By on February 24, 2017

pumping-gas fuel

Every automotive manufacturer currently selling cars within the United States has incessantly requested that the government dial back federal fuel economy standards ever since Donald Trump took office. Now, two advocacy groups — Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America — have sent a letter to Trump making a case to maintain Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for the good of average Americans.

Automakers have claimed that higher efficiency targets will increase vehicle cost, making this a battle between two camps, each focused on U.S. wallets: MSRP and MPG.

The letter, shared with us by Consumer Reports (which is published by Consumers Union), states that “recent surveys and polls show that about 80 percent of Americans support the [current] standards” and that the current regulatory norms support job creation, innovation, and improve air quality while also lowering fuel costs for middle-class families.

While the White House has not officially stated that it wishes to re-open and review fuel economy and emission standards through 2025, there are reasons to believe that it might happen. Donald Trump’s second day in office saw requests to reconsider efficiency and emissions targets for 2022 through 2025. A month ago, eighteen executives from the world’s biggest automakers requested that the president revisit the Obama-era fuel efficiency rules.

Much to the chagrin of automakers, the Obama administration’s EPA hurried a final determination for the 2025 emission standards prior to their April 2018 deadline. Many carmakers expressed their disapproval and fears; Ford CEO Mark Fields even claimed the decision could cost over a million U.S. jobs.

President Trump has shown himself to be open to deregulation and even encouraged in a January meeting with automakers where he said, “We’re bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. big league.”

The letter from Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America thoroughly disagrees with the notion that deregulation is the way to encourage employment or boost the economy:

“Rolling back fuel economy standards would hurt hard-working, middle-class Americans and small businesses that rely on a car or truck for their livelihood. Even at today’s lower prices, gasoline is a major expense for a majority of American families. Fuel economy standards are a cost-effective way to save consumers money on fuel. In fact, Consumers Union’s research shows that consumers would enjoy net savings of $3,200 per car and $4,800 per truck, over the life of a vehicle that meet the 2025 standards, even at today’s low gas prices. If gas prices rise, which we expect they will, the savings would be significantly higher. And when consumers save money, they spend it on local goods and services, helping to further boost the economy and encourage more job growth.”

Interestingly, the majority of the automakers now contesting the standards had initially agreed to them during the recession.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

122 Comments on “MSRP vs. MPG: Consumer Groups Plead with Trump to Ignore Automakers, Keep Fuel Economy Standards...”


  • avatar
    ajla

    “recent surveys and polls show that about 80 percent of Americans support the [current] standards”

    I’d be interested to know what these surveys and polls are actually asking people because there is a 0% chance that 80% of Americans understand CAFE or even know it exists.

    There might be broad support for some type of generic fuel economy regulation, but that doesn’t have to be footprint CAFE.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      The strangest thing is how the vast majority of this 80% doesn’t bother to simply buy a more efficient vehicle. They think the government needs to force them to. Or maybe they only surveyed those who never buy new vehicles. That group might think they’ll see an increase in basic compact and subcompact cars on the used market, when really they’ll probably just get more trucks, SUVs, and CUVs of ever-increasing complexity.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @rpn453

        They think the government will force someone else to drive efficient cars. They will learn the hard way.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        ..The strangest thing is how the vast majority of this 80% doesn’t bother to simply buy a more efficient vehicle…

        The flaw with your logic is that most people don’t put a MPG number in their head and then see what is available in that range. They typically look at what they like and hope it has good mileage. The regulations certainly mean that vehicle x is likely to have better mileage that it would otherwise. Your original statement assumes that if you want an Accord, but need better mileage you simply choose a Civic. Does not work that way. Decisions made during design have a major impact on the efficiency of the final product. Mileage regs force the hand to make design choices that push better efficiency.

        • 0 avatar
          rpn453

          “The flaw with your logic is that most people don’t put a MPG number in their head and then see what is available in that range. They typically look at what they like and hope it has good mileage . . .”

          That’s because a person’s consumption is based primarily on what he or she can afford. They’re not looking for the most efficient way to get the job done, they want to make sure they get the full pleasure of consuming the share of resources they’ve worked hard to obtain. They want someone to develop the technology to absolve them of this environmental sin because they don’t have the self-control to do it on their own.

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Scores of these lousy polls come out and are usually sourced or funded from special interest groups. A leader should ignore these polls and do the right thing economically – otherwise we wind up w/ perpetual boondoggles like guv mandated ethanol.

      Everyone would like to run their cars on fairy dust but if the added cost doesn’t make sense economically, don’t do it.

    • 0 avatar

      Odds are they are asking something like this:

      “Would you like to see higher fuel economy standards, which will decrease the running costs of the car you buy?”

      For someone who hasn’t deeply studied the issue, and isn’t a principled libertarian, the only answer to this is Yes.

      But perhaps the real question is “Would you like to see higher fuel economy standards, which will decrease running costs by $10 a month, while increasing the payment on your car by $50 a month?”

      Almost nobody would answer “Yes”.

      What would be interesting is to find out what those numbers actually are. And remember, the market definitely favors cars with better fuel economy, and companies are going to work to compete even if there are no government requirements telling them to. They will just start at a cost-effective level.

      Also, if that $50 higher payment makes people less likely to buy cars, that has impact on employment and all kinds of other things.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        They government is not that dumb. They ask the question, “Would you like to have a vehicle with lower operating costs? Monthly costs may rise or fall, we have no idea which outcome will prevail for you, but operating costs will be lower!”

        Most people gravitate to the certainty of lower operating costs, and they ignore the uncertain outcome. It’s like taking candy from a baby.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    It’s not like without these regulations automakers would stop making fuel efficient vehicles. This is a shortsighted article/study/poll/yellow news/whatever it is that ignores the fact that the market is saturated with high MPG vehicles that compete for an ever smaller portion of the market. Consumers don’t have to buy vehicles with normal MPG, but they choose to, freedom of choice and all that. At the end of the day I don’t care if I save $1,000-2,000 a year on fuel, I would rather the vehicle cost $20k less in the example of the suburban.

    If the market wants efficient cars they should pay for the costs involved in purchasing efficiency, the ones buying the trucks shouldn’t be forced to absorb that cost.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Well I found the reason why this article smelled.

      Consumer Union is Soros backed, and Consumer Federation of America donated to Clinton.

      Obvious fake news is obvious.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Do you check under your bed every night to make sure George Soros isn’t lurking there?

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          I mean you have to be pretty suspicious when a “group” challenges the president on something as trivial as this.

          Regardless your comment doesn’t dispute my point.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            My point is that “OMG Soros” is a red herring. If you assume every group he’s ever donated to is acting at his behest, then he’s the puppet master of pretty much all of society except conservative groups. Not that many people care what he thinks.

            By the same logic I control the ACLU, since I gave them $100 at Christmas. Boy, I’m powerful!

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            At the end of the day he’s donated to a lot of extremist groups and a lot of groups that Have done bad things at his behest. Therefore is a reasonable conclusion to believe his donations did influence this organizations statement. This man has done very little in his life to help anyone but himself. Whether you think I’m jumping to conclusions or not is neither here nor there with this individuals history.

            You are doing yourself a disservice standing up for this man.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Two things need citations in that:

            1) “extremist”; what he donates to tends to be very mainstream left.

            2) “at his behest”; the only organization he controls is his own Open Society Foundation.

            I’m not standing up for him; I don’t care about him one way or the other. I’m standing up for the organizations you smear as being controlled by him, which are nothing of the sort. I have plenty of clients who receive donations from him and he is just another rich donor to them.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            For the benefit of the doubt I’m going to say your wrong(about the democrats), the politicians may find it mainstream but I’m betting, hoping the democrat voters don’t find ANTI Firs Amen anything but a terrorist organization. Same for the Mus Broth. These groups have attacked people with opposing views and done pretty nasty stuff. These are groups this man funds.

            Any group that uses the term “hate speech” has a good chance of being linked to him as well. The first amendment was created to protect speech deemed controversial, not protect an echo box.

            Let’s put it this way, if you run an animal adoption advocacy group you wouldn’t take donations from Kim Jong Un even if you don’t believe that he has political goals with the donation. The reason you refuse that money is ethics, don’t lower yourself to a level where taking blood money is an acceptable way to pay for your organizations continued existence.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “The first amendment was created to protect speech deemed controversial, not protect an echo box”

            The first amendment was created to prevent the government from restriction your rights vis a vis protected speech

            Private organizations are not bound by the first amendment in any way. Someone can make bastions of plurality of opinion like Breitbart or RedState and the First wouldn’t apply.

            I think what you’re trying to ask for is the return of the Fairness Doctrine. I’d be all for that, frankly.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Private organizations are not the issue, the issue is private citizens. Calling opposing “controversial” (i.e. Politically incorrect) speech as hate speech will get you to where Europe is now. Say an opinion that doesn’t work with government beliefs on social media in the comfort of your own home or to a reporter on the streets and the police will be knocking on your door.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            George Soros does not fund the Muslim Brotherhood.

            I have no idea what you mean by “Anti Firs Amen.” When I tried to figure it out I got sucked down the same conspiracy rabbit hole I’m trying to pull you out of: that George Soros is the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-funding brain behind everything people on the right think is wrong. He’s just a billionaire, and not even among the richest of them. Maybe people actually hold leftist or left-ish views for valid reasons, and aren’t just being duped by a huge conspiracy?

            And to make your “blood money” analogy you also have to believe a discredited conspiracy theory about something that happened when he was 14.

            To sum up: he’s just a liberal with a lot of money, not the Prince of Darkness.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dnsHl5qzpYc

            No conspiracy, Soros collaborated with Nazis to take property from Jews and he felt no remorse. His own words. I’m not asking you to believe me, I’m asking you to hear the man talk about his past in his own words.

            He most definately gave money to Antifa which was in DC attacking people with different opinions and generally terrorizing the city wearing face masks.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Now that you have direct video evidence that you’re dead wrong dal20402, does it influence your position at all? What does it say about you that it doesn’t? Do you recall what it was like when you cared about anything other than an agenda you don’t even realize you’re a suicidal pawn for? Rhetorical questions, but it’s got to suck.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            That video proves that Soros, as a 14-year-old Jew in an environment where pretty much everyone he saw was trying to kill him, did what he had to to survive. It does not prove that he “collaborated” with Nazis.

            Soros gave (as one of many donors) to a number of left-wing groups that organized peaceful protests in the wake of Trump’s election. He did not give to “Antifa,” which is by nature not organized enough to give money to (and, by the way, which most reasonable people on the left can’t stand).

            Todd, if there were evidence challenging my position, I’d take it into account. Unfortunately, all you and Hummer have given me is a number of incorrect facts and a deeply uncharitable interpretation of the actions of a young teenager in an environment worse than any of us have ever seen.

          • 0 avatar
            April S

            Soros collaborated with Nazis…

            So did Henry Ford.

            He even received a Best Friends Forever medal from Nazi Germany.

            P.S. I’m still waiting on my yummy Sorso Dollars for protesting.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            something as trivial as this…

            Sorry dude, energy consumption on a national scale is hardly trivial. In fact I’d be hard pressed to not consider it a top five issue.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            It absolutely does prove he collaborated with the Nazis, who else did he take the jewelry to give to? The Russians? He is indefensible.

            And of course you can’t give large sums of money directly to a bunch of jobless kids living in their parents basement. That why you give it to the Marxist and other -ist groups that make up the protestors.
            https://amp.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5s4mq5/direct_antifasoros_connections_keeps_getting/

            What’s your point April? That doesn’t mean Fields or Bill Ford share that same set of beliefs. Henry Ford is dead, he has no influence on current world politics.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            It’s trivial because your in some deep conspiracy mindset if you believe all of this technology we have that improves fuel economy will suddenly dissapear. Technology marches forward whether that matches your political idealogy or not, consumers will still buy efficient vehicles and the technology will continue to expand. The only difference is that purchasers of those technologies will carry the load of their costs and not consumers of larger less efficient vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Are you really believing things you read on r/The_Donald without a second look? Even worse, do you really think anyone else will find a citation to r/The_Donald convincing?

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          There’s an app for that now.

    • 0 avatar
      pecos bill

      TTAC: Just another hate-filled political blog.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    I’d have more sympathy for the automakers’ point of view if they didn’t claim with every new regulatory change that they were doomed, that cars would be come horribly expensive, and that people would lose their jobs, only for it to turn out that a little motivation caused them to suddenly solve problems that had been impossible for decades, and that cars didn’t get more expensive, and that people didn’t lose their jobs. Over and over and over.

    Seat belts? Too expensive! Cars will cost more!

    Rollover safety? Too expensive! We’ll never make a convertible again! Cars will cost more!

    Side impact standards? Too expensive!

    Emissions regulations? From now on, cars will only have 80hp! The era of muscle cars is dead forever!

    So, yeah. Is it possible that this really is the one time that regulations are impossible to meet, will make cars more expensive, and will kill jobs? I suppose. But the auto industry’s 50-year history of wolf-crying in this regard isn’t making it any easier for me to see things their way.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Agreed. This 50-year-old song is wearing out.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      How many jobs and how much market share have the American manufacturers lost since the implementation of CAFE?

      Correlation is not causation, but you’re flying into the wind.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        TW5,
        How many land barges would sell now? Jobs are losing out to robots, 85%. Only 15% of jobs have gone overseas.

        The US is manufacturing more than ever.

        You guys who believe the Mexicans and Chinese are stealing jobs are either flogging a horse or yourselves.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @Big Al from Oz

          Economies are not measured in nominal figures. The number of jobs and the amount of production in dollar-value is irrelevant. The US manufacturing sector has been losing ground to global manufacturing and national service sector productivity. Some of the realignment was to be expected, just as we expected farming to shrink during the industrial age; however, demand for goods by American consumers has never shrunk, yet the situs for the manufacture of these goods has never been farther from home.

          US manufacturing has been unnecessarily damaged, in part by American government, but also in part by international concerns who manipulate currency and draw the US into bad trade deals that support multi-national corporations at the expense of American citizens. Our huge current account deficits, sustained by federal malfeasance and international collusion, have made the US an investors paradise and a laborers nightmare.

          If you do not understand these basic truths, you are not capable of understanding the conclusions people have drawn about the lack equity and transparency in our dealings with foreign nations.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        …How many jobs and how much market share have the American manufacturers lost since the implementation of CAFE….

        American job losses in automobile manufacturing has nothing to do with CAFE, emissions, safety, or the cost of donkey poo. All those regulations were applicable to the Japanese as well. Those losses were the direct result of not having the appropriate product at the time (1970s), having poor quality and reliability, and an incredible indifference to the customer. There was nothing unique about those early 70s Japanese imports – the junkyard finds here show cars of very similar mechanical configuration to the much larger American counterparts found in the same junkyards. The difference was they were assembled better and were not fraught with failures.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @golden2husky

          I’m not sure why your interested in the futility of swimming upstream like a salmon, but I can assure you the end game is the same.

          Even the most intellectually dishonest can still concede that CAFE killed the fullsize sedan market, which basically upended American control of the sedan market. American manufacturers were unnecessarily forced to cling to the fullsize truck market, which was lucrative during the days of $20 oil, but less lucrative in the days of $100 oil.

          This result was not the consequence of normal market forces, rather the bone-headed response of our government to an aggressive oil embargo. Rather than admit the ridiculousness of CAFE, which was designed to address a public problem while externalizing all costs to consumers and corporations, the government continues to double down.

          I suppose in a twisted roundabout fashion, you are right. It’s not CAFE, it’s all of the idiots who support it because they have no education regarding economics or policy alternatives.

          • 0 avatar
            Demon Something

            The only reason US automakers clung to trucks and full size SUVs was because they were simple. No one wants high quality plastics like early 2000’s VW in a Tahoe, it has to be rugged. No one wants a good ride, because it’s a truck. It was always a size=status thing, and GM and Ford realized they didn’t have to focus on cars. What do you think received more effort, the 97 Tahoe, or the comparable Lumina? Hell, Ford only broke this cycle by effectively giving up and giving us the Euro market Fiesta, Focus, and Mondeo (as the Fusion.)

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            “No one wants a good ride, because it’s a truck.”

            How can you be so wrong and still remember to breathe?

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Demon

            They exploited light truck regs because their light-duty passenger car powertrains were effectively outlawed.

          • 0 avatar

            Those sedan sales went to different vehicles CAFE simply shifted focus to other vehicles. It did not cut global auto employment.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            I’d like to see some genuine evidence that CAFE is directly responsible for the decline of the full size sedan. I believe that as SUVs were being discovered, those who would normally buy a sedan, found that the SUV offered more of what they wanted. Gas was cheap back then, and the safety issues of these vehicles was not in the mainstream – yet. Carmakers became flush with cash during halcyon days of BOF SUV’s which offered enormous profits compared to cars. Instead of upgrading the car line, the best resources went to the SUV. Look at the interior of a Tahoe compared to a Lumina of the same era. You would think they were made on different planets. The remainder of that cash was used on a buying spree of European snot brands that all needed massive infusions of cash. In the end the full size car lines were left to rot. I just don’t see how mileage requirements played a part in that. Detroit just went for short term profit as usual.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @golden

            They were monetizing sedans before they were monetizing trucks, and the reason was the same in both segments. American manufacturers and powertrains were dominant. The lack of American manufacturer dominance in the sedan market was not caused by lack of monetization but by CAFE. Oil prices were not high for long enough to alter consumer behavior. CAFE rendered American powertrains useless under the new fuel economy regime. As a result, people flocked to the segment in which American powertrains were not heavily regulated.

            If you are not aware of the basic chain of events, there is no “evidence” that we can provide to persuade you.

      • 0 avatar

        My guess as a direct cause of CAFE none. Automation killed more. With CAFE they had to hire more engineers and compliance people. Since cars sales volume does not seem to correlate to CAFE implementation employment should not either.

    • 0 avatar
      Felix Hoenikker

      This,
      I remember Lee I going on TV in the early 90’s crying that pickup trucks didn’t need to meet the same side impact and rollover standards protection as passenger cars because pickups were “strong”. The fact was that the roofs on pickups of that era would completely collapse on the same rollover tests that cars had to pass.
      I sat on a civil jury case where a young woman suffered a nasty degloving injury when the pickup she was riding in was side swiped by another vehicle. Had she been a passenger car of the same year, the steel beam would have most likely prevented the injury.
      Not long after this, pickups had to meet the same rollover and side impact standards as regular cars.
      Yeah, I have zero respect for the whining from the auto industry when it comes to safety and environmental regs.

  • avatar
    don1967

    Ah yes, because we need the government to force turbochargers, GDI and CVTs under every hood so that our cars can theoretically save $20 a year on gas while costing thousands in added maintenance and repairs.

    Thanks CU, but no thanks.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Cars are more reliable today than ever. How often are vehicles broken down on the side of the highway nowadays compared to a few decades ago?

      • 0 avatar
        OldManPants

        As usual, I agree with BAFO here.

        And that twenty bucks per year in aggregate represents a pretty significant quantity of fuel saved.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          One could argue that all that extra hardware might be a reason for a car to become junkyard fodder when it is 15 years old and just not worth a new turbo. But for the first 10 to 12 years of operation, you can’t deny the vastly improved reliability.

      • 0 avatar
        don1967

        @ Big Al – Who said anything about breaking down on the side of the road? We’re talking about the longevity and/or added maintenance cost associated with these technologies, all of which are well-documented in TTAC’s pages.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    The real issue is the widening gap between consumer taste and CAFE rules (not to mention CARB, which seeks to become the defacto EPA).

    Eventually, the only way to meet the high standard with a heavy SUV/truck mix would be to limit production and/or sales of these vehicles, which is a disruption of the free market. Just try telling a resident of Texas in November that their state’s allocation of F-150s ran out in September.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    It’s interesting that the consumer groups didn’t mention the climate, the environment, or the children.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      Climate? What climate change?. We had a wonderful summer day in the mid 70’s today in Boston. Yesterday was in the mid 60’s. Back in the old days we’d be shoveling snow about now.

      • 0 avatar
        rpn453

        Crazy stuff. Statistically, a new record daily high should only happen about three days a year, and today was one of them. What are the odds!

        Fortunately, I’m sure we can save the planet if we could only force the western world to lower its resource consumption by a few percent. No real sacrifices necessary. We just have to convince the god of technology to make everything better.

        • 0 avatar
          2manycars

          What a load of crap. The planet does not need to be saved. (If it did there would be precious little we could do about it.)

          Of course to the Globull Warming/Climate Change hucksters, all weather phenomenon are related to their favorite boogey man. If it’s too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, or just mild it is all due to man-made “Climate Change.” As professor Reid Bryson, the father of modern climate science, stated before his death, “Global warming is a bunch of hooey.”

          I for one am totally unwilling to reduce my resource consumption to “save the planet.”

          • 0 avatar
            rpn453

            Well then, it’s settled. Home renovations, luxurious new vehicles, regularly dining out, frivolous flights, and absurd amounts of medical resources to keep us alive beyond our natural lifespan regardless of quality of life will now resume for all those who previously claimed to care about climate change!

            Whew, that’s a relief. I thought we were going to have to make some real changes at some point.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Agreed.
        Last weekend, I washed both my vehicles in my driveway.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        …Climate? What climate change?. We had a wonderful summer day in the mid 70’s today in Boston. Yesterday was in the mid 60’s. Back in the old days we’d be shoveling snow about now….

        Climate and weather, while related, are not the same thing. Any single year or several years is irrelevant. The problem is that the last year the planet saw a cooler than normal year was in 1976. Ever since the march has been upward, with the last 20 years blowing the stats out of the water. I can see discussion on what climate change will bring – we’d be quite foolish to say x will happen with absolute certainty. But those who say we have not had any impact on our climate are living with their head in the sand. That data is so abundantly clear at this point there is no reason to deny it.

    • 0 avatar
      don1967

      “It’s interesting that the consumer groups didn’t mention the climate, the environment, or the children.”

      Or sad polar bears. You forgot the sad polar bears.

  • avatar
    EquipmentJunkie

    I suggest that CU does a study of buyers of Tier-4 compliant trucks and heavy machinery. This group of buyers had the same arguments of “progress” thrown out at them. Sadly, CU would find a group very frustrated by an additional 7% purchase price of equipment, EGR systems throwing codes, wait time during SCR burn-offs, the added cost of Diesel Exhaust Fluid, equipment that tends to be more troublesome and SLOW, and burns more fuel than older equipment.

    • 0 avatar
      Tele Vision

      Our new White Star trucks have to do a burn astoundingly often. They’re gutless, too, and require lots of DEF. Our new M-Series graders burn fuel like the Space Shuttle… When they’re not broken down and waiting for a Cat mechanic to show up as they’re under warranty. Our old truck chassis and 14-H graders keep getting all the work done – theirs and the work of the broken new machines and trucks that have no power and too many computers.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Sounds like the same learning curve that cars went through…it will get better…

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    How about they shut up and buy fuel savers? Carmakers tend to follow the money.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “The letter, shared with us by Consumer Reports (which is published by Consumers Union), states that “recent surveys and polls show that about 80 percent of Americans support the [current] standards” and that the current regulatory norms support job creation, innovation, and improve air quality while also lowering fuel costs for middle-class families.”

    Sounds like more fake news. Yinz guys loooove your V8 trucks and SUVS. You won’t be seen in hybrids again until a gas crunch or fuel emergency.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      28, the obvious counterargument is that consumers love the fact that even big V8 trucks get great gas mileage these days.

      CAFE’s been around for 40 years, and cars are bigger, more powerful, and more economical than ever. My current car uses a third of the gas my Dad’s car did (when he was my age), and it is much faster, cleaner, safer, and more reliable.

      I think that reading some manufacturer BS about how CAFE regs are “too hard” is a very small price to pay.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Yes.
        My 1990 regular cab F250 had a 195 hp V8 and I was lucky to get 14 mpg.

        My current F150 has 310 hp and I’ve gotten 20.4 mpg on several 500 mile trips.

        30% improvement in MPG and 59% more HP. My F150 is bigger and heavier seats 6 and can tow more than that truck on tires that are much bigger than the ones on the 1990.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          Under the current regulation it doesn’t matter what fuel economy you personally get or how many miles you drive. The EPA says your 5.4L F150 gets 15 MPG, so that is what it accounts for under CAFE.

          It isn’t a good system. The US can have fuel economy regulations that aren’t this.

          • 0 avatar
            Tele Vision

            I’m at 15.3 MPG in my 2010 F-150!

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @ajla – that wasn’t my point. I’m saying that there has been a large gain in capabilities with a corresponding gain in mpg.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            And just imagine how much better those MPG gains would have been if the corresponding size and power were not increased as much as they were. Lou_BC – would you trade off 20% of those power gains and some size/weight for an additional 10% in efficiency gains? I believe the vast majority would.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            golden2husky – size and weight has more to do with regular cab pickup versus crewcab along with the fact that my 2010 truck is much safer and more luxurious than that 1990 truck. Add to that the fact that my 2010 runs on 275/65/18’s and my 1990 was on 215/75/16’s.

            If I wanted to sacrifice size and weight on the alter of efficiency I’d be driving a V6 Colorado.

            I do see your point and it is valid. Many would prefer a bigger jump in efficiency than in HP and size.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “I think that reading some manufacturer BS about how CAFE regs are “too hard” is a very small price to pay.”

        A price *you* pay.

        Another point frequently missed is the onslaught of the Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s which changed consumer tastes dramatically. One cannot prove it was some magical diktat which brought about a thirty percent (or more) increase in fuel economy, I’d like to know just how much of an impact it was vs losing to the fuel efficient competition in the marketplace year after year. One thing we can prove is the Fiat 500e costs Chrysler tens of thousands of dollars per unit and has only sold 16K examples in three MYs to 2016. In fact it’s CEO claims:

        “About 16,549 units have been sold in the U.S. through May 2016.[34] Sergio Marchionne reported that Fiat loses $14,000 on every 500e it sells, and only produces the cars because state rules require it.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_500_(2007)#Fiat_500e_.282013-.29

        I would much rather give whats left of “domestic” (whatever that means anymore) automakers wiggle room on platforms/drivetrains so they can play with more margin at the current level than force a whole other which we collectively will pay to own. Hybrids would not exist if we have not reached the limits of the ICE given emissions standards. You will only be hurt in the wallet and ownership experience as OEMs play MacGyver on how they can squeeze blood from a stone.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          So your answer to manufacturers who cry like babies is to quote a CEO wailing like a toddler?

          FCA loses a few bucks off one car in California, but they make even more off each pickup they sell in the same market. How is that anybody’s problem but their own?

          The 500e is a hack job, and that’s 100% on FCA. If they don’t want to sell cars in California they can gather-up their toys and go home. That state is crawling with $100,000 Teslas, but FCA can’t sell their 500e for a fraction of that.

          Tell me, if your teenagers came-up with CEO-level excuses instead of homework, would you believe them? Obviously not, it’s just lazy, cynical and transparent claptrap.

          Didn’t the same companies complain that seat belts and non-exploding gas tanks would put them out of business?

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Let’s have an agreement here at TTAC.

      “Fake news” isn’t news you don’t like. It isn’t news that you think is being reported in a slanted manner. It isn’t news you think is getting more attention than it deserves because it suits someone’s political agenda. It isn’t even opinion. To have “fake news,” you need two things:

      1) reporting of facts (facts, not opinion) that simply aren’t true
      2) an intent to deceive

      “Obama bans Pledge of Allegiance” is fake news. “Obama Offers Amnesty” is not fake news; it’s slanted but based on actual facts. “Trump Offers Free One-Way Tickets” is fake news. “Trump Shatters Families” is not fake news; it’s slanted but based on actual facts.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Let’s review.

        “The letter, shared with us by Consumer Reports (which is published by Consumers Union), states that “recent surveys and polls show that about 80 percent of Americans support the [current] standards” and that the current regulatory norms support job creation, innovation, and improve air quality while also lowering fuel costs for middle-class families.”

        Well about eighty percent of ***Americans*** can’t agree on anything of substance, so right off the bat I don’t believe them. But who are the polled “Americans”?

        Here’s a Pew study on if people prefer to live somewhere hotter or colder. The highest amount of the three options (hotter, colder, and no preference) to respond to a single option was 69%. So even on something trivial we can’t even get about eighty percent let alone something more concrete.

        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2009/03/18/most-like-it-hot/

        Now if we polled Consumer Reports subscribers, I’m more inclined to believe about eighty percent might favor something. But speaking for we the people, we are more than one group of subscribers or demographic. So I don’t believe these “facts” at all and they are being presented to deceive.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          They are basing their statement on the survey ajla linked.

          The survey may not be well conducted, but they conducted it, and it gave a result that sort of supports what they are saying. You can say that it’s sloppy wording, that it’s too strong a conclusion for the evidence, or that you think the questions are biased. You can say that you think there’s a political agenda in the release that there wasn’t in the survey (I would agree with that). You can say it’s poor strategy on their part (I’d agree with that too).

          But it’s not “fake news.” “Fake news” would be if they had invented a survey from whole cloth, or reported 80% support when they got 20% support.

          I care about this because I think lumping factually based reports, even poor ones, in with real “fake news” of the sort brought to us by disreputable Macedonians on Facebook is one of the most harmful things that the Trump era has brought us. People are starting to feel they don’t need to pay attention to objective fact. That can’t lead us to a good place.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Well at the end of the day they ARE reporting fake news.

            The US sending out 100,000 reserves to find illegals? Fake news
            CNN telling people what questions to ask in a debate?
            CNN teling viewers its illegal for them to read Wikileaks and that they must be gone through by the media? How do you stand for this?
            CNN cutting a guest off the air when Wikileaks comes up.

            This is why it’s called Fake news, they are at this point propaganda and refusing to report the truth.

            If an actual scandal happens, at this point Trump is free to cruise through it since CNN has made Trump eating KFC with a fork as a scandal, no one even pays attention anymore.

            This video below is an extremely blatant example of CNN yellow journalism, Fake news.
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Do you think 80% of Americans know what CAFE standards are? I doubt 80% of Congress could give an accurate synopsis of it.

        A vote of support to the generic increasing fuel economy or the continued existence of regulations is not the same thing as supporting “current standards” or an agreement to “regulatory norms”.

        “… recent surveys and polls show that about 80 percent of Americans support the [current] standards”

        There isn’t enough public knowledge on the topic to make such a (unsupported) statement. I personally have a hard time not seeing this as a falsehood. You don’t have to call it “fake” if you don’t want to, but it is a poor showing by the CU.
        _______________________________________________

        This is the best I can find because CU is always stingy with their data:

        http://consumersunion.org/2016/06/2016-fe-consumer-survey/

        So a few nonspecific questions and the one with over 80% support isn’t even about government regs.

  • avatar
    whitworth

    To me this survey says 80% of Americans don’t want CAFE standards raised.

    The status quo is keeping CAFE standards in place, not raising them to a crazy high level like 54.5 mpgs

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Consumer’s Union has always been a bunch of commies.

    Why not limit how large a television set people can buy? Think of the thousands of $$$ per year each household would save if we restricted TV to watching on an iPad.

    Most people eat too much. Let’s limit how many calories everyone gets each month. When you run out of your allotment, no more food for you! Think of the massive savings!
    .
    .

    • 0 avatar
      jacob_coulter

      Consumer Reports really should be non-political, but I wasn’t surprised they pulled this.

      They should be treated as a political special interest group instead of a non-profit if they want to engage in this.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      The organization that helps you sort through the vast marketplace of goods to find the products that offer the best value or best fit your priorities is a bunch of commies?

      I want some of what you’re smoking.

  • avatar
    dr_outback

    But has anyone calculated the costs to diagnose and repair more complex emissions systems? Particulant filters, EGR coolers, turbochargers, superchargers, and soot/carbon issues from DI aren’t inexpensive to service and repair. Add to that the costs for radar sensors, cameras, multimedia systems, electronic power steering racks, lighting and control modules etc. A worst case scenario could see an owner spending $10k in service and repairs over the course of 150k miles.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “But has anyone calculated the costs to diagnose and repair more complex emissions systems?”

      Hold on there Skippy. Regulations only have benefits, not costs.

      /s

      .
      .

      • 0 avatar
        dr_outback

        You’re a Master Debator.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “But has anyone calculated the costs to diagnose and repair more complex emissions systems?”

        Well, I don’t know about you, but I’ve found it’s a lot cheaper to just jack in an $5 ODB2 reader and scan a few codes than to pay someone to screw around with a carburetor for a day.

        Reliablity, longevity and TCO have been improving as cars have gotten “more complex”. Cars are also cheaper for the content and performance you get. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

        There’s a joke that applies here: How many conservatives does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Answer: THE DARK HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD ENOUGH FOR US!

        • 0 avatar
          NMGOM

          psarhjinian – – –

          Your analogy has no merit. Where do you buy a new car with a carburetor? Have you ever worked in manufacturing? Reliability is maximized when systems are simpler, but with good designs, good construction, and good materials. Complexity in systems means higher failure rates, lower reliability, and increased prices. Basic principles: no rocket science there.

          This CU and CFA statement is so absurd that it verges on utter BS:
          “Rolling back fuel economy standards would hurt hard-working, middle-class Americans and small businesses that rely on a car or truck for their livelihood.”

          ANS: Middle class Americans and small businesses consider fuel mileage as only one part of vehicle ownership, not even the determinant one: try adding depreciation, maintenance costs; reliability, functionality/practicality, longevity, and taxes. Right now, and for the foreseeable future gasoline prices are and will be low, and constitute about 10-15% of the overall judgement of vehicle ownership, or we wouldn’t be having 3 pickup truck models as the top 5 best selling vehicles in America: they average about 18-20 mpg on the highway. MPG concerns no longer strongly dominate purchases for “middle class Americans and small businesses”.

          But I’m sure there’s another joke in here somewhere:

          “Q: How many liberals does it take to change a lightbulb?”
          ANS:
          “None. They sit around and wait for a government program to be developed to fix the light bulb manufacturing industry and ask why isn’t that industry unionized? And then there will be a government grant to supply funds to pay for the light bulbs that are manufactured by union labor subsidized by the government after there is an EPA impact study to understand the effects of the light bulb on the darter snails and the rain forest and another study by the Department of Labor, OPM and GAO to ensure that labor is equally distributed in a multicultural manner.”

          (^_^)….

          ==============================

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Sorry, psarhjinian’s joke is much better. Mostly because it’s simpler.

            As is computer-controlled fuel injection, when compared to a carburetor. Computers aren’t some kind of dark magic. They’re just electronics.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Q: Where do you buy a new car with a carburetor?
            A: Not in the US.

            In other words, your argument is proof that regs are working. When I was a kid, each car had a secret handshake for starting on a cold morning: press the accelerator twice, or not at all, or just halfway, or halfway at first and then three-quarters. They each had an entirely different secret handshake to start at 0 degrees, and something else again at -20.

            It’s thanks to regulations that people don’t drive around with the choke on anymore. GM would have never fixed that on their own; they were one of the last companies to offer carbs; consumers and clean air be damned.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            That’s a ridiculous argument, when you were a kid silicon chips were significantly more expensive, I have a receipt in my garage from the 70s-80s from where my parents bought a $20,000 computer just to send dealer data back to Chicago. Chip technology, programming and all that was not affordable or even completely possible when you were a kid. In the mid 80s it was just starting to become affordable, and surprise surprise that’s when that technology took off in cars. You can’t say it would have never happened without regulation because there is no coinciding world where America was exactly the same minus the regulations.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Hummer,

            The motorcycle market waited even longer to get rid of carbs. They still haven’t managed to do so completely. Do you think that’s just random, or maybe it’s because motorcycles have avoided emissions regulations up until recently?

            I think GM would still sell you a Rochester 2 barrel on top of a SBC if they could get away with it.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            The motorcycle market is smaller, it comes down to the consumer. If consumers want carbs – why stop making them, most bikes are fuel injected. Additionally the margins on bikes are much thinner than cars. You can’t push the price up overnight since bikes are not a necessity in the same way cars are. If my motorcycle doesn’t crank no big deal, if my car doesn’t crank I’m going to have serious issues

            Leisure items more or less sell on price, what can I afford that’s fun. If you raise the price $250-500 that’s the difference between a sale and them walking. .

            The thing is the buying public understands how great fuel injection is which is why you can retrofit fuel injection kits onto a lot of engines from the 1950s-1980s. If the buying public is so keen on the idea of fuel injection there’s no reason to believe that carbs would still rule the roost 30 years after the mass roll out of fuel injection even without regs.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Hummer,

            Almost no consumers “want carbs,” and I’m sure the average consumer doesn’t want their kids breathing unburnt gas from the neighbor’s ride. That’s why there’s regulations.

            I still think that GM would still offer Rochester 2 barrels in their base models to this day, if they could. They would do it even if it cost them more, because it would let them advertise a low low price on a car that no-one wants. Then they would charge a couple thousand more for the version that doesn’t spit-out no-lead.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            There’s a 100cc 4 cycle Honda dirt bike outside that’s a 2005 model year, carbeurated. It went 10 years on 3 spark plugs, 1-2 oil changes, and a lot of ethanol laced gas. A couple months ago, maybe almost a year now, it stopped cranking. When I pulled the carb apart it was obvious that the ethanol had ravaged the internals, the float needle was solidly plugged with green gunk. I actually couldn’t figure out where the needle was for several minutes because the gunk had hidden it so well.

            Point is the carbeurator on this bike lasted 10 years without once being adjusted. And now with it thoroughly stopped up I have a choice I can attempt to get it running, or spend $100 to put a new one on it.
            While I don’t doubt a road going bike will see more fuel and more service the costs and maintenance for bikes is still significantly less than cars and can in certain situations make sense.

            I know what your saying about GM is hypothetical but I disagree. In 1987 when GM introduced fuel injection to its S-series trucks/SUVs they didn’t offer it as an option they did it across the board. Economies of scale and all, if they offered both than people would buy both, why? Because they both run when their new, as stupid as that answer is – it’s true.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            ….Point is the carbeurator on this bike lasted 10 years without once being adjusted…

            Well, the port fuel injection on my 92 Sable has been adjusted, cleaned, and fiddled with, oh, zero times.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Hummer – things like dirt bikes are limited run vehicles and for the most part don’t need to meet emissions regulations with California probably being the exception.
            Carbs gum up over time more due to a lack of use. I had a KTM620 that I rode all year long. I never had to clean the carb. My 9.9 Johnson outboard needs to get the carb cleaned frequently because it sits unused in the winter. Modern fuel additives tend to gum up carbs. Ethanol tends to be harder on seals, o-rings, and gaskets.
            When it comes to vehicles, I’d never want to go back to carbs. I’ve had more issues with carb’s on cars/trucks than with fuel injection. I’ve (knock on wood) never had an issue with a fuel injection system.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Well of course, but I’m talking about dirt bikes at $2,500 bike lasting 10 years without being messed with is a good life. Of course in cars you don’t want to deal with carbs. Your making my point for me.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          “Reliablity, longevity and TCO have been improving as cars have gotten “more complex”. Cars are also cheaper for the content and performance you get. Funny how that works, isn’t it?”

          This is simply not true. As cars were getting more reliable, they were also getting way simpler. Electronics replaced complicated mechanical systems that broke frequently in both the engine and transmission. In the last decade, vehicle design has been going the other way. The addition big direct injection, and turbochargers to everything is going to reduce reliability. We’re already seeing failures increasing each year on a per vehicle basis.

          • 0 avatar
            dr_outback

            I was not implying that vehicle’s are less reliable than they once were, I am saying that when the vehicle requires repair it will be more costly due to increased complexity and equipment with interdependibity causing multiple systemic failures from one single fault. Also if an owner chooses to spend a couple thousand dollars to correct an emissions control related failure, there’s no way to know that something as simple as the multimedia system hard drive failing, leading it to be repaired or sold at a deep discount. So gone are the days when you only worried about the engine and transmission not failing and making a recently performed major service or repair worthless.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Based on the data we have today, I think the electronic intensive vehicle will have fewer failures, but those fewer failures will come with a higher repair cost. Depending on where that failure occurs will determine if it is repaired or crushed. The big problem I see is what becomes of vehicles where all the systems are controlled by a touch screen interface and that screen dies. Now you have a car that runs, but has no climate control, no radio, no defroster. Perhaps there will be aftermarket support – a quick Google search shows plenty of swap programs for failed Lexus ES300 instrument clusters as an example. That will help those who are not inept with tools but I know many folks that don’t even know how to use a screwdriver. Those cars will be great bargains for people like me.

            Those critical mechanical systems like turbos? I think you will find that these items will be the death knell for old vehicles. Expensive parts, hard to access locations, 14 year old bolts exposed the the harshness of an exhaust system mean that most – myself included- will junk the car. Those who drive and sell every five years will never see this; they will only enjoy the positive aspects of the technology.

  • avatar
    Prado

    FU CU.I just lost a lot of respect for their rag. The whole premise of their magazine is to provide consumers with data/information/reviews, such that consumers can make informed decisions on the products they buy. Now, through this letter, they are implying that we are all too stupid to make informed decisions on are own, and that we need even further stringent fuel economy laws to protect ourselves from spending too much of our money on gas, even though there is no data to support a significant increase in oil prices anytime in the near future (at least 4 years).

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “Now, through this letter, they are implying that we are all too stupid to make informed decisions on are own”

      You know, you’re free to read or ignore their recommendations, and convince other people to do the same.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Why not just give the automakers and extension on complying with the 2025 deadline. Maybe another 5 years.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      An extension or a minor rollback would not be a bad idea. But the automakers see the blood in the waters and will lobby for a major rollback while they can. T-Rump will oblige. After all, it is a double win for him. Working class folks will be duped into thinking this will bring jobs (even though it has nothing to do with jobs) and support him. The automakers will save a lot of development money and will keep that windfall for the top 20 people in the company, and will tout American manufacturing is now on a strong footing and the sheep will believe it and it will translate into more votes. Only the planet and our future kids/grandkids will have to pay the price.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        Time is not the issue. The issue is the footprint regulations, which have nothing to do with fuel economy and unfairly and pointlessly punish vehicles with short wheelbases. This was an NHTSA provision to prevent one of the unintended consequences of CAFE 1979–higher road fatalities per vehicle mile.

        CAFE 2025 is not a fuel economy regulation. It is a regulatory regime whereby politicians get to define the dimensions and technologies on road legal vehicles. CAFE 2025 has no remedy if the entire country decides to drive fullsize pickups. Fleet fuel economy would be 23 mpg, and it would be CAFE 2025 compliant.

        Not a fuel economy regime. Only a complete fool would support it.

  • avatar
    Dan

    80% of people can say that they’d like to ride unicorns to work, the fact of the matter is that we know what a CAFE 2025 car looks like because there are several of them on the market already and literally 97.5% of people choose to buy something else.

    Dollars talk and bullchit walks.

  • avatar
    TW5

    If we get rid of CAFE, Toyota will forget how to make the Prius, and the technology will be lost forever!!!

    We can keep CAFE 2016, which is the only thing the public knows about CAFE.

  • avatar
    MeaMaximaCulpa

    Well the US needs better infrastructure as many bridges are exceeding their design life significantly and a lot of roads are in disrepair. So why not kill two birds with one stone, increase the federal tax on fuel and earmark – by law – the tax revenue for infrastructure, and, mandate (or rather keep the mandate) that all cars and trucks sold must state the fuel consumption and emissions.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Good points, increase the fuel tax and any increase is designated only for roads and bridges. Also state fuel consumption and emissions. I don’t have a problems with increased efficiency. Compromise and give the auto manufacturers more time. As battery technology gets cheaper and batteries get smaller more vehicles can adapt some type of hybrid system that can give them more efficiency. Continually make all vehicles both large and small safer and more efficiency benefits everyone. Not everyone should be forced to buy small vehicles but continually improving efficiency benefits everyone.

  • avatar
    mikein541

    Most everything the federal governnment chooses to regulate turns to shite.
    Automotive MPG and safety is no exception. Abolish CAFE standards now.
    If enough of the public wants high mpg cars, the auto makers will make
    them. Same with dinosaur-sized SUVs. It’s called the free market, a
    concept which bureaucrats and democrats do not much understand.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    This is the problem with expressing fuel economy in “miles per gallon.” It’s inherently deceptive. Assume you have a vehicle that gets 10 mpg, that fuel costs $1 per gallon and that you drive 10,000 miles each year. Your annual fuel cost is $1,000. Now, let’s double the mpg and keep everything constant. Your annual fuel cost is $500, and you’ve saved $500 by investing in better fuel economy. Now, lets increase that fuel economy another 10 mpg . . . to 30 mpg. Your annual fuel cost is now $333, and you’ve saved $167 by investing in another 10 mpg. Increase the fuel economy by another 10 mpg. . . to 40 mpg. Your annual fuel cost is now $250, and you’ve saved $83 per year by investing in another 10 mpg.

    That’s why now one should care whether the latest Prius gets 50 mpg or not. Or put differently, increasing fuel economy by 50% over the current 30 mpg achievable by a number of cars, including non-hybrids, gives an almost trivial benefit.

    On the cost side, what are the costs of squeezing another 10 mpg out of, say, a mid-size car that gets 30 mpg? No one talks about that. The fact that going from 15 mpg to 30 mpg was fairly easy, doesn’t mean that going from 30 mpg to 45 mpg will be equally easy — or cheap.

    It’s certainly true that today’s cars require less service than their predecessors. But, I have the feeling that their reliability curve, unlike that of older cars, will not be downward, with a decreasing slope. Rather, it will be fairly level for a certain period (maybe 10-15 years) and then it will fall off a cliff when the electronics and electronic fuel pumps, oil pumps, radiator fans, etc.fail; and the car will be junk. Look at how the Cubans have kept 1950s American cars running.

    This is not to say that it isn’t regrettable that car manufacturers have a long history of crying doom when increasing safety and emission standards have been rolled out. At some point, they will, unfortunately, be right even though their credibility is shot.

    Kind of like the nasty things that the left has said about every Republican presidential candidate, at least since Richard Nixon.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    1st of all, the EPA driving cycle is completely bogus. No one drives like that; not even my mom, at night, in the rain. The whole thing that a vehicle that measures so many cubits and barelycorns by so many cubits and barleycorns will be allowed to get so many hogsheads per rod is rubbish. Make the driving tests and allowable mileage rules simple enough that a NY Post reader (the NY Times sports section sucks, it really does) can understand them. The EPA an CAFE didn’t kill off pillow-tufted seats, vinyl tops, and landau bars. The market spoke and the Europeans and Japanese listened. Except for hipsters, they’d groove on a ’72 Olds 88 or Ford LTD. No one under the age of 60 drives a GM or Ford sedan and boasts about it. FCA is Italian owned, sorry 300; however Lincoln is getting interesting again. Nope, folks need to admit the Europeans handed the US car makers their lunch on performance and the Japanese handed US car makers their lunch on reliability. Blame the EPA? Blame my posterior.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    Pretty predictable. A bunch of FOX news goobers whining that the air and water don’t need to be clean.

  • avatar
    srd275

    1. That “ruling” by the Obama officials just before he went out of office was COMPLETELY POLITICAL to appease the left. IT HAD NO BUSINESS BEING APPROVED!

    2. Who do these consumer “advocates” think they are. THEY DON’T “represent” me or millions of other Americans!

    Turn back the political limits!!!!!!

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Trump EPA pick rolls back MPG standards.

    Happiness ensues.

    Lots of big ol’ SUVs and trucks sold because – ‘merica.

    Ironically this would hurt Ford the most, who cares about EcoBoost!

    Price of gasoline EVENTUALLY bounces due inflation, supply issue, or market conditions to $5 or more gallon, a “shock” not a new normal.

    Said owners of gas sucking trucks can no longer afford to feed them. Anger at oil prices, clearly a government conspiracy because that’s how that gaggle thinks.

    Hilarity ensues.

    Film at 11.

    We’ve seen this before.

    Oh, and if Mexico starts trading with China versus the United States for their oil — there is your supply shock right there. Mexico is our number 4 import partner behind only Canada, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    Yes, 80% want higher standards…only 20% buy smaller cars (if that many).

    Everybody wants everybody ELSE to do the right thing.

    If conserving oil is such a benefit to society (and I think it is–less fuel burned means less air pollution, less C02, and the oil we have will last longer for future generations), instead of these idiotic standards, TAX GASOLINE and use the money to FIX the roads, and IMPROVE THEM, further reducing congestion and pollution.

    $5 gasoline will “help” people make the right choice. And the truth is, our roads ARE crumbling…so the tax revenue can be used constructively (pun intended) to rebuild them.

    Or should we raise income taxes to fix the roads? Or cut state aid to schools? Maybe cut defense spending (that would be good). Or how about cutting Social Security (it won’t be there for me, so maybe we should…)

    Fat chance that our leaders will raise gas taxes, and end these silly rules.

    In the future, I think gasoline could spike up or rise anyway…

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Another garbage fire of a comments section that I’m not sorry I wasn’t here for.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • el scotto: @Dartdude Our Federal Government, thankfully, is not like Apple computer corporation. I have an iPhone 3...
  • el scotto: @SCE to Aux; I can think of three stand-alone Cadillac dealers. Lockhart Cadillac in Greenwood and Fishers...
  • Ol Shel: You should choose a car from a company that’s never had a recall, like: Nash, Duesenberg, Datsun,...
  • RHD: That’s a lot of money to put on the line for such a silly bet. Truth be told, ICE vehicles will be slowly...
  • DenverMike: The old fogeys say that. It assumes the grade coming up the mountain is the same one going down. Or...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber