New CAFE standards: $157 billion.

[Jesda]

Wait, I think I get what you're saying, Jesda. American manufacturers are so bad that if you require that they make their cars as clean as the Japanese, they'll go under? That seems to be a problem with the American manufacturers, not with regulating car exhaust.

Youre glossing over the events of three decades ago and neglecting to see the long term impact of those decisions on the industry, including cafe's role in popularizing light trucks as everyday passenger vehicles. I apologize -- If i wasnt in the car on my ipad i would elaborate further.

[IBCoupe]

But popular demand doesn't discriminate. Ford, GM, and Chrysler all saw the same writing on the wall as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. They made their choices.

[AZhitman]

the notion that the market does what the market wants to do regardless of legal requirements placed on it is silly.

Really?

How much money is spent on car modifications in California? I know it's a long way away, but think carefully.

And then what do you propose we do about alternative fuels? Offer more tax breaks to those who use them? This somehow sounds familiar, and isn't working that well so far...

I kinda like it.

[themadscientist]

The market will drive innovation, not government mandate. If the consumer demands it the manufacturers will respond. Those that don't will die as they should.

[IBCoupe]

Really?

How much money is spent on car modifications in California? I know it's a long way away, but think carefully.

Not sure what you're getting at.

[AZ89two4Tsx]

^ Easy example.

How many modified 240sx's in California have an SR20 swap?
Aren't they technically illegal in the US no matter what?
Doesn't California have some of the strictest emissions laws in the country?

I'm with Ian on this one. This is the extra push that car makers need. Something good will definitely come out of this in the end.

[AZhitman]

Really?

How much money is spent on car modifications in California? I know it's a long way away, but think carefully.

Not sure what you're getting at.

Nearly all engine modifications are illegal in CA (unless CARB-approved, which is rare and expensive). This includes such silliness as cold air intakes and catback exhausts.

The market for such mods in CA is strong. Stronger than in states which prohibit said items.

Having been a member of SEMA for 10 years, yes, the market does what the market wants to do regardless of legal requirements placed on it.

[C-Kwik]

Nearly all engine modifications are illegal in CA (unless CARB-approved, which is rare and expensive). This includes such silliness as cold air intakes and catback exhausts.

Catback exhausts are not illegal in CA. None of the cars I have owned that have had catback systems ever got rejected at a smog station. I always use the smog shop down the street, which also happens to be a smog-only station. Only time I ever went elsewhere was when I had the KA-T.

Intakes are regulated as emissions equipment and sensors having to do with metering air tend to be attached to them. I've seen a few non-CARB certified intake systems bypass the crankcase ventilation altogether. Exhaust systems, on the other hand, don't tend to have emissions components attached to them after the cat. Those that do tend to have them attached to the same assembly as the cat so a "cat-back" system would replace the components not affected by emissions equipment.

It would be a mistake to assume that CAFE standards are imposed just for the sake of efficiency. If we assumed the proportion of the various emitted gases remained constant and we increased fuel efficiency across the board, that will be that much less of every harmful emitted gas. Its not unlike that concept of lowering weight to improve performance in braking, cornering and acceleration (and yes, even emissions and efficiency). But the big one is actually carbon. CO2 emissions are directly linked to how much fuel we burn. Assuming the most ideal chemical combustion process, the number of CO2 molecules released from burning a single molecule of hydrocarbon is exactly the number of carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon molecule. That number will vary with the type of hydrocarbon, but anytime we do more with that single molecule of hydrocarbon, proportionately less CO2 will be released into the atmosphere for the amount of work done. While all the other harmful byproducts are important, CO2 is the big one right now. With this in mind, I would doubt CAFE numbers are arbitrary as MOD claims. There are clear goals in mind outside of just vehicle emissions in the level of GHG emissions we produce. This is just one aspect of trying to reach that goal. The number is likely some balance between where they want to be and what is achievable.

Where allowing market forces to organically dictate our fuel economy standards fails us is that consumers generally don't put as much weight on emissions and fuel consumption when actually purchasing a car. And given that, car manufacturers don't have huge incentive to lower fuel consumption. Compared to power generation companies which can see a very direct benefit in profits by increasing their efficiency even by 1% (This would equate to billions of dollars), since car manufacturers don't foot the bill for the fuel, there is no built-in incentive until oil pricing (perhaps due to supply) become catastrophically high. But since a primary objective is reducing CO2, by the time that happens, we will have done more damage and make it much more difficult to reach the goal they have in mind now.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Cat-backs were illegal in RI, which had adopted some of California's retarded laws. Just ask the cop that wrote me the ticket.

I'm sort of indifferent on this issue. I see the points from both sides, and tend to agree with most of them. I also forsee us pissing off some major oil countries at some point, and the price of oil hiking dramatically overnight, and everyone and their brother complaining about gas prices and asking the government for help (does anyone remember 2008? Everyone and their brother was bitching about gas prices).

Then there's the largest transfer of wealth in human history thing. Also not good. As someone that can afford the $2000 premium for new cars (and will appreciate the savings in the long run), I think the benefits outweigh the cons. Not to mention if all the cars that they come out with suck balls, I have the mechanical ability and know-how to keep my fun cars going more or less indefinitely. Let the masses (the majority of whom aren't auto enthusiasts) drive their boringmobiles til the cows come home. Most new cars already suck anyway. Might as well make them suck and be super efficient at the same time.

[AZhitman]

Catback exhausts are not illegal in CA.

You're correct, but...

None of the cars I have owned that have had catback systems ever got rejected at a smog station.

...that's not a great defense. (I had to go look it up again)

They are subject, however, to a 95-decibel limit.

[themadscientist]

My car gets inspected every two years over here. It passes every year. Most recently it passed with flying colors on the emmissions test. It had no engine.....

[Jesda]

But popular demand doesn't discriminate. Ford, GM, and Chrysler all saw the same writing on the wall as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. They made their choices.

You're speaking of Japanese manufacturers without context. Japanese fuel prices have always been higher, giving consumers an incentive to mitigate costs by demanding smaller, lighter vehicles. American fuel prices have always been significantly lower.

The "writing on the wall" was not the same -- Japan was already building small cars for its home market and exported them here as demand for them appeared. US manufacturers, in addition to responding to oil price spikes, were forced by CAFE to very suddenly change their entire product portfolios.

Instead of instituting a bureaucracy that moves slower than the pace of technology, the US could have used fuel taxes, rising gradually over time, to curb consumption and encourage greater efficiency -- not that I favor such a thing.

Additionally, CAFE's light truck loophole encouraged the development of high-profit, passenger-friendly SUVs, satisfying consumer demand for larger automobiles during periods of economic growth while US manufacturers were incentivized to build piss-poor small cars merely to satisfy CAFE standards. (You ever wonder why the J-body stuck around for so long? It wasn't just GM being GM.)

Large cars and wagons like the V8-powered GM B and D bodies, capable of 25mpg+ on the highway, were phased out as consumers transitioned to Blazers, Suburbans, Explorers, etc, most of which, in the 1990s, were capable of no more than 17mpg.

Full size passenger cars were capable of 25mpg but adversely affected CAFE compliance, while 17mpg SUVs enjoyed a CAFE loophole. Goodbye Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. Hello Escalade.


I strongly recommend picking up a copy of Bob Lutz's latest book, "Car Guys vs Bean Counters", for a more thorough explanation.

CAFE isn't 100% at fault for what transpired over the last three decades, but it plays a significant role, and to deny it would be silly.

[IBCoupe]

Nearly all engine modifications are illegal in CA (unless CARB-approved, which is rare and expensive). This includes such silliness as cold air intakes and catback exhausts.

The market for such mods in CA is strong. Stronger than in states which prohibit said items.

Having been a member of SEMA for 10 years, yes, the market does what the market wants to do regardless of legal requirements placed on it.

And yet, automakers still comply with the standards, even though there's clearly a demand for cars that violate them. Hmmm.

[AZhitman]

The "market" still consists of more than automakers.

Of course they comply. Nowhere did I insinuate that they didn't.

You can't have an H2 and a CTS-V in the lineup unless you manufacture a lot of Aveos. All they have to do is play the averages.

[IBCoupe]

You're speaking of Japanese manufacturers without context. Japanese fuel prices have always been higher, giving consumers an incentive to mitigate costs by demanding smaller, lighter vehicles. American fuel prices have always been significantly lower.

The "writing on the wall" was not the same -- Japan was already building small cars for its home market and exported them here as demand for them appeared. US manufacturers, in addition to responding to oil price spikes, were forced by CAFE to very suddenly change their entire product portfolios.

Instead of instituting a bureaucracy that moves slower than the pace of technology, the US could have used fuel taxes, rising gradually over time, to curb consumption and encourage greater efficiency -- not that I favor such a thing.

Additionally, CAFE's light truck loophole encouraged the development of high-profit, passenger-friendly SUVs, satisfying consumer demand for larger automobiles during periods of economic growth while US manufacturers were incentivized to build piss-poor small cars merely to satisfy CAFE standards. (You ever wonder why the J-body stuck around for so long? It wasn't just GM being GM.)

Large cars and wagons like the V8-powered GM B and D bodies, capable of 25mpg+ on the highway, were phased out as consumers transitioned to Blazers, Suburbans, Explorers, etc, most of which, in the 1990s, were capable of no more than 17mpg.

Full size passenger cars were capable of 25mpg but adversely affected CAFE compliance, while 17mpg SUVs enjoyed a CAFE loophole. Goodbye Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. Hello Escalade.


I strongly recommend picking up a copy of Bob Lutz's latest book, "Car Guys vs Bean Counters", for a more thorough explanation.

CAFE isn't 100% at fault for what transpired over the last three decades, but it plays a significant role, and to deny it would be silly.

Absent CAFE, they'd still be wrung out by the Japanese and European competitors, in maybe just a few short years. I'm not buying that CAFE had anything to do with the decline of American Auto. That's wonderful Detroit propaganda, but it doesn't stand up to the smell test. Does it suck that American automakers had to deal with a changing world, where our oil reliance ceased resembling Saudi Arabia's and began resembling Japan's? Yeah, it did suck. But demanding efficiency as a policy to ease the pain from oil shortages was only jump-starting a shift that they'd have to do eventually, anyways. And that's often what government regulations are for.

In New England, we're no longer allowed to fish Cod. Hopefully they'll come back to a sustainable level, but we've fished them to a point where we can't afford to fish them anymore, or else we'll never get to again. They're still out there, but regulations have forced us to reconcile a fact that would have hit us eventually: while the wild Atlantic Cod is not literally extinct, it is commercially extinct. This happened with pacific sardines in 1968, and will likely happen in the next few years with tuna.

"The markets will regulate themselves" is often what we're told by people who really don't understand how markets work when it comes to environmental regulation (or, really, much regulation at all). Yes, it's true that eventually there will exist incentives for coal-burners to curb their pollution: when enough people become sick enough that their ailments become traceable to coal pollution that they can cause enough of a stink and enough pain to the various coal-burners, the coal-burners will clean themselves up just enough to avoid liability. The point of having the government require them to clean up is to avoid the sickness in the first place.

I recognize that folks have different priorities when it comes to regulation (economic growth, individual health, "small government," etc.), but I'm hoping that none of this was new to you folks. I'd like to think that people who rail against regulation at least understand why it's done in the first place.

CAFE existed because no American automaker had an incentive to be the first American automaker to take the somewhat expensive steps of making their cars more efficient. They could ride on the coattails of "not foreign" for a while, and as long as no American automaker was of markedly better quality than the other, there wasn't a need for any of them to keep up. Oil crises come and go, but they'll keep coming, and the government has an interest in getting people to and from work more than the automakers do. A slow year for automakers means fewer cars and angrier shareholders. A slow year for government means a budget crisis: unpaid soldiers, missed social security checks, and massive unemployment (be it from government employees or employees related to government contracts).

Massive gas station line and oil shortages are something that automakers can shrug at. It affects the people who have already bought cars, and theoretically, there's time to convince them to come back by the time they're ready to trade in. The hit to productivity alone (nevermind the drain that increased fuel prices have on the economy) is cause for panic in Washington, D.C. and in State capitals all over the country.

[IBCoupe]

The "market" still consists of more than automakers.

Of course they comply. Nowhere did I insinuate that they didn't.

You can't have an H2 and a CTS-V in the lineup unless you manufacture a lot of Aveos. All they have to do is play the averages.

Right, but they're still complying. Absent the CAFE standards, would they make Aveos? Sure, Americans who are in the market for a car in the middle of an oil crisis will buy a more efficient car, but our societal ADD prevents us from behaving rationally at all times. Think about it: every summer we hear, "IT'S SO HOT, EGADS, GLOBAL WARMING." Every winter, we hear, "IT'S SO COLD, LOL, GLOBAL WARMING."

If American auto-manufacturers weren't forced to keep up, would they? Eventually, they might, if an oil crisis continues long enough. But only after they'd suffered enough pain to make it worthwhile, and only to the extent that it eases the pain. We pass regulations to head the pain off at the pass.

[AZhitman]

Perhaps we shouldn't.

Last I heard, Hyundai / Kia (and Mercedes) are doing amazing things in Alabama. Nissan has been doing great work in Tennessee. Honda has reinvigorated mid-Ohio. BMW has been stimulating the SC economy for nearly 20 years....

[IBCoupe]

Well, okay.

[C-Kwik]

Cat-backs were illegal in RI, which had adopted some of California's retarded laws. Just ask the cop that wrote me the ticket.

Regardless of what emissions Laws RI decided to adopt from CA, the cat-back one was of their own doing. Can't blame us this time around.

Catback exhausts are not illegal in CA.

You're correct, but...

None of the cars I have owned that have had catback systems ever got rejected at a smog station.

...that's not a great defense. (I had to go look it up again)

They are subject, however, to a 95-decibel limit.

Assuming you are talking about a legal defense, I'd simply cite the fact that there is no law that explicitly prohibits cat-back systems. My point was simply that smog stations simply do not fail a car for having a cat-back system.

The 95 dB limit applies to all exhausts including factory exhausts. Its not a ban on cat-backs in general, nor is it an emissions standard. Its a noise limit.

[Jesda]

You're speaking of Japanese manufacturers without context. Japanese fuel prices have always been higher, giving consumers an incentive to mitigate costs by demanding smaller, lighter vehicles. American fuel prices have always been significantly lower.

The "writing on the wall" was not the same -- Japan was already building small cars for its home market and exported them here as demand for them appeared. US manufacturers, in addition to responding to oil price spikes, were forced by CAFE to very suddenly change their entire product portfolios.

Instead of instituting a bureaucracy that moves slower than the pace of technology, the US could have used fuel taxes, rising gradually over time, to curb consumption and encourage greater efficiency -- not that I favor such a thing.

Additionally, CAFE's light truck loophole encouraged the development of high-profit, passenger-friendly SUVs, satisfying consumer demand for larger automobiles during periods of economic growth while US manufacturers were incentivized to build piss-poor small cars merely to satisfy CAFE standards. (You ever wonder why the J-body stuck around for so long? It wasn't just GM being GM.)

Large cars and wagons like the V8-powered GM B and D bodies, capable of 25mpg+ on the highway, were phased out as consumers transitioned to Blazers, Suburbans, Explorers, etc, most of which, in the 1990s, were capable of no more than 17mpg.

Full size passenger cars were capable of 25mpg but adversely affected CAFE compliance, while 17mpg SUVs enjoyed a CAFE loophole. Goodbye Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. Hello Escalade.


I strongly recommend picking up a copy of Bob Lutz's latest book, "Car Guys vs Bean Counters", for a more thorough explanation.

CAFE isn't 100% at fault for what transpired over the last three decades, but it plays a significant role, and to deny it would be silly.

Absent CAFE, they'd still be wrung out by the Japanese and European competitors, in maybe just a few short years. I'm not buying that CAFE had anything to do with the decline of American Auto. That's wonderful Detroit propaganda, but it doesn't stand up to the smell test. Does it suck that American automakers had to deal with a changing world, where our oil reliance ceased resembling Saudi Arabia's and began resembling Japan's? Yeah, it did suck. But demanding efficiency as a policy to ease the pain from oil shortages was only jump-starting a shift that they'd have to do eventually, anyways. And that's often what government regulations are for.

In New England, we're no longer allowed to fish Cod. Hopefully they'll come back to a sustainable level, but we've fished them to a point where we can't afford to fish them anymore, or else we'll never get to again. They're still out there, but regulations have forced us to reconcile a fact that would have hit us eventually: while the wild Atlantic Cod is not literally extinct, it is commercially extinct. This happened with pacific sardines in 1968, and will likely happen in the next few years with tuna.

"The markets will regulate themselves" is often what we're told by people who really don't understand how markets work when it comes to environmental regulation (or, really, much regulation at all). Yes, it's true that eventually there will exist incentives for coal-burners to curb their pollution: when enough people become sick enough that their ailments become traceable to coal pollution that they can cause enough of a stink and enough pain to the various coal-burners, the coal-burners will clean themselves up just enough to avoid liability. The point of having the government require them to clean up is to avoid the sickness in the first place.

I recognize that folks have different priorities when it comes to regulation (economic growth, individual health, "small government," etc.), but I'm hoping that none of this was new to you folks. I'd like to think that people who rail against regulation at least understand why it's done in the first place.

CAFE existed because no American automaker had an incentive to be the first American automaker to take the somewhat expensive steps of making their cars more efficient. They could ride on the coattails of "not foreign" for a while, and as long as no American automaker was of markedly better quality than the other, there wasn't a need for any of them to keep up. Oil crises come and go, but they'll keep coming, and the government has an interest in getting people to and from work more than the automakers do. A slow year for automakers means fewer cars and angrier shareholders. A slow year for government means a budget crisis: unpaid soldiers, missed social security checks, and massive unemployment (be it from government employees or employees related to government contracts).

Massive gas station line and oil shortages are something that automakers can shrug at. It affects the people who have already bought cars, and theoretically, there's time to convince them to come back by the time they're ready to trade in. The hit to productivity alone (nevermind the drain that increased fuel prices have on the economy) is cause for panic in Washington, D.C. and in State capitals all over the country.

Youre mischaracterizing CAFE as proactive rather than reactive, and using that to justify not only CAFE but the existence of regulations of any sort. Regulation is often reactive.

The events leading to CAFE predate you and me, so its forgivable to forget the dates.

In 1973, the oil embargo sent oil prices through the roof. By the middle of the decade, CAFE was authored and became law. It took effect at the end of the decade.

Now, your point that CAFE didnt immediately put a strain on US automakers is indeed correct. But the legislation created in the 1970s has a far-reaching unintended effect on the choices of American consumers and the Big Three manufacturers.

In the late 1970s, somewhere over 85% of the automobiles sold in America were passenger cars rather than light trucks. Today, light trucks make up more than half of cars and trucks sold.

Small passenger cars continued to be produced (or imported and sold under domestic nameplates) because of CAFE, but the lack of real or significant demand for small cars by the public meant that little investment was made into producing anything competitive -- small cars were built for poor people, especially because there was little financial consequence to driving a Ford Explorer when gas was only 90 cents per gallon. Only recently, with the settling of gasoline prices at over $3, have consumers demanded high quality and creature comforts from lighter, smaller cars.

(Small cars have also increased in size, with today's Ford Focus as spacious as the Honda Accord from decades ago).


CAFE rules had the unintended consequence of disincentivizing the production of more efficient large cars in favor of less efficient small trucks. To remedy this, changes to CAFE were proposed to treat light trucks like other passenger cars, but the changes were proposed in 2011, decades too late -- a reactive rather than proactive move by slow-moving, technologically ignorant regulators.

Fuel prices soared in 2008, automakers developed competitive small cars to satisfy demand, and as of October the Ohio-built Chevy Cruze was the #1 selling car in America, and a profitable one too -- it costs considerably more than the Cavalier did. All of this took place prior to and without the 2011 light truck revisions to CAFE, evidence of regulation being reactive rather than proactive.

The market will eventually do what it wants, regardless of whether we're discussing large automobiles, abortions, or drugs. I understand your view, your belief that they play a role in creating production incentives that may not naturally exist in a free and open market, but understand that it is impossible for a central authority to effectively manage something as large and vast as the auto industry.


And then there's NHTSA vs CAFE, another headache for another thread.



I strongly suggest reading Lutz's latest book. It's revealing, frightening, and maddening to see how Chrysler and GM operated prior to their collapse. He also details his time at Ford and BMW.

[AZhitman]

re: C-Kwik - Understood.

Now, if you guys would just make the testing stations state-run (like AZ) rather than independently-owned and operated, perhaps the emissions laws wouldn't be such a sham.

And they are, indeed, a sham.

[C-Kwik]

re: C-Kwik - Understood.

Now, if you guys would just make the testing stations state-run (like AZ) rather than independently-owned and operated, perhaps the emissions laws wouldn't be such a sham.

And they are, indeed, a sham.

Elaborate.

[AZhitman]

If I can bribe someone to pass my illegally-modified car, it's a sham.

If I can take it to my buddy who works for a testing station and he can pass my gross polluter, it's a sham.

If there aren't safeguards in place to prevent fraud and ensure integrity in the testing process, it's a sham.

[IBCoupe]

Youre mischaracterizing CAFE as proactive rather than reactive, and using that to justify not only CAFE but the existence of regulations of any sort. Regulation is often reactive.

Of course it's reactive; Congress isn't composed of fortune-tellers. But it was reactive to something that could foreseeably happen again, and in that case it was entirely proactive. To look at it from your perspective, yours is an understatement: in that view, regulation is only reactive, regardless of its intended effect on the future. In reality, government responds to pressures it detects, and the only purely reactive response would have been to declare war on the OPEC nations and invade them all.

In 1973, the oil embargo sent oil prices through the roof. By the middle of the decade, CAFE was authored and became law. It took effect at the end of the decade.

And the amount of oil we've imported annually has only gone up since then. It dropped significantly in the last recession, but it's on its way up. Do you think it's entirely out of the question that the federal government might have worried about future crises?



That CAFE was instituted in response to a severe oil crisis is not really worth mentioning: it supports the reality that Congress didn't want it to happen again. Connecticut just got hit hard - 750,000 without power for two weeks after Irene, and 850,000 without power for two weeks after the Halloween Nor'Easter. When I tell you that the Connecticut state government is looking to adjust regulations (and its own internal disaster-response mechanisms), do you think it's of any import to that assertion that Connecticut is doing so in response to record outages?

[much supporting history]

...

CAFE rules had the unintended consequence of disincentivizing the production of more efficient large cars in favor of less efficient small trucks. To remedy this, changes to CAFE were proposed to treat light trucks like other passenger cars, but the changes were proposed in 2011, decades too late -- a reactive rather than proactive move by slow-moving, technologically ignorant regulators.

Because the government was operating under a different set of priorities - they created the loophole to prevent harm to farmers and businessmen. Was it a mistake? Maybe, but it's not like the exemption actually meant that light trucks weren't regulated:

Light truck fuel economy requirements were first established for MY 1979 (17.2 mpg for 2-wheel drive models; 15.8 mpg for 4-wheel drive). Standards for MY 1979 light trucks were established for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less. Standards for MY 1980 and beyond are for light trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. The light truck standard progressively increased from MY 1979 to 20.7 mpg and 19.1 mpg, respectively, by MY 1991. From MY 1982 through 1991, manufacturers were allowed to comply by either combining 2- and 4-wheel drive fleets or calculating their fuel economy separately. In MY 1992, the 2- and 4-wheel drive fleet distinction was eliminated, and fleets were required to meet a standard of 20.2 mpg. The standard progressively increased until 1996, when the Appropriations prohibition froze the requirement at 20.7 mpg. The freeze was lifted by Congress on December 18, 2001. On March 31, 2003, NHTSA issued new light truck standards, setting a standard of 21.0 mpg for MY 2005, 21.6 mpg for MY 2006, and 22.2 mpg for MY 2007.

The NHSTA is directed by the CAFE act to actually actively seek out what the "maximum feasible fuel economy standards" are for light trucks, and they're not counted towards the fleet average. That doesn't get anybody off the hook - trucks must still meet certain requirements, and cars must still

Fuel prices soared in 2008, automakers developed competitive small cars to satisfy demand, and as of October the Ohio-built Chevy Cruze was the #1 selling car in America, and a profitable one too -- it costs considerably more than the Cavalier did. All of this took place prior to and without the 2011 light truck revisions to CAFE, evidence of regulation being reactive rather than proactive.

First: no, the fact that regulation is done in response to things that could happen again is what makes regulation reactive rather than proactive. I'm not sure what you think that means. Second: the cost of the car doesn't give you the profitability on the car. Third: I think what you're leaving out is that American automakers have never been hit with fines for being out of code with CAFE, since the 1980's. So, either CAFE's worked, or Congress low-balled it.

I'm convinced it's a little bit of both. Every time Congress goes to the automakers (or any regulated entity, really) and says, "Jump this high," automakers respond, "We can't." Congress replies, "You can." They protest, "Not at that price." Congress says, "Just do it," and then they do without trouble, without raising prices, leaving the rest of us to wonder what just happened. They have the capability to do it, and they have the capability to do it reasonably cheaply, but they're not going to take it upon themselves to do it on their own: the tragedy of the commons. It's in no one's best interest to be the first to bump up their bottom line (or fish less).

The market will eventually do what it wants, regardless of whether we're discussing large automobiles, abortions, or drugs. I understand your view, your belief that they play a role in creating production incentives that may not naturally exist in a free and open market, but understand that it is impossible for a central authority to effectively manage something as large and vast as the auto industry.

Manage it? Nobody's trying to manage it. That's not how regulatory bodies work. The EPA sets standards. They don't give a hoot as to how you meet the standards, just that you do. The NHSTA doesn't care how you make the math work so that the average of all your cars sold gets to be better than 27.5 mpg (or 23.0, for light trucks), just that you do. Government isn't interested in managing innovation, just creating additional incentives for it to happen now. If car-makers want to go even better, great! But they don't.

2010 is last year for which there are full numbers. For their domestic cars, GM hit 30.8mpg. For their light trucks, GM hit 25.5mpg. In 2008, it was 29.6, and 23.2mpg, respectively. In 2007, they hit 30.0mpg and 22.4mpg, respectively. In 2006: 29.9, and 22.8 (over a 21.6 LT standard). In 2005: 29.3 and 21.8 (over a 21.0 LT standard). In 2004: 29.3 and 21.4 (over a 20.7 LT standard).

Let me illustrate:


Given that the 27.5mpg standard was established in 1985, what do you think that says about GM's willingness to innovate to improve fuel economy absent government pressure? 26 years and they're still hovering at roughly 3mpg higher than Congress demanded of them? And a set of truck lines that adheres to regulatory requirements? That seems to map pretty darned well, wouldn't you say?

[IBCoupe]

Data in that graph was me typing it up from this PDF: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulema ... Public.pdf

[AZhitman]

Every time Congress goes to the automakers (or any regulated entity, really) and says, "Jump this high," automakers respond, "We can't." Congress replies, "You can." They protest, "Not at that price." Congress says, "Just do it," and then a shiny new F350 shows up at Congressman Jones's ranch. Suddenly, the numbers are adjusted, automakers comply without trouble, without raising prices, leaving those of us who followed the negotiations from their inception to wonder what just happened.

FTFY.

[IBCoupe]

Well, yes. That's a problem, too.

I want to be a Congressman. Then it won't be a problem anymore.

[AZhitman]

LA

BEE

YIST

(we haz dem)

[IBCoupe]

Took me a little while to figure it out. I think I need to start playing Mad Gab.

I'M A LOVE MACHINE

[C-Kwik]

If I can bribe someone to pass my illegally-modified car, it's a sham.

If I can take it to my buddy who works for a testing station and he can pass my gross polluter, it's a sham.

If there aren't safeguards in place to prevent fraud and ensure integrity in the testing process, it's a sham.

Fraud can occur in any field. Happens in insurance all the time. Bet you still have insurance. By and large, most people follow the rules and/or have no access to getting around the regulations. That said, there are some levels of safeguards in place. Vehicles are randomly chosen to be required to go to smog-only stations. Smog-only stations are a little more concerned about getting caught passing cars that shouldn't. Unlike repair shops that happen to also be licensed to do smog tests, smog-only stations have no other revenue generation to fall back on. Is it 100% effective? Nope. Does it balance the costs of preventing fraud with having effective results on reducing the number of polluters on the road? Likely.

Perhaps state run inspections would be more difficult to bypass. But are you saying that a government run agency is more efficient than private businesses?