’ve been led to believe. The best way to say it is that he who has the money does in fact get to control everything. Everything else is an illusion. The propaganda comes to us through every form of media, and has for these many years.

          Despite the NSA monitored police state we live in (in the US) post 9/11, look how many small scale terrorist attacks are happening without being caught before hand. That should raise some suspicions in people with functioning brains. This police state is not about trying to catch possible terrorists within our own country, it is about using every means at their disposal to silence people who are waking up to and learning about what is really going on. When you can break away from and make the paradigm-shift away from seeing things in a Left vs Right or Right vs Left perspective, you finally have a chance to recognize what’s really going on. From my perspective, not being fully aware is like living life under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol 24/7 non-stop, and not being able to comprehend what is reality and what is not.

          I realize this might not seem relevant, but how many people are aware that the Romanian blogger using the handle of Guccifer was transferred to the US in regard to his hacking of Hillary’s e-mail server. He was going to expose her many lies before the election. The news story is that he committed suicide in his jail cell. I’ll just suggest that anybody who would believe that – might – need to have their head examined. Without knowing who did it and how they did it, the fact he could have ended the campaign of HRC points to the very real possibility he was offed.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      VW’s agreement was with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. NHTSA and CAFE are different.

      “Of course such an industry will not be profitable; but that’s of no worries to the Left.” If only Chrysler and GM could return to the good old days under Bush when they were so profitable, they went bankrupt. Good times.

      • 0 avatar
        JustPassinThru

        Different signs.

        Different letterheads.

        They all still take orders from the top.

        They all, also, are of a mindset – the Government Class, here to rule over their lesser subjects, for everyone’s benefit.

        Especially their own.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Sigh. Nothing will convince you that America is a great country and has elected its government.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Perhaps some crazy pills?

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            +10 JPT… Unelected bureaucrats. The trough, retirement benefits and reach of The State must be expanded.

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            “Sigh. Nothing will convince you that America is a great country and has elected its government.”

            We elected the EPA?

            Funny…I don’t remember it.

            I don’t remember the NHTSA elections, either. I wanted to vote for the guy who would make airbags optional, but I couldn’t find him on the ballot.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      JustPassinThru,
      I do believe that the auto manufacturers do have input into CAFE benchmarks.

      Remember the who gambit of regulatory controls, policies, tariffs, barriers, etc are there also for the manufacturers.

      So, it isn’t all Left Wing crap. There is a lot of Right Wing crap as well as UAW crap.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      You do realize that We the Buyers have been paying that fee all along, don’t you? By nearly tripling the fine, the OEMs are going to be forced to put up or shut up… We the Buyers are not going to sit still and watch the price of our car jump $2,000 or more just because the fleet can’t reach that 54mpg goal.

      In other words, they’re going to be forced to look into alternative fuels if they want to avoid the fines. And more than just looking into them, but actively building and promoting an entire lineup of alternative vehicles to work across all vehicle styles, not just “compliance cars” any more.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    Marchione’s personal assistant just ran out to the store to buy their largest box of Depends.

  • avatar
    zip94513

    They’ll just pass the fine on to the buyer, so it’s really a case of the automakers protecting consumer interests more than the government.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Ha! “Automakers protecting consumer interests!” That’s brilliant stuff. Like GM doesn’t fight its consumers on a daily basis over lemon laws, ignition failures and recalls. What a crock.

      Poor, innocent automakers. They don’t want the money for themselves, they’re fighting for the little guy!

      It’s like Trump using bankrupcy laws to steal from his creditors, so he can give the money to charity. Charity which he uses to buy himself a date with Salma Hayek. Classic Robin Hood stuff.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Automakers are competitively restrained wrt how much money they can take for themselves. Government is not. What motivates the actions of either group, is exactly the same, outside of the fantasy worlds inhabited by well indoctrinated gullibles on both sides of the political spectrum.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @stuki – brilliant post.
          One side isn’t much better than the other. That IS what ails the US political system. Many political pundits have referred to the “revolving door” that exists between the captains of industry;the so called “elites” and political office whether it be elected or senior civil.
          Some are now saying that the “revolving door” has been dismantled and in its place is a “golden archway”.
          The whole battle of left versus right regardless of it being totalitarian or libertarian needs to realize that they aren’t the enemy.
          Both sides want representative government but fighting each other is just a guarantee that both sides aren’t going to get it.

          People talk of 1st, 2nd and 3rd ways, it is time to create a 4th way that actually represents the people.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Lou_BC,
            I do believe this is the problem not only in the US, but most OECD economies and this tendency of the large corporations and “rich” is more prevalent in developing nations.

            Brazil is classic example of how the “rich” protect themselves at the expense of a country’s development.

            Australia is the same as is Canada.

            To me the US auto industry has for decades realised it produces vehicles that are not competitive against imported product.

            It has taken more than several decades for the US manufacturers to produce cars of comparable quality to imports. Big 3 vehicles are not as good yet as “foreign” US made product.

            Now, it must produce vehicles that are as efficient as imported vehicles. The US is reliant on large vehicle manufacture. This must and will change if the government, who are elected by the people want to meet these challenges.

            CAFE is used as an instrument to keep a lid on fuel prices whilst improving FE across the fleet. Except the manufacturers have generally lobbied CAFE and the EPA to have different regulations and controls on “trucks and pickups”. This help to ensure the US vehicle industry is kept alive. I do realise that people don’t like it when I mention the chicken tax, but it also aids greatly the US large vehicle manufacturing sector.

            But, the US manufacturers have become totally reliant on the protection offered to large vehicles. Australia was in a similar boat with our large and midsize vehicles. They were offered protection and handouts.

            I do believe either CAFE regulations must be stopped and another cheaper alternative is used to force US manufacturers to build vehicles that use less fuel. This must be at the will of the people of the US. Remember they elect what they have. Most people in the US are not car enthusiasts, so the comment here on TTAC are not very accurate or representative of the US in general. Climate change is why many people want the change.

            EVs will not be the answer to the problem,nor will hybrid tech.

            First of all to reduce FE vehicles must become smaller. Just using CAFE to make vehicles lighter will not achieve much. Large vehicles require large engines.

            A smaller vehicle will use less fuel than a larger vehicle, irrespective of weight in the foreseeable future. Also, a smaller vehicle built using CAFE design will always be lighter than a large vehicle using CAFE standards. So why not just remove CAFE.

            The use of a fuel tax is the most viable and cheapest way to alter vehicle culture, by the manufacturers and consumer.

            As we are seeing now a few article have come out regarding how the US vehicle industry can’t or will have great difficulty meeting CAFE standards.

            Then CAFE is the wrong tool for this. Force the company to build smaller vehicles by making the consumer want smaller and more efficient vehicles. The hip pocket is the best way to alter culture.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @BigAl – sigh!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Lou,
            All countries vie to protect certain aspect of their industries.

            But, at the end of the day have a look at why this occurs and then see if the protection of these industries is wise.

            The “unions, rich and corporations” that are mentioned will always have the greatest sway in any society. Since the start of human’s this has been the case.

            It’s called greed. But, in a democracy this greed must be challenged from time to time. Greed must be controlled and channeled towards progress and not just a persons back pocket.

            And I do believe this will occur. Most people like yourself tend to view this simplistically.

            Blame the foreigners, blame imports and blame the rich.

            The problem with the corporations and rich is the money that moves offshore and not taxed.

            As the world globlises we must find a way to make the rich and corporations pay their fair share.

            If they expect protection, then they must offer protection and accountability to the countries they operate in.

            This is where Trump has it wrong along with the unions. The left and right are incorrect in the challenges that need to be addressed.

            So, whilst we have unions, rich lobbyist and corporations involved in formulating policy, regulation and controls we will have the problems we currently have …… which have been around as long as mankind.

          • 0 avatar
            carguy67

            “First of all to reduce FE vehicles must become smaller.”

            We need to make BIGGER vehicles?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            carguy67,
            I’m talking the average vehicle size. Not what is the biggest or smallest.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Hey Al….Read the article

            “Not surprisingly, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers — a lobbying group made up of 12 automakers”

            So 12 automakers are lobbying against these fines….12. Last I checked there were what…2 and 1/2 US automakers. It would seem that Japan, Germany, and Korea are not especially keen on this legislation either. Class for class us makes are slightly behind it seems, with the exception of trucks, especially big ones where the Japanese trail. But don’t underestimate priorities here. US cars tend to weigh more. Is some of that engineering? Maybe, but is some of it things like noise insulation? Sure. I just got done test driving small SUV’s with my wife. How much weight did Honda save with that obviously undersized AC system the CRV had. It was 102 that day and it could not cool the vehicle adequately. You say well that is really hot and any vehicle would struggle. Except none of the US cars did, nor did the Hyundai Santa Sport Fe she got. That stuff mattered to her more living in Augusta GA then a few extra MPG. We drove the Toyotas on a cooler day so I cant comment. I know this, my F150 will freeze you out and I know Japan can do the same because my Land Cruiser had an amazingly cold AC and it was converted to R134 and 20+ years old. Yet there I was sweating through the Honda test drive.

            Anyway, my point is that while they trail a bit from the top US cars are hardly uncompetitive and some of that gap can likely be contributed to design priorities. Now Japanese trucks on the other hand…Well I trumpet it every chance I get but my freaking crew cab F150 betters my 2013 Frontier which was smaller and slower.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Governments ARE absolutely competitively restrained. If taxes are too high, people move.

          Which I encourage stuki and all the other America-haters to do.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            As easy to leave as simply quitting jobs and careers. Leaving family. Ending entire histories in a known, familiar world.
            Easy breezy.
            Puleezy.
            Governments are competitively restrained!????????
            Does this include the very easy to pull off revolution?
            I mean, IF this were true, then I must not even understand why the term revolution is around. Or why a quiet revolution is such a rare event.
            This is absolutely the very first time I ever read this.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Yes, they can move. Or they may choose to take a different route to resolve the situation. Hold on to your mud, bureaucrats.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            TrailerTrash,
            Do you have any idea how 99% of us Americans got here?

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            GeneralMalaise,
            Do you ever have anything positive to contribute?

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Not sure about you, but I’d be willing to bet most people would have an easier time picking Chevy over a Ford if they felt the latter was gouging them too hard, than they would have moving abroad.

            And, didn’t some facebook dude try that, and ended up being taxed anyway?

            The general idea of “if you don’t like it, move” is good. It needs to be made more relevant in practice, by an aggressive transfer of power, taxing and otherwise, from the Federal Government to the individual states. That way, the differences between them would be much greater, hence as would the opportunity for individuals to find one that best matched their preferences wrt governance.

            Interstate relocations aren’t THAT onerous for an American, hence are a realistic burden to expect someone to undertake instead of just sitting around complaining. Suggesting International moves, OTOH, is, in practice, only (a slight) degree different from brushing aside complaints from Blacks in the Antebellum South, by quipping “If you have it so bad, you can always escape and move North.”

          • 0 avatar
            JD23

            More people might consider renouncing their citizenship if those with more than $2 million in assets weren’t hit with a hefty exit tax.

            I’m guessing you were also a vociferous patriot back in the GW days, exhorting anyone with criticisms of the government to leave, rather than improve the system.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            I thought “Love it or Leave It” was the rallying cry of the right. Didn’t know those on the left felt the same. See…now there is something right and left can come together on!

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Big Al From ‘Murica – there is always common ground. Both sides tend to love their respective countries and want to make things better.

      • 0 avatar
        zip94513

        @ VoGo – nice try changing the subject, but I’ll take what any automaker has to offer in mpg over what my government tells me my vehicle needs to get in mpg. It’s my choice whether to purchase a Prius or a Ferrari, and I don’t want my choice legislated.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          zip94513,
          CAFE simply pushes automakers to up their average fleet mileage or risk paying a fine. This rule change simply updates the fines to keep up with inflation. Automakers like Honda and Mazda have no issue meeting CAFE standards.

          No one is telling you to buy a Prius instead of a Ferrari. If you *do* choose to buy a Ferrari, please post a review of your new Ferrari – I don’t think TTAC has had one in a long time.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            @VoGo I drove a 458 Italia when I turned 40. I highly recommend one if you have the means. Upon further reading I think you may be correct on the fine update portion of this…except for the bit about making it retroactive to 2015 vehicles…I don’t care for that. The 2025 target is another matter and I thought that was the entire gist of this article.

  • avatar
    raph

    Heh, consumers are going to take the hit. The additional fines will no doubt be calculated and tagged onto future sales and financed for an added amount if timE essentially making them invisible.

    It would probably have a more immediate effect by raising the gas tax rather than paying higher penalties at the vehicle manufacturing level.

    I suppose I can agree in this instance with the businesses shouldn’t be bound by any law or regulation crowd and while they would still scream a gas tax is an unessecary market distortion at least it would drive the need for fuel efficient vehicles rather than trying to design and sell a vehicle in a vacuum.

    My anecdote for this is my 09 Shelby. It had a 1000 dollar gg tax slapped on and when I signed the paperwork it didn’t mean squat over a 5 year period which amounted to about 50 cent a day. However when gas was nearly hitting 5 bucks a gallon having such a thirsty car was more painful.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      No reason for consumers to take any hit. Automakers just need to improve fuel economy of their fleets, and there’s no fine. That’s what Honda and Mazda are doing. Actually, consumers benefit from lower fuel bills. Win Win.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        The question, VoGo, is CAN they meet these goals.
        Are there any companies that can and do meet these goals? Companies that produce a full range of cars for real people…not just the wealthy.

        And I am not willing to accept the selling of carbon for credits. This is as bad as the wealthy unholy paying to have poor whipped for their sins in the Middle Ages.
        What I really would like to see someday is a understandable true description of what electric cars really waste and what real pollution they cause.

        What really is an electric cars impact upon the environment? And include areas that do use coal to produce electricity.

        Include the real impact of battery production and waste. Is it really possible to have an electric car world?

        What will we do with huge Tesla batteries in a few years? I feel guilty just disposing of my AAs! (this does read funny)

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          TT,
          Stop buying disposable batteries! Join the 21st century and buy Li-Ion batteries, which you can re-use like 1,000 times.

          Batteries in cars are recycled. No need to worry about that. And several studies have all concluded that EVs are far better for the environment than ICE cars.

          Mazda and Honda are not part of the lobbying effort against CAFE because they know they can meet the standards. The others can and will as well. Just look at the fusion in the photo – 47 MPG.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            VoGo,
            Have you been watching the price of lithium on the markets??

            70% of the cost of manufacturing a battery is material costs.

            EV prices will rise, not only because of the greater use of EVs due to tax funded handouts, but also batteries are being more and more in day to day items.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            “and several studies have all concluded that EVs are far better for the environment than ICE cars.”

            What studies? I will venture to guess they disagree with the studies that state otherwise.
            Studies. Like the studies on global warming being man made and changeable.

            I recall Singapore recently laying a heavy green tax on Tesla purchases due to their negative environmental impact.
            I am guessing they have “studies” that back up this policy.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            TT, This took about 30 seconds on Google:

            http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/07/renault-20130711.html

            http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/10/electric-cars-are-better-for-the-environment-period/

            https://www.technologyreview.com/s/517146/are-electric-vehicles-better-for-the-environment-than-gas-powered-ones/

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Big Al,
            TSLA recently released a study showing that only 2% of the cost of their vehicles depended on lithium pricing.

          • 0 avatar
            tedward

            A big part of the equation has to be ownership costs (not fuel related). As emissions standards tighten and mileage goals rise manufacturers are going to struggle to meet both while at the same time offering cars that don’t cost significantly more to maintain. I don’t really think any car company would sweat acheiving any two of those things, it’s the three at once that represents the headache. Going off the rails on ownership cost has tremendous potential downside reputation wise.

            For me to get too worked up about this I would need to see projections by automakers delivered to regulators and legislators, then ignored. Then I would want to see a well presented and thorough explanation of how the regulations were chasing deminishing returns for relatively high costs in purchase price or repairability.

            I’m not looking forward to particulate traps in gas engines, but I want to make sure there isn’t a new method in production that would make them cheaper to repair and buy before I go out and buy bulk pitchforks. Both excessive pollution and excessive transportation costs suck.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            VoGo…look. I love to spend time with you but there is no way in hell I plan on doing a Google battle with you.
            Please…there are hundreds showing the opposite.
            You chose your misleading sites and lies…I mine.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            You’re questioning MIT?

            It’s sad to see so many Americans openly hostile to learning.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            @Vogo, You may be correct on Honda, but Mazda is a member of the organization conducting the effort.

            But 2 things here. These two makes have little to no presence in the truck market. I suspect that since CAFE is based on vehicle footprint Toyota is especially concerned about all those Tacoma sales I suspect despite their green image. Given they sell more Hybrids then anyone you would think they would be content let it ride. I suspect that if Honda had market share to protect they’d be right there. I mean lets me real…they show no more corporate responsibility than anyone else… Same with Mazda. I mean they were such shining examples with how they have stepped up and handled that whole rust like a 78 Plymouth stuff, right? Reality is they just have a much smaller dog in this fight.

            Next, what if Honda and Mazda are content to let the other makes fight the battle so they can position themselves as the green makers. This is similar to the arguement against right to work states where Union folks argue that those who dont join still get all the benefits. They sit it out knowing the others will likely win the fight and score some green points in the process. Honda’s Pilot for example is not known for being the best on fuel economy and their hybrids have by in large been failures. They just happen to sell more small cars than the other makes.

            I am curious about the potential unintended consequences here. Do the new standards address the really big trucks (F250-650, 2500 series and up, and the Titan XD)? I ask because I could see a situation where people are driven to those trucks as the half tons and midsizers get klobbered with regulation in a similar manner to how SUV’s replaced the family wagon as the CAFE noose tightened around them. History has shown that unintended consequences are a mofo with this sort of legislation.

            And I dont doubt that EVs are better for the environment, but so is my Schwinn. Thing is sometimes the bike doesnt work and modern ICE power is not so bad as it once was and is pretty clean nowadays so long as one stays away from diesels. If an EV works for you then great. Even better if it works without those tax dollars. It doesnt currently work for my lifestyle but when it does, sign me up. I have no problem with the standards going up. Technology should keep driving fuel economy higher. But don’t you at least concede that maybe they went a bit too far here and the technology just isnt quite there yet? Even Tesla hasn’t gotten that affordable magic bullet game changing EV to market yet.

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        Is it any wonder why the country’s on a downhill slide!?!? There are millions of brainwashed mooks mincing along our streets and highways.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        If “improving the fuel economy” was cost free, it would already have been done.

        More insidiously, the way to encourage “improving fuel economy”, is a gas tax. Levied equally. On everyone. No exceptions.

        Under idiocies like CAFE, “improving fuel economy” is just one piece of the puzzle available funds needs to be spent on. The others are, changing your product mix, lobbying for exceptions, writing multimode ecu code less easy to catch misbehaving than VW just did, etc.

        Big established makes likes CAFE, because it keeps their profitable, high margin, high fuel use larger cars (read trucks), protected from more focused competition. Which is why dumb shit like CAFE is still around instead of being lobbied out of existence. The supposed Free Market Greedy Corporations vs Altruistic Public Servant Nannies charade, is just circus to keep the drones split in half and squabbling with each other.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        “Automakers just need to improve fuel economy of their fleets, and there’s no fine”

        Yeah, and all those poor schleps working at McJobs wanting 15 bucks an hour claiming they can’t feed their families should just go out and get a better paying job. And there in lies the problem with your logic.

        Technology, just as ability does have some limitations. I want my iPhone’s battery to last for 2 months with me watching videos. But battery tech isnt there yet.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The domestics have never had to pay a CAFE fine.

      This has about zero effect on your life, unless you buy Ferraris and Land Rovers on a regular basis.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    CAFE fines are generally assessed against European luxury and exotic imports. This is bad for Porsche, JLR, Ferrari/Maserati, plus some of the tuners. (Saleen has been hit with CAFE fines, for example.) The mainstream US and Asian brands comply and aren’t fined.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Pch101,
      CAFE is generally assessed against EU luxury cars????? WTF???

      If this is the case is CAFE out to provide a barrier against these vehicles?

      Why would it “generally” assess EU vehicles??

      The Chev SS pays the “CAFE fine” for it’s poor FE. But here in Australia we don’t care about the vehicles FE. We pay a little more for fuel.

      If you want a V8 you can go out and buy one if you can afford it. Better way of doing business. Because it’s cheaper to manage.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Euro luxo barges are pigs at the pump, basically as a rule. They make themselves a target. For example, the BMW M3 with the 440 hp V8 had to pay the Gas Guzzler tax, not as a trade barrier, but for fuel economy of a 4X4 F-150 Crew Cab with the 5.0 V8. At the same time, the 680 hp GT500 Mustang escaped the GG tax for its relatively decent fuel economy.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          DenverMike,
          Read the comments a little more closely. Then please respond accordingly.

          So, a full size HD daily driver is not hexy at the fuel pump? Or even a 5.7 Hemi Ram returning 14mpg average?

          As a percentage of vehicles sold I’d bet my balls the US full size pickup outsells those Euro supercars …………… by one thousand to one. So what use is the Euro Supercar as a measure? We might as well include those funny little 3 wheeled police utes I see trundling around NYC along with golf carts.

          So, what is the point of your comment. It is of as much relevance as Pch101s statement.

          CAFE and EPA are designed to support US large vehicle manufacture.

          If not, then, there would be a consistent set of standards across the board with “trucks, pickups and cars”. As these are all daily driving light vehicles.

          Oh, I’ll not be responding to the comment you submit as it will be filled with half truths, over and understatements filled with too much distorted subjectivity.

          Have a lovely day, mate.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            HD pickups as “daily drivers” or commuter cars are the exception, and hardly typical of those. Point is, those are used mostly commercially, same as all pickups. To have to make the distinction of who uses them privately vs commercially, and or what percentage of the time, plus those that haul RVs (privately of course, sometimes full-time), would be clusterfuk trying to police.

            The heavier and more capable they are, the less they’re used strictly as commuters. Common stinkin’ sense. Maybe 20% for midsize pickups and 2% for HD pickups including duallys.

            If they got the cash and want to do it, despite paying dearly at the pump, the DMV, tires, maintenance, depreciation, etc, etc, thank god they have the option, and more power to them.

            But it’s silly to think of holding any bigger than a Corolla to Corolla standards. Think of minivans. They’ve got a load to haul, a job to do, and Corolla is not gonna cut it. So they have a different standard. So what??

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            It’s unclear what you expect of the EPA/CAFE. “Trucks” including SUVs, CUVs, minivans, pickups and such, many of them *not* domestic Big Three, can’t get Corolla MPG, especially AWD/4X4s, no matter what. Except the EPA/CAFE does keep “trucks” similarly in check, mate.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Funny how EU regs also allow bigger vehicles to get worse MPG, by special weight allowances, instead of our “footprint” rule. Amounts to about the same, no?

  • avatar

    While the change in the fines was apparently at the behest of Congress, because the auto industry claims it was blindsided by the amount of the increased fines I wondered if NHTSA followed the Administrative Procedures Act in determining the new fines.

    It wouldn’t have surprised me if yet another executive branch agency issued new rules without following the rules. It wouldn’t be the first time this administration has acted lawlessly.

    There is currently litigation regarding the Dept of Education’s possible violation of the APA with their 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges that has sparked sexual assault hysteria on campuses with attendant denial of due process.

    I looked up the proposed rule change in the Federal Register. NHTSA is claiming that the % increase in the fines is statutory. They also have an excuse why they didn’t follow the normal public comment part of the rulemaking process. The agency says there is “good cause” to immediately implement the new fines without prior notice or comment because it would be “impracticable” to delay publication and because public comment is “unnecessary”.

    Don’t you love being told that your comments are unnecessary by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who would never grant your compliance with laws and regulations the same elasticity they allow themselves?

    At the very least, notice and comment would have given the industry a heads up on the upcoming fine change.

    “NHTSA is promulgating this interim final rule to ensure that the amount of civil penalties contained in 49 CFR 578.6 reflect the statutorily mandated ranges as adjusted for inflation. Pursuant to the 2015 Act, NHTSA is required to promulgate a “catch-up adjustment” through an interim final rule. Pursuant to the 2015 Act and 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), NHTSA finds that good cause exists for immediate implementation of this interim final rule without prior notice and comment because it would be impracticable to delay publication of this rule for notice and comment and because public comment is unnecessary. By operation of the Act, NHTSA must publish the catch-up adjustment by July 1, 2016. Additionally, the 2015 Act provides a clear formula for adjustment of the civil penalties, leaving the agency little room for discretion. Furthermore, the increases in NHTSA’s civil penalty authority authorized by the FAST Act are already in effect and the amendments merely update 49 CFR 578.6 to reflect the new statutory civil penalty. For these reasons, NHTSA finds that notice and comment would be impracticable and is unnecessary in this situation”

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      Ronnie…you are a rebel!

      It’s guys like you that cause revolutions.

      Don’t you feel guilty about causing thought and reason pains?

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Ronnie,
      I thought you were Canadian.

      • 0 avatar

        While I grew up watching Hockey Night in Canada, was born just 13 miles from the Canadian border, and went out to dinner countless times in Windsor with my family, the then new Sinai Hospital, where I was born, was located between Outer Drive and McNichols in Detroit. Nothing against the folks south of the border (look at the map), TTAC is Canadian owned, but I’m a proud American.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Ronnie,
      Are you a rebel or a populist?

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      Ronnie… your words are true and wise, but there’s a sadness in that wisdom.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        General Malaise,
        How can Ronnie’s words be true and wise?

        CAFE is in place as a technical barrier in an attempt to prop up large vehicle manufacture in the US.

        Wouldn’t it be WISER to increase fuel tax to improve FE across the US vehicle fleet.

        So, if a manufacturers wants to build a Hyundai Getz with a V8 they can.

        Who cares what size engine is under the bonnet. So long as you can afford to put fuel in it.

        How can all of these ridiculous regulations that are different to many other countries auto industry be good for the US consumer? They reduce competition and increase costs of vehicle manufacture.

        Look at the F-150, aluminium for God’s sake and it’s based on Neolithic BOF tech and it’s a truck. This is CAFE. Before anyone cries about my aluminium remarks, remember mining bauxite is good for the Australian economy. So the more F-150s sold the better it is for Australia.

        Is the F-150 that great a vehicle? Are EVs really that good? Why not just maximise existing technology to manufacturer vehicles?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          You may have missed it, but “taxes” are a sensitive thing here in the US. We fought that whole war back in 1776 over it and stuff. And how is the aluminum, twin turbo F150 NOT maximizing existing tech. Aluminum is a way to make any vehicle lighter. Big delivery vehicles use it extensively. I am not certain, but I’d bet it is the highest volume vehicle built of aluminum. Perhaps it is because it is a BOF vehicle that they chose it first. Then they take the lessons learned and apply it to other unibody vehicles. Anyway, I don’t see how continuing to produce vehicles of the same material they did in 1930 as maximizing available technology in 2016. The market seems to agree given the sales of aluminum trucks.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Avoid the fines by compliance. If a rule does not have any teeth, industry will ignore the rules and the historical record is littered with examples. What is troubling is that the penalty increase also affects MY15 vehicles? That’s dirty pool.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      the problem with CAFE is that it’s bass-ackwards. It’s stupid to punish the automakers for the choices their customers make. a far more effective way to increase the fuel economy of cars on the road is increasing fuel taxes.

      but advocating that will get one tossed out of office at the next election, so we can forget about it.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        You got that right, JimZ.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          NO!
          UNLESS you can promise with your life that the politicians would not play with this.

          Just like we were promised with the lottery way back when it was voted for. It was promised the money would go towards schools and our education funding would be solved.
          The sneaky no good thieves then started taking earlier approved school funding and spending it…leaving the schools once again unfunded.

          These are the games pols play.

          Moneys are taken from legally voted for programs and transferred to other uses.

          So…unless promised with the cutting off of hands that take and mess with the money…this is another bait n switch argument.

          We will end up with higher gas taxes and all earlier road funding moved around under the cover of shell game trickery.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            you completely misunderstood what I was saying. I’m saying “if your goal is to improve the fuel economy of cars on the road, then a policy which penalizes automakers for what their customers buy is bass-ackwards.”

            steadily increasing fuel taxes would give consumers incentive to buy more economical vehicles. I didn’t say anything about what the government would do with those tax revenues.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        JimZ,
        I do believe CAFE and the other measures protecting mainly Detroit and the manufacturers of foreign brands SUVs, CUVs and pickups needs to be altered.

        Fuel tax would be the cheapest and most effective way to change culture.

        The tax increase only needs to be modest and indexed to the CPI.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @JimZ – agreed.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        Given a choice, I’d advocate for neither a gas tax or CAFE. Instead I’d support a registration surcharge/credit based on the combined EPA mileage rating. The reasons are simple. You have already made a good statement about CAFE, and IMHO a gas tax punishes all choices – even those that made an efficient choice would still have to pay more. And remember, many Americans have no choice but to drive. But they certainly have a choice of what to drive. A registration system would encourage the purchase of a vehicle that has the smallest “penalty” or one that is efficient enough to to avoid it altogether, or maybe get a credit. Manufacturers would likely try to make their products have the smallest penalty, or at least a smaller one than their competitors. So, there would be an incentive for them to make their products more efficient. Further, the drive for efficiency would be somewhat decoupled from the cost of fuel, which often skews the market depending on price. That has caught many a maker off guard.

        However, this would still be political suicide, and neither of the prime time presidential candidates has the stones to do it. Too bad; it would work far better than the present system.

      • 0 avatar
        jimbob457

        @JimZ

        No surprise that you got it totally wrong one more time.

        The entire infrastructure of the US and Canada is based on cheap gasoline and diesel fuel. The distance between town A and town B is a consequence of this. Taxing gasoline and diesel fuel heavily would ruin the economics of this finely balanced system.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I sit back and watch with amazement how the interwoven fabric of regulations, controls, etc in the US auto industry plays out and how naive most are to the impacts this has on protecting the US industry. Mostly aimed at protecting the large SUVs, CUVs and pickups from imports.

    The US auto industry has become reliant on this and massive bailouts, handouts, cheap loans, etc. The US auto industry is now reliant on this protection to remain afloat. This is a positive for the industry, but it’s heading in the wrong direction.

    Now the auto manufacturers cry when they are told they must pull up their socks and meet regulatory requirements.

    Why not just increase taxation on fuel? Why not allow more imported competition? It’s competition that breeds progress.

    People are scared of a tax hike on fuel. Why? Because they state it will cost them more to drive. This is a fallacy. You will buy a vehicle to suit your personal finances. So instead of that V6 Camry you will buy a 4 cylinder Camry ……. or get a better job.

    Canada and Australia pay more for our fuel and we still have V8s and big vehicles. Even Australia has the highest rate per capita of performance vehicles in the world and we are currently paying $1.10AUD per litre or just under $3.00USD a gallon.

    It’s good to see the US regulatory authorities take on the overly powerful US manufacturers and probably the UAW.

    For the US to reduce FE it needs to look seriously at it’s vehicle fleet and what vehicles are promoted fairly or unfairly.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      Yes, you still have some big V8’s (as do we), but you know what we do have that you don’t anymore after following your approach…A FREAKING AUTO INDUSTRY…THAT’S WHAT! and as I have stated, US automakers a far from the only ones crying foul.

  • avatar
    GeneralMalaise

    “It’s good to see the US regulatory authorities take on the overly powerful US manufacturers and probably the UAW.”

    Thanks for the chuckle. Perhaps they should follow the Aussie govt. approach to their auto industry. Oh… wait…

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      GeneralMalaise,
      Australia has a vibrant auto industry. It is one of the most varied in the world, even more varied than the US’s industry.

      It appears many are caught up that the auto industry is the manufacture of vehicles. That is just not true.

      The actual percentage of a country’s economy based on vehicle manufacture is tiny compared to the industry as a whole.

      Have a look at how many jobs are totally reliant on the motor vehicle, then tell me how big is the manufacturing side of the industry. Even the kid working the drive through is reliant on the motor vehicle.

      How many work at Sears selling car sh!t? How many work fixing roads? How many work in the energy industry? How many drive to work? How many mechanics and techs are there? How many work in caryards? Even the guy handing out parking tickets?

      I do believe you have a narrow view on the transport industry.

      Open your eyes and look. The US vehicle industry is far bigger than Detroit could ever be.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        Then Australia also has a vibrant med tech industry because Ozzies get sick, yeah?

        Look out GE, Philips and Siemens!

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Kenmore,
          Actually Australia’s biotech industry is quite developed.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Kemore,
          Yes GE is an interesting one.

          “On July 30, 2002, the University of Queensland’s HyShot team (and international partners) conducted the first ever successful test flight of a scramjet.”

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            What would be the medical role of a scramjet, brief low-gravity surgery? Rapid isotope delivery?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Kemore,
            Tech is tech, most any tech is transferable across many industries. So, how much of the technology is used in these machines that are not from the US, Germany, etc?

            So, why do we need to build MRI’s when we can buy one?

            I do believe you are confusing technology with market size.

            Hmmm ………… I thought you knew better than that.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Kenmore,
          I can also state WTF does med tech have to do with auto manufacture.

          Remember, when you don’t have much of a clue don’t try and be clever. You’ll get caught out.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            Metaphor hurts your head, I know.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Kenmore – He is trapped by his omnipotence paradox.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Kemore,
            WTF? So you are a fncking moronic troll?

            Thought so.

            Lou_BC,
            Another “status” raising comment to impress the TTAC clan?

            Fnck me dead fool.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @BAFO – nope.

            I just happen to agree with him and not you.

            And thanks for proving my point!

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Really Lou?

            Why do you attack BigTrucks? With no provocation?

            It seems you are using the same tactics you used at PUTC. You find a person who you feel you are better than, then go on the attack.

            So, how do you feel having such weak human traits?

            I hope you don’t display this in front of your children. You don’t want them to be like you. A weak person/s (including your other web names).

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        @BigAlFromOZ…I think I read somewhere that the US Auto Industry defined by Manufacturers, The Big Suppliers, and Dealers was like 3-4 percent of US GDP. To put that into perspective, US Military spending as a percentage of GDP in 2015 was like 3.5 percent so even if you take out the dealers since presumably most would be selling something in the event that manufacturing ceased in the US we are not talking about an insignificant industry since we aren’t exactly known for cheaping out on defense spending. I am not sure you grasp the scope of the US auto industry to include the transplants.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      GenralMalaise,
      Actually the demise of the tax subsidised Australian auto manfacturing is one of the better outcomes for our economy in the 21st Century.

      It was costing $800 million tax dollars a year to keep afloat. For what a couple hundred thousand vehicles?

      This money now has been tranfered to Sth Australia where many of the auto manufacturing jobs have been lost into manufacturing the world’s most advanced subs.

      I consider this a far better trade off for the country. I’ll drive my Thai built BT50 and use my Korean fridge and my Chinese laptop. Like most do in the world.

      A car is no different, at the end of the day it only needs to get you to and from work. They are appliances, and like most modern appliances they are full of features and sh!t. Do you want icecubes or just keep the beer cold? Does it matter how the “cold” is made, so long as the beer is enjoyable.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “Do you want icecubes or just keep the beer cold?”

        Who puts ice-cubes in beer?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Lou_BC,
          Here’s funny story. Go to a SE Asian country and travel down the beaten track and ask for a cold beer. You wouldn’t believe I’ve actually had them try to put an icecube in my beer.

          So, I just ask for a bucket and a large block of ice I had to smash up on the floor to chill the hot beers.

          As another aside, why do you insist with your comments? You do seem insecure if you think you constant attacks on me raises you “status” among TTAC commenters.

          This just illustrates your immaturity.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I was just curious since you are odd in a curious sort of way.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Lou_BC,
            Then structure your comments as such.

            My original comment states nothing or even alludes to putting icecubes in a beer.

            The actual gist of the comment, if read and comprehended is using “appliances” as a measure or standard with the motor vehicle.

            Ask me to expand on that, instead of being of the use of “comedy” to belittle. Like Kenmore do you think it’s clever?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        See above. 3.5 percent of US GDP is more than a couple hundred thousand vehicles. Heck Ford moved over 70,000 F150’s last month alone.

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    I have always liked and owned small, fuel-sipping cars even when gas was cheap and plentiful, to the ridicule of those who knew me, somehow I now feel vindicated.

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      ^^^ +1… ^^^^

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      And I have always driven what I wanted regardless of gas prices because I could swing it without seriously impacting my life to include my 80 series, 11-12 mpg Land Cruiser during the time of 4 dollar and up fuel. People drive what they want here…God Bless America.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “People drive what the want here…”

        I don’t understand the hate. It seems like a child’s mind, hating the kids that have it better than them.

        It’s a performance, muscle car and a pickup lover’s paradise, for cheap. Let’s try to keep it that way.

        No sniveling from OZ.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    The manufacturers just need to offer more hybrid systems on more of their models. As the battery technology gets cheaper, smaller, and has longer range it will make it more feasible to offer a hybrid system even if it is not a full blown hybrid. Also more cylinder deactivation, shutter systems in the grills, more aerodynamic designs, and lighter materials. These things are all doable now and paired with more efficient transmissions can be done. It will cost more but over the long run the technology will be less expensive and better.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Jeff S,
      The theory sounds good ……….. except with the supply and demand side of fuel available will force fuel prices down as more economical vehicles (EVs/hybrids) come on line.

      Top this off with the US auto industry’s total reliance on large vehicle manufacture (profit) you will have what you have now. The US auto manufacturers whining that the CAFE goals are too great a challenge.

      The US can’t compete globally building efficient vehicles, this is the crux of the matter. This is driving US policy for vehicle manufacturers.

      Improving FE can only be forced on the public. CAFE is a way of doing this. But the most effective way to change culture is by pricing, ie, increase the cost of fuel to alter vehicle buying habits.

      Personally I believe the US auto industry needs to start to restructure. This includes policy and the direction of vehicle manufacture to remain globally competitive.

      Setting up a more or less insular segment of the auto manufacturing industry as the US has done can only made it more difficult to restructure.

      CAFE has a job to do, it is doing this, but is it the best instrument along with all of the other instruments propping up the industry?

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        “The US can’t compete globally building efficient vehicles.”

        Be sure to tell Musk that, next time you see the CEO of the American firm that leads the world in building efficient vehicles.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          Bow to your Tech God, VoGo! And why the brown lipstick?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          VoGo,
          Why does Tesla even exist? What is the determining factor here? It’s called handouts, industrial welfare, using tax dollars, is the only reason Musk is making cars.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            It saddens me that so many people feel so powerless in taking ownership of their lives, and instead sit back and blame the government, the other political party, corporations, the 1%, communists, people who look different, or whomever for their problems.

            Carmakers can be profitable, no matter the regulations, no matter the consumer trends, no matter the price of gas. They just need to develop a winning strategy and execute the hell out of it. It isn’t that hard: Honda and BMW have been doing it for decades.

            In the US, we face an election in 4 months. A hundred million people will hate the result. An even greater number will merely dislike the result, but be thankful that the other candidate lost.

            But we will survive. Those of us who take accountability for our lives will actually thrive. Honda and Mazda are doing it.

            Time for FCA and the others to stop whining and step up.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            Aw… he has a sad.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            @VoGo Is Mazda really thriving?

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Vogo, are you suggesting that every automaker needs to dip their snout in the same trough of graft that Tesla depends on for survival? As one of the only two worthwhile leaders that the world has had in the past sixty years observed, socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money. That’s like saying everyone should survive a shipwreck by holding other passengers underwater to provide buoyancy.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            ToddAtlas,
            It’s a little tricky trying to understand the question within all the propaganda.

            I don’t recommend anyone sticking their snout into a trough of graft. Or any trough for that matter.

            I recognize that the US government provides incentives for EVs. I also recognize that the US government provides far larger incentives to Big Oil and bailed out GM and Chrysler for $11B. In addition, we’ve paid a horrendous price for wars in the middle east this century, primarily to keep the oil flowing. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

            When the anti-EV crowd is willing to recognize ICE subsidies and end them, I am happy to end the much smaller EV subsidies.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Big Al,
            Is Mazda thriving? Well, from a product perspective, I think we can agree they are. But from a financial perspective, the picture is mixed. I would argue that it is very difficult remaining an independent midsize mainstream carmaker.

            Subaru has been successful, mostly because their AWD niche is so popular. Mitsubishi, Isuzu and Suzuki have had less success. Peugeot too.

            On the whole, I think Mazda does reasonably well, but needs to fix their US dealerships.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Why does Tesla even exist?”

            Because Elon Musk had an idea, and was able to structure the company as a “startup” so he could lose a ton of money for quite a long time to build it. The “handouts” and “industrial welfare” you deride were available to all automakers. Tesla was in the unique position to actually sell people on a business case for long-range EVs.

            I may despise the personality type of Elon Musk, but I would have to be delusional to disclaim what Tesla and SpaceX have achieved.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            We shouldn’t have to engage in wars in the middle east to keep the oil flowing. We have more known oil than the rest of the world. We have to ensure stability in the middle east because of bad politics at home that prevent us from tapping our least expensive to extract oil now and preparing for the day when it is economical to get to our most plentiful oil.

            I don’t know how you can have any interest in this subject and avoid learning anything about it, but there are two types of oil subsidies. One is subsidies to the poor who need home heating oil and farmers who supposedly can’t pay for their fuel. The other is the availability of the same tax deductions used by every other business in the US. I guess only academics, public employees and the chronically unemployed fall for this ‘oil subsidy’ propaganda, because everyone else has forced intimacy with our tax codes. Too bad there are enough unproductive people isolated from reality by their entitled natures to elect national politicians.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            What about the site preparation grant that’s given to every new drill site? It basically pays for everything but the labor of the drilling itself.

            There are other, similar “subsidies” for the oil industry that are now well over 100 years old that the vast majority of people never knew anything about.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Well, Todd, you asked me a question and I answered it.

            As the US never engages in wars to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East, then presumably it was our high esteem for the democracy of Kuwait that caused us to go to war there. Right. And it is our deep and abiding friendship with the Saudis that causes us to keep so many troops in Arabia. Sure.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “We have to ensure stability in the middle east”

            we apparently don’t know how to do that, so we’d best stop trying.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        Big Al–Not disagreeing with your statement but Congress is unwilling to raise fuel taxes. Higher fuel taxes would adjust consumer behavior if they were high enough. The technology that currently exists can be less expensive when spread over more units produced.

        Globalizing of products is a must for the survival of any industry including automobile manufacturing. There need to be global safety, pollution, and efficiency standards that developed nations agree on as the standards. Having uniform standards will be less costly for manufacturers. Also more joint agreements between the manufacturers to manufacturer certain types of vehicles. Sharing more platforms and more components is another must to save costs. There are always ways to become more efficient in any industry whether it be manufacturing, retailing, service, or providing Government services. Even in my own job I have implemented more efficiency when given the authority to do so. Businesses and government need to empower their employees to become more creative in finding ways become more efficient and to suggest ways for their employers to become more efficient.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Tax poor instead.

    Sorry, I mean “raise the gas tax” instesd.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    This should put Ford on notice. But it won’t. They will continue to publish false and misleading fuel economy numbers.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Is this about the C-Max overstatement? I think we’re all over that.

      Except one of us, I guess.

      • 0 avatar
        GeneralMalaise

        Set that gerbil free!

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        Or the fact that none of the Ecobust vehicles come close to their advertised fuel economy.

        And it was more than the C-Max. It was the Fusion and MKFusion Hybrid as well. The vast overstatement of fuel economy was done with the sole intention of boosting CAFE numbers. And they got caught and they will be caught again.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          EBFlex,
          I don’t think Ford is cheating; I think they’re playing by the rules, maximizing their CAFE numbers legally.

          That may disappoint customers who don’t regularly replicate the CAFE numbers, but it’s consistent with what all automakers do.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          Mine does/do.

          And this is the real story to ecoboost.

          Look, I like the discussion here, although it got a little nasty.

          My 2010 ecoboost MKS is averaging around 26 hwy and an easy 21 around town.
          Yes…I DO DRIVE EASILY. But THAT is the call to action of the ecoboost engines: Power when you want it and economy when you want it.

          But that is your choice. IF you CANNOT lay off the turbo crack and your addiction to power is not to be denied, your MPG will show it.

          My 13 Escape 2.0 ecoboost right now is showing 27 AVE..with 93 powered gas.
          OK…high octane..but it IS getting great MPG.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “Or the fact that none of the Ecobust vehicles come close to their advertised fuel economy.”

          I can easily match or beat sticker numbers on any hybrid or eco-turbo vehicle. IF you can’t, it’s the fault of what that thing perched above your shoulders is telling your right foot to do.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I’ve been able to easily beat sticker numbers on ANY vehicle I’ve driven, even those without hybrid or boost technologies. All you have to do is drive sensibly and don’t act like you own the road. Because you don’t.

  • avatar
    tedward

    Big al

    I’m not delving into the cafe argument. But, I’d like to point out that american manufacturers are absolutely producing competitive and fuel efficient small cars. Both the focus and cruze are far from the suck line. They also have a sizeable headstart over the Asian brands in the implementation of the next generation of drivetrain technology. Maybe the drivetrain and trim ladder options are totally different in Australia.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      tedward,
      Thanks for you interest.

      First what US cars (not CUVs, SUVs, etc) that are meeting CAFE requirements are exported?

      What is the profit margin on US made cars that meet CAFE requirements? 2%, 3% or even 5%. what is the profit margin on pickups? 23%-25%.

      So if you are a US vehicle manufacturer what would you want to sell and importantly what would you want to protect?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Pickups are only worth selling when there’s terrific volume. It always comes down to volume. Small cars should be just as profitable for any OEM making them. In theory anyway. They’re so cheap and easy to throw together, with minimal choices, like engines, trim levels, options, packages of all sorts, paints/schemes, axle ratios, wheels, 2 or 4wd, cabs, wheelbase/frames/beds, etc, etc.

        Except small cars lack volume, at least for GM/Ford/Chrysler. Pickups from them are only “protected” by… there’s nothing else in existence that competes. The marginally profitable Titan and Tundra only exist for the extreme Nissan or Toyota fans, and or those that truly hate GM/Ford/Chrysler/Ram.

        Bigger vehicles, SUVs and such, will always enjoy some CAFE exemption, as they should. Holding them to Corolla MPG wouldn’t be good for anyone. It’d make absolutely no sense.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        What fuel efficient Australian cars are exported?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          From ‘Murica,
          We don’t have efficient or inefficient vehicles.

          We just have vehicles.

          We don’t have CAFE or any system to determine FE. We just have fuel tax.

          Seems to work quite well.

          Export? We are stopping that because of the subsidisation of the industry. Why should I pay tax to a vehicle that is exported? In essence why should I subsidise someone buying a Camry in one of the Arabian Gulf countries. Yes all of those Camrys you see in the Gulf States are made in Australia.

          Every American vehicle bought by an Australian is subsidised by you guys to the tune of several thousand dollars each. Plus with the removal of the 5% vehicle tax we now have tax free imported vehicles subsidised by the taxpayers of those export countries!

          Good move on Australia’s part. We just design alot of the worlds pickups, SUVs, CUVs, cars, etc, keeping the high paying jobs and exporting the process factory work.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            At Oz…
            Again, 3.5 percent of US GDP. I know Australia is a fairly vibrant economy, Your GDP is roughly 1.5 Trillion US dollars. The US is roughly 15.68 trillion. The US Auto Industry (again, large suppliers, manufacturers, and dealers is 3.5ish percent of that or roughly 500 billion dollars. That means our auto industry is roughly 1/3 the size of Australia’s economy. Again, not really comparable with what is essentially a niche market you have down under. I didn’t care for TARP, but I believe both of the US makers are profitable now…not sure about FIAT. Point is the failure of the US industry would have a substantially larger impact than the failure of Australia’s. Again, I wasn’t a fan of the bailouts…I think bankruptcy reorganization was the answer, but that is here nor there. I don’t believe the US taxpayer is currently subsidizing the industry. I’d invite you to post a current source. And we do thank you for those big V8’s you still have as our number one export is refined petroleum. Not sure what is being designed in Australia other than the third world stuff maybe. The biggies I can think of that came here were the Mercury Capri (the convertible), and the GTO, neither of which really set our market on fire. I saw a couple of GM cars unveiled this year, neither of which looked to be North American bound. And don’t worry, Toyota is shuttering the Camry plant there next year. I think you may have been correct had the industry remained as it was in 2008 but it has bounced back and your assumptions about the levels of subsidy in the US industry are just not correct today.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “First what US cars (not CUVs, SUVs, etc) that are meeting CAFE requirements are exported?”

        what’s the point of this question? Why would said cars be exported from the US when they’re built the world ’round? Why would Ford NA export the Focus when it’s already built in Germany, Thailand, Argentina, China, Taiwan, and Russia? Why would GM export the Cruze from the US when it’s already built in China, Mexico, and Argentina? Even the red-headed stepchild Dodge Dart is built in China.

  • avatar
    IAhawkeye

    I thought a few years or so when they changed how fuel economy was rated it was supposed to give consumers a better idea of their fuel economy.. I feel like stories about inaccuracies are super common.

    Btw, instead of sitting on here raising each others blood pressure have you guys thought about maybe something mindless and fun outside? Like Pokemon GO? Been playing since last Saturday fairly non-stop minus work and girlfriend time. Met some new awesome people, walked 20+ miles, had a great time. Doesn’t get better then that.

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      Pokemon? Meh… if I want mindless and fun outside, I sit by the pool and read comments made by VoGo, Kenmore and Lou.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        While pleased to have made the A-team, I can’t help but feel the honor tainted by proximity to your spurious claim of reading ability.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          May just be your cranial proximity to your own ’tain’t…

          • 0 avatar
            mtmmo

            You shouldn’t waste your time trying to educate the beta male leftists. They’re poorly educated, low wage earners who are angry because every day they drive home from an unfulfilling career to an obese wife. They hate America because it gives them purpose in an otherwise empty miserable life.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            mtmmo,
            I assume you include me in your assessment of beta male leftists who are poorly educated, low wage earners, angry with obese wives.

            A. I can run five 7-minute miles at the drop of a hat, bench press my weight and do 12 pullups any day of the week. At 52, not so beta.

            B. Poorly educated? I put myself through Columbia (BA) and Carnegie-Mellon (MS)

            C. Low wage? Well, I haven’t dipped below $200K in a decade. Even when I’ve taken summers off to be with my kids.

            D. Obese wife? My wife weighs 115 pounds and – trust -me – is drop dead gorgeous.

            Try again.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            VoGo

            I love ya, but I am just the opposite and am a strong conservative.
            Overweight by 20 plus pounds.
            Couldn’t run 3 miles…but do play pretty competitive tennis.
            Educated in philosophy and religious studies with several companies under my belt.

            List half my brain to a stroke and likely wasn’t that bright to begin with.

            Vigorously atheist and know that liberalism is a failed state of mind…but I do so look forward to what you post.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            I can eat 50 eggs!

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Ditto, TT,
            I am fine with folks disagreeing with me – that’s the only way I’ll learn is to hear another perspective.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Sucks about the stroke.

            @VoGo

            You forgot “insert coin” after the try again. Oh and a “Winners don’t use drugs” message too.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            The running ability and hottie-wife are impressive but you bench pressing 98 lbs, meh, not so much.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “I thought a few years or so when they changed how fuel economy was rated it was supposed to give consumers a better idea of their fuel economy.. I feel like stories about inaccuracies are super common.”

      the problem is that for a test to be valid and scientific, it has to be independently repeatable. which means it has to be run under controlled, specified parameters. and that means if you know the test, you can figure out how to do well on it.

  • avatar
    ydnas7

    The best selling F150, is currently CAFE 2024 compliant, today
    http://wardsauto.com/technology/epa-official-15-ford-f-150-almost-meets-2025-cafe

    the cheapest car in America is CAFE 2020 (Mitsu Mirage, GM Spark is 2025 compliant)

    So its not such a burden for those who like big or cheap cars, its more of burden for premium imports.

    And thats not even counting the effect of Tesla, totally unmodeled by government types forecasting fuel economy back in 2008. cheap credits anyone?

  • avatar
    carguy

    There are two ways to drive manufacturers to make more economic cars.

    1. You can levy a Euro style fuel tax so consumers simply can’t afford gas guzzlers. This option creates a vast amount of government revenue and most that have implemented it are addicted to the cash flow.

    2. Create standards such as CAFE which doesn’t hit consumers at the pump but still forces manufacturers to up their efficiency game. This creates vastly less revenue for the government but is also less effective than a gas tax.

    As far as options are concerned, I prefer CAFE despite all its flaws.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Option 3: Education.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Do you really have to educate that as the number on the sticker gets lower, your fuel bill gets higher? I think even our fine education system is up to that. What would be the point of such education? “Hey you, you really don’t want that truck which is honestly, an absolute marvel of engineering to get the sort of mileage it does”.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “Do you really have to educate that as the number on the sticker gets lower, your fuel bill gets higher?”

          no, but when gas is so cheap that the low numbers on the sticker don’t resonate, then nothing you do will matter.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      It’s not necessarily an either-or choice. The Europeans have both high fuel taxes AND fuel economy regulations that resemble the first version of CAFE, include fleet-wide averages and reduced requirements for trucklets.

      Of course, in the US, it is an either-or choice. Do the guys who spend their days and nights on the internet whining about CAFE want to pay more for gas instead? I doubt it. Be happy that the current state of US regs encouraged the automakers to pull a few pounds of weight out of your beast instead of charging you another $40 to fill the tank.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    carguy–Good points, an increase in fuel tax will not happen but a tax on more expensive gas guzzling vehicles might have a chance. CAFE standards are probably the only way to get more efficient vehicles even though an increased fuel tax would be more effective but less likely to happen.

  • avatar
    Fred

    So no one is going to agknowledge that conservation of resources is a worthy goal for our future. That conservation is in the least expensive method to becoming energy independent. That sometimes we all need a kick in the butt to do the right thing.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      Sure it is, but it is a balance. People want to do the right thing by in large. They also have expectations on how they want to live. MPG is steadily improving and will continue to do so, but the target may be a little bit steep given current tech. I’d like to see the EPA and automakers sit down and hammer this out in a manner that continues to improve fuel economy but doesn’t overly disrupt an industry that employs a huge chunk of Americans. Look even Toyota is part of this effort. If the maker of the Prius says “hey, we need to look at this” then I think it at least is worthy of having a conversation. They may have just bit off more than they can chew.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      I’m with you. But every time I try to suggest that energy conservation is smart, the Trump/Palin brigade goes nuts.
      – Why should we reduce our dependence on foreign oil when we can just carpet bomb the hell out of the Middle East and take what’s our?
      – Drill, baby, drill, no matter what it does to our health, drinking water, and way of life!
      – I have a Constitutional right to buy the most fuel thirsty vehicle I please, and you’ll take that away from my cold, dead hands, gripping an AR-15
      – Teslas are for nerds and eco-weenies. Raptors are rapturous.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    It is hard to get people motivated to save fuel when gas is abundant and cheaper. That is not to say that conservation is not important but that message will fall on deaf ears for most people. Cleaner air will resonate much better.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    Wait a minute @BigAlFromOz. I just did 30 seconds of Googling and found that the only automakers who have paid CAFE fines since 2010 were Jaguar, Daimler, Porsche, Volvo, and FIAT. So while they may be griping about the fines, it doesnt look like the US makers are having any difficulty meeting the target either. Perhaps they, as are a gaggle of non-us makers are concerned about the future. FIAT I’ll give you half credit for.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “I just did 30 seconds of Googling”

      Judging from the wreckage that is the comments section, that’s about 60 seconds longer than many of those who post here.

      Then there are those who do use a search engine, but who don’t understand what they do read. From what I’ve seen on TTAC, there is an acute problem with this in Australia.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Big Al from Murica,
        I think the Fiat fine is for when they used to own Ferrari. Thanks for taking the time to report on the actual facts of the matter (which PCH knew all along).

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        “Judging from the wreckage that is the comments section,”

        Very cool line.

        Think I might steal it…and act like it was mine.
        Ya mind?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      from murica,
      It took me a poofteenth of a second to remember the article here at TTAC ….. last week with the US Motor Industry Association, or whatever represents the US vehicle manufacturers complaining about CAFE being to restrictive and harsh.

      So, Google all you want, all you need to do is remember what you read.

      Remember this CAFE is reducing the flexibility of all US manufacturers to produce more efficiently, thus cheaper. Look at what vehicles are generally or mostly made by the “foreign” US manufacturers.

      BMW?
      Mercedes Benz?
      Toyota?
      Nissan?
      Kia?
      Hyundai?
      The Big 2 + Fiat
      etc.

      A huge chunk of their US product is SUVs/CUVs/pickups. All large vehicles.

      The regulatory controls, barriers, CHICKEN TAX, etc supported by the US vehicle manufacturers promotes large vehicle production.

      See the problem? NHTSA wants smaller more efficient vehicles, the manufacturers are not as competitive as imported vehicles.

      I see a Jurassic Park or even an Easter Island type vehicle manufacturing industry in the US. This has occurred previously because of the energy crisis. US road whales feel into a heap. This allow Japanese and EU manufactuers to import massive numbers of vehicles. The US even made the Japanese pledge they would only import a small number of vehicles into the US. This forced the Japanese to build factories in the US.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Umm, you said the US Makers couldn’t meet CAFE standards when in fact, no US maker has ever failed to meet those standards. Yes, companies are lobbying to protect their profits and yes they are concerned about the 2025 targets but you made the argument that they could not meet those targets. That is not true as they have, at least as far back as I looked, 2010, failed to meet them. And while the NHTSA wants smaller vehicles, the American Consumer, which does all the buying of vehicles feels differently.

        Complaining about targets and missing those targets are two different things. I’d imagine your mining industry doesn’t care for some of the regulations your Government imposes on them and complains from time to time. But they still comply. The same is true of the auto industry. They simply don’t want to be compelled to produce vehicles the consumer doesn’t want.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          Not failed to meet them that is. As was pointed out the yeas FIAT missed seem to be pre Chrysler…likely due to Ferrari whos customer base would likely rather pay the cost then have the brand meet CAFE.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Hey, Big Al! I trademarked Road Whale™.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    Good Point VoGo.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    And by the way VoGo, I am pretty far from you politically it seems but I typically enjoy and respect your comments and try to disagree respectfully when warranted. I try to deal in facts and I sense that you do the same.


Recent Comments

  • cdotson: A little wheel lip or tailgate lip rust is just cosmetic. The Chevrolet Frame Rust(TM) problem is freaking...
  • jkross22: I hopped in a 6 series ‘kew-pay’ recently and it felt like the car equivalent of skinny jeans....
  • JimC2: “He said he turned the radio up.” (chuckle) I should have guessed! :)
  • FreedMike: I’m hoping you didn’t mean to call people in Indiana pigs.
  • Arthur Dailey: I was working part-time at a Ford dealership just after the first generation of these came out and...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States