New CAFE standards: $157 billion.

[AZhitman]

The Obama administration says its proposal to require automakers to boost the average fuel economy of their vehicles to 49.6 miles per gallon in 2025 from 35.5 mpg in 2016 would cost the auto industry $157 billion. The government estimates the standard would cut America’s demand for imported oil by 25% and save consumers as much as $491 billion on fuel.

The technology to meet the new standards would add about $2,000 to the cost of the average vehicle from 2016 to 2025, according to the proposed rule published yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The agencies estimate that consumers would save $5,200-$6,600 on fuel over the lifetime of a vehicle purchased in 2025. The estimate assumes gasoline prices remain near current levels.

The proposal adds details to a plan that the administration and most major automakers in the U.S. market agreed to in July. Fuel economy targets vary by vehicle size, and the smallest models must meet the most stringent requirements.

The per-vehicle cost increase from 2016 to 2025 would vary by manufacturer from as low as $1,500 for Kia and Toyota to as high as $5,000 for Porsche and $7,100 for Ferrari. The administration estimates the cost of meeting the standard would average $2,000 at Chrysler and General Motors and $2,200 at Ford.

EPA and NHTSA estimate the rules would lower average carbon dioxide emissions per vehicle to 163 grams per mile. That is the equivalent to 54.5 mpg—a figure the White House has been touting since it unveiled the initial proposal five months ago. But the agencies noted yesterday that the higher mileage figure includes CO2 reductions that don’t directly affect a vehicle’s fuel efficiency, such as reduced leakage from the air-conditioning system.

The rule is now open for a 60-day comment period. The EPA and NHTSA also plan to hold public hearings in Detroit, Philadelphia and San Francisco in January. The administration aims to publish the final rule next July.

PDF file of NHTSA’s nine-page summary of the proposed rule

892-page proposal posted on NHTSA’s Web site

[IanS]

Hold on, hold on, let me get my flame suit on.

Ok here goes.

This is a good thing...... Yep, I said it, good. At least that is the way I see it. Now normally a car that gets great gas mileage is as far from fun as you can get, but I think that is a dieing thought.

Efficiency is a good thing. I think that as technology is pioneered, it will be used not only to make cars far more efficiency, but also more powerful. Just because a bunch of retards want to drive Prissie (plural for Prius) doesn't mean they are forcing them on all of us. Not yet at least.

Look at the new mustang. Its V6 makes more power then most of the past V8 models.

The ICE is a giant heat pump, and as companies figure out how to make better use of that energy, the technology will be shared. There will always be guys like us who look at the stuff the hippies are dorking up, and think I wonder what happens if I use that for more power, instead of better gas mileage.

Forced induction, variable valve timing, high compression, direct injection, light weight.

All of these things are efficiency boosters. But in the right hands, we all know what can be done with them.

Keep pushing the car makers figure out how to do things a little better, and someone just might hit the jackpot.

[Kompresshun]

^ I'm with Ian. If they keep making it easy for the automakers to get around, then we will never get anywhere.

[asoomal]

^^

Strongly Agree.

If the government had not done anything in the 70's and 80's, we would still be driving inefficient carbureted vehicles with points and condenser type ignition systems. Not saying that they sucked, just not very efficient.

This is what will push automakers to create much more efficient engines, more power and less mpg's.

Just take a look at the recent diesel technologies, emissions, reliability and power wise too. They are way more efficient than before and consume a lot less fuel than before and run a hell of a lot cleaner too.

[AZhitman]

If the government had not done anything in the 70's and 80's, we would still be driving inefficient carbureted vehicles with points and condenser type ignition systems. Not saying that they sucked, just not very efficient.

Not necessarily true.

Consumers demanded smaller, more efficient vehicles before CAFE went into effect. Look at the Corvair (GM's answer to the popularity of small imports). Every decade since the 50's, there's been a blip of interest in efficiency.

I wouldn't credit the gov't with bringing about efficiency improvements.

My 60's Datsuns get 30+ mpg. A properly-tuned small-displacement car with the proper gearing can run as efficiently as a modern car.

I don't disagree with the proposal, but I have concerns - namely:

- What will they "package in" with this that will affect owners of classic vehicles?
- Who's going to absorb the costs? The consumer. (forget that feel-good part about how much fuel you'll save, that should be a personal choice)
- Why can't they just let market demand drive improvements? Restricting choices is never a good thing.

[Jesda]

^^

Strongly Agree.

If the government had not done anything in the 70's and 80's, we would still be driving inefficient carbureted vehicles with points and condenser type ignition systems. Not saying that they sucked, just not very efficient.

This is what will push automakers to create much more efficient engines, more power and less mpg's.

The sudden increase in the cost of fuel in the 1970s created consumer demand for smaller and more efficient cars. Instead of giving automakers time to transition, CAFE stepped in to accelerate the process. This resulted in low-quality domestic compact cars that sent an entire generation of consumers running to Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. Arguably, even without CAFE, some of those turds would have hit the market anyway, but without the pressure of federal regulation, development times may have been extended to improve on quality.

And it wasn't CAFE that sent truck and SUV sales spiraling in 2008. It was fuel prices.

In other words, the market is mostly able to regulate itself by adjusting to changes in demand. It is a bit absurd to say that without CAFE, we'd still be driving carbureted vehicles.

That's like trying to say that without the government banning 486 processors (obviously they didnt, just creating a hypothetical), you would still be buying them, forced to play Simcity 2000 forever.

[Hijacker]

Simcity 2000 was the best in the series though

[AZhitman]

The sudden increase in the cost of fuel in the 1970s created consumer demand for smaller and more efficient cars. Instead of giving automakers time to transition, CAFE stepped in to accelerate the process. This resulted in low-quality domestic compact cars that sent an entire generation of consumers running to Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. Arguably, even without CAFE, some of those turds would have hit the market anyway, but without the pressure of federal regulation, development times may have been extended to improve on quality.

And it wasn't CAFE that sent truck and SUV sales spiraling in 2008. It was fuel prices.

In other words, the market is mostly able to regulate itself by adjusting to changes in demand. It is a bit absurd to say that without CAFE, we'd still be driving carbureted vehicles.

That's like trying to say that without the government banning 486 processors (obviously they didnt, just creating a hypothetical), you would still be buying them, forced to play Simcity 2000 forever.

Thank you.

^ What he said.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Efficiency is a good thing. I think that as technology is pioneered, it will be used not only to make cars far more efficiency, but also more powerful. Just because a bunch of retards want to drive Prissie (plural for Prius) doesn't mean they are forcing them on all of us. Not yet at least.

This is all true, but government regulation is not the way to make it happen. Arbitrary numbers and average fuel economy are a stupid, misguided approach. Consumer demand will take care of the tech advancement, just as it has in every other aspect of the automobile since the dawn of its existence. People want small cars. They will buy small cars. Look at VW, who is PANICKING because their most efficient Jetta does 20-something combined while everyone else is doing 30-something. You don't think VW is panicking because of CAFE, do you? They're not. They're panicking because there are 6 other brands out there making 30-40mpg econocars that aren't piles of s***, and everyone is buying those instead of the Jetta.

Also, ignoring ALL of that, the ENTIRE GORRAM WORLD needs to take a step back and realize that THERE IS MORE TO AN AUTOMOBILE THAN FUEL CONSUMPTION. There always has been. There always will be. No matter who is supplying the fuel or what the fuel is, there will ALWAY be more to the car than that ONE SINGLE thing. It CANNOT be allowed to become the centerpoint of all things automotive.

[300ZXttZMAN]

If the government had not done anything in the 70's and 80's, we would still be driving inefficient carbureted vehicles with points and condenser type ignition systems. Not saying that they sucked, just not very efficient.

Not necessarily true.

Consumers demanded smaller, more efficient vehicles before CAFE went into effect. Look at the Corvair (GM's answer to the popularity of small imports). Every decade since the 50's, there's been a blip of interest in efficiency.

I wouldn't credit the gov't with bringing about efficiency improvements.

My 60's Datsuns get 30+ mpg. A properly-tuned small-displacement car with the proper gearing can run as efficiently as a modern car.

I don't disagree with the proposal, but I have concerns - namely:

- What will they "package in" with this that will affect owners of classic vehicles?
- Who's going to absorb the costs? The consumer. (forget that feel-good part about how much fuel you'll save, that should be a personal choice)
- Why can't they just let market demand drive improvements? Restricting choices is never a good thing.

I agree ^^^

Something to add though would about all the ppl that get like 20mpg on our highly modified engines/cars...

Don't know about yall but im not a fan of driving an econbox over my Z... They would have to kill me if they said i couldn't drive my Z on the street anymore (obviously I know the gov won't do that)

[Dattebayo]

Good points, but I think the spirit of the regulation is in light of the fact that we have a finite amount of oil in the world, not to take away our enjoyment of powerful cars or to ignore a market that can [eventually] regulate it's self...

Maybe your kids' kids might get to enjoy the power of an internal combustion vehicle, too, if we move to driving an economy box with ridiculous fuel mileage regularly.

[themadscientist]

President unveils 2025 CAFE-compliant Mustang prototype.

[Jesda]

Good points, but I think the spirit of the regulation is in light of the fact that we have a finite amount of oil in the world

Perhaps, but the regulation itself is a nuisance rather than a contributor.

The market responds to high oil prices by

1) Drilling in challenging places that require more expensive methods
2) Development of alternative energy
3) Producing consumer goods that use less energy
4) Consumers adjust their choices accordingly

CAFE is there to give politicians a reason to feel like they've done something.

[AZhitman]

Amen.

Too bad we hired the wrong brown guy.

[Jesda]

I refer to Barry as beige or ecru to avoid any association.

[AZhitman]

You are a wise and handsome man.

[Jesda]

[Dattebayo]

2) Development of alternative energy
3) Producing consumer goods that use less energy
4) Consumers adjust their choices accordingly

While some consumers can adjust to whatever they need, 2 and 3 have only started becoming readily available because of regulation in the first place.
Or maybe you consider that we don't need 2 and 3 quite yet, right? The idea is to not be completely unprepared for the end of oil, I always understood. Some people might consider it as a way to keep the big boys in business without disrupting the business, too. All I know is that it will make it easier for the masses to change when the need arises.

[Jesda]

2) Development of alternative energy
3) Producing consumer goods that use less energy
4) Consumers adjust their choices accordingly

While some consumers can adjust to whatever they need, 2 and 3 have only started becoming readily available because of regulation in the first place.
Or maybe you consider that we don't need 2 and 3 quite yet, right? The idea is to not be completely unprepared for the end of oil, I always understood. Some people might consider it as a way to keep the big boys in business without disrupting the business, too. All I know is that it will make it easier for the masses to change when the need arises.

The end of oil won't magically happen one day and shock us. It will be a ramp up every year to higher and higher crude prices as supplies dwindle.

For example, let's say you sold lemons. As you ran out of lemons, and as the world ran out of lemons, you would charge more and more for each subsequent lemon until they were depleted. Likewise, the market would adjust to the loss of lemons over time by developing citrus alternatives. The more limited the supply of lemons, the more R&D from private funding goes unto alternative citrus development.

[Jesda]

I'm quite drunk, so I apologize for being unclear and such.

I might fire up Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and shoot all the hipsters in San Fiero.

[AZhitman]

We will never run out of lemons.

Similarly, we might run out of "easy" oil. But don't let the hand-wringers fool you - There's a LOT of oil left.

[audtatious]

Wonder if DOT/etc during the same timeframe will require new and heavier safety standards......

[IBCoupe]

The sudden increase in the cost of fuel in the 1970s created consumer demand for smaller and more efficient cars. Instead of giving automakers time to transition, CAFE stepped in to accelerate the process. This resulted in low-quality domestic compact cars that sent an entire generation of consumers running to Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. Arguably, even without CAFE, some of those turds would have hit the market anyway, but without the pressure of federal regulation, development times may have been extended to improve on quality.

And it wasn't CAFE that sent truck and SUV sales spiraling in 2008. It was fuel prices.

In other words, the market is mostly able to regulate itself by adjusting to changes in demand. It is a bit absurd to say that without CAFE, we'd still be driving carbureted vehicles.

That's like trying to say that without the government banning 486 processors (obviously they didnt, just creating a hypothetical), you would still be buying them, forced to play Simcity 2000 forever.

As someday we will run out of oil, you're right in that the markets will find an alternative because price will drive demand. Can't say when it will happen, but there's no doubt in that someday it will happen.

The point of government regulation is to make it happen before then, because there might just be other things driving our desire to get out of oil. It may be insufficient to that task, and the regulations may have unintended consequences, but the notion that the market does what the market wants to do regardless of legal requirements placed on it is silly.

[Dattebayo]

As someday we will run out of oil, you're right in that the markets will find an alternative because price will drive demand.

The point of government regulation is to make it happen before then, because there might just be other things driving our desire to get out of oil.

And my point is related to this for these reasons:

When steam gave way to gas powered engines, how long did it take to get the technology up to it's current state so that we had the level of efficiency that we do now?
Consider that the average car NOW has roughly 15% efficiency, some of the higher end ones are only at 30%.
Think about the fact that every type of alternative fuel we have found so far that doesn't involve oil somehow has far less energy than gas.
Then think for a minute about how bringing in these new, less energetic fuel types might cause a whole bunch of trouble if they aren't developed enough to be a real alternative to gas.
You could say all you want to about how the government could simply test these new alternatives in a lab, but you and I both know that lab tests and experiments with beta materials and devices are far from real-world, trial and error know-how.

I think that the gov is just thinking 100 years in advance of the problem for the good of the general public. I can't see the downside to being prepared like that!

[IBCoupe]

NINJA SKILLS

And chances are, the oil companies see the future as well as the government does. They're probably investing, though the government have an interest in easing the transition more than the oil companies do, so the Government might be more eager to bring the fruit of those investments to bear on the market earlier, rather than later.

Oil companies have an incentive to suck the life out of oil, and then move onto the next technology. The government has an incentive in not promoting the sudden market shifts that come with that sort of thing.

[Jesda]

The sudden increase in the cost of fuel in the 1970s created consumer demand for smaller and more efficient cars. Instead of giving automakers time to transition, CAFE stepped in to accelerate the process. This resulted in low-quality domestic compact cars that sent an entire generation of consumers running to Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. Arguably, even without CAFE, some of those turds would have hit the market anyway, but without the pressure of federal regulation, development times may have been extended to improve on quality.

And it wasn't CAFE that sent truck and SUV sales spiraling in 2008. It was fuel prices.

In other words, the market is mostly able to regulate itself by adjusting to changes in demand. It is a bit absurd to say that without CAFE, we'd still be driving carbureted vehicles.

That's like trying to say that without the government banning 486 processors (obviously they didnt, just creating a hypothetical), you would still be buying them, forced to play Simcity 2000 forever.

As someday we will run out of oil, you're right in that the markets will find an alternative because price will drive demand. Can't say when it will happen, but there's no doubt in that someday it will happen.

The point of government regulation is to make it happen before then, because there might just be other things driving our desire to get out of oil. It may be insufficient to that task, and the regulations may have unintended consequences, but the notion that the market does what the market wants to do regardless of legal requirements placed on it is silly.

And we come back years later to pay for those unintended consequences. The rapid decline of the domestic auto industry, partly self induced and partly caused by regulation, resulted in a significant decline in American manufacturing not just from automakers but from suppliers as well. Additionally, two of the three major us automakers required costly bailouts.

CAFE isnt 100% reponsible for what transpired over the last thirty years, but it plays a significant and damaging role.

Additionally, efficiency mandates have the unintended consequence of increasing consumption (cheaper fuel and higher efficiency reduce costs), exacerbating the original problem. Fuel taxes, however, have the opposite effect.

[Dattebayo]

Additionally, efficiency mandates have the unintended consequence of increasing consumption (cheaper fuel and higher efficiency reduce costs), exacerbating the original problem. Fuel taxes, however, have the opposite effect.

Fuel taxes are a short-term solution, when the taxes add up over the years, then what are we paying for? A lesson to teach the unwashed masses?

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...

[Jesda]

Additionally, efficiency mandates have the unintended consequence of increasing consumption (cheaper fuel and higher efficiency reduce costs), exacerbating the original problem. Fuel taxes, however, have the opposite effect.

Fuel taxes are a short-term solution, when the taxes add up over the years, then what are we paying for? A lesson to teach the unwashed masses?

Im not an advocate of fuel taxes, but if your goal is to reduce consumption, thats a simpler, more direct, and more effective method than manipulating an entire industry. As for where fuel taxes go, they tend to fund transportation infrastructure.

Here in Missouri, a recent initiative requires a large percentage of fuel taxes to be used for building and maintaining roads and bridges. This prevents funds from being used for other departments. This state also has more bridges than any other in the union, and were finally seeing major overhauls.

[IBCoupe]

And we come back years later to pay for those unintended consequences. The rapid decline of the domestic auto industry, partly self induced and partly caused by regulation, resulted in a significant decline in American manufacturing not just from automakers but from suppliers as well. Additionally, two of the three major us automakers required costly bailouts.

CAFE isnt 100% reponsible for what transpired over the last thirty years, but it plays a significant and damaging role.

Additionally, efficiency mandates have the unintended consequence of increasing consumption (cheaper fuel and higher efficiency reduce costs), exacerbating the original problem. Fuel taxes, however, have the opposite effect.

Wait, that makes no sense at all. Increased CAFE standards are applied to any car sold domestically. The American auto manufacturers didn't get slaughtered by the Japanese because their cars were dirtier... CAFE isn't 100% responsible for the decline of the American auto manufacturers, you're right. It's also not even 1% responsible for it.

I'm in favor of increased efficiency (because the word efficiency makes my pants grow tighter), and fuel taxes. I don't see why we can't have both.

[IBCoupe]

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.