CAFE Objections: Big-3 + Even from Toyota

[rh77]

So, it turns out that the "Big-3", in addition to Toyota has a problem with the CAFE standards imposed in the U.S.

ARTICLE.

I'll let you be the judge of what's going on. FYI, if you will.

RH77

[repete86]

Typical. I don't know about other people, but I think that it's time for a boycott of new cars. The manufacturers and big oil are working very hard to ensure that great mileage cars are limited run cars or nonexistent in order to pretend that they care.

[The Toecutter]

I have a problem with them too. They're so ineffective as to render themselves unnessessary.

Just by lowering the drag coefficients of todays cars from .32 to .20, we could increase combined fuel economy by roughly 25%, with no engine, transmission, or tire modifications and no weight reduction. Adressing aerodynamics would add very little to the cost of a vehicle and if done right would not affect the vehicle's practicality. Hybrid drive trains, CVTs, LRR tires, diesel engines, and other advances would allow for even more gains.

One only needs to look at cars that have been built as prototypes to understand what is and isn't possible.

You may want to google search the following:

*Opel Eco Speedster(diesel), 94 mpg combined fuel economy, 160 mph top speed(electronically limited), 0-60 mph in 8.9 seconds, sports car

*GM Ultralite(gasoline), 88 mpg, 135 mph, 0-60 in 7.8 secs, compact

*Loremo LS(diesel), 157 mpg, 100 mph, 0-60 in 19 secs, sub-compact

*Loremo GT(diesel), 88 mpg, 138 mph, 0-60 in 9 secs, sub-compact

*VW 1 Litre(diesel), 235 mpg, 78 mph, sub-compact

*Jetcar 2.5(diesel), 87 mpg, 100 mph, sub-compact

*VW Lupo 3L(diesel), 79 mpg, 102 mph, 0-60 in 12.7 secs, compact

*Mercedes Bionic(diesel), 55 mpg, 118 mph, 0-60 in 7.9 secs, compact

*Ford Prodigy(diesel-electric), 72 mpg, 80 mph(lim), 0-60 in 12 secs, midsize

*GM Precept(diesel-electric), 80 mpg, 85 mph(lim), 0-60 in 11.5 secs, midsize

*Dodge Intrepid ESX3(diesel-electric), 72 mpg, 90 mph(lim), 0-60 in 11 secs, midsize

*VW Ecoracer(diesel), 69 mpg, 143 mph, 0-60 in 6.3 secs, sports car

*Audi A2 3L(diesel), 78 mpg, 105 mph, 0-60 in 13 secs, compact

*Renault Twingo SmILE(gasoline), 71 mpg, 93 mph, 0-60 in 14 secs, subcompact

*VW Wundercar II(diesel), 118 mpg, 112 mph, 0-60 in 12 secs, subcompact

*Vapor Fuel Technologies Alé(gasoline), 92 mpg, 140 mph, 0-60 in 5 secs, single person commuter

*Opel Astra ECO4(diesel), 54 mpg, 109 mpg, 0-60 in 13.5 secs, compact

*Mitsubishi i(gasoline), 62 mpg, 115 mph, 0-60 in 10.6 secs, sub-compact

The typical American midsize sedan accelerates 0-60 mph 10 seconds, tops 115 mph, and gets ~27 mpg on gasoline. Considering the above, isn't that embarassing?

Basically, we could have had since the 1990s 70 mpg midsize cars that do 0-60 mph in 11 seconds, 90+ mpg sports cars that top 160 mph, 80 mpg compact cars that perform adequately on the highway, and 150 mpg fuel misers. All with today's off the shelf technology. Even as far back as the 70s, by addressing aerodynamics, we could have had 30+ mpg V8 musclecars.

I'm not a big fan of regulations, but if they are to exist, at least make them effective. Either scrap the CAFE standard altogether, or make it an immediate 60+ mpg fleet average.

Admin edit: Next time you try to get around the profanity filters you'll find yourself with a temporary ban. It's not cute.

[repete86]

Originally Posted by The Toecutter

Tell those cunts in the auto industry to either give the consumers the fuel efficient cars they want, or to go fuck themselves. Tell the oil industry to fuck off. And tell this overbloated, useless piece of shit we call a government to stop giving the oil industry a rimjob.

Rock on, dude! I think that it's time for action. There are quite a few of us here, and we're all sick of this. Would anyone be interested in a "drive" on DC in which we all in a line hypermile in front of the Capitol? It would be different, and might grab attention. Show that with casual tinkering in our spare time, we've outdone the 'fuel efficient' hybrids in normal cars.

[Hockey4mnhs]

i would if my parents would let me considering that im 17. It would need to be in the summer which would help our case with the prices usally up.

[SVOboy]

Unfortunately, calling the automakers names won't get anything done. 300,000 people (including myself) marching in the capitol could not give the country second thought about waging war, what do you think a few people waving signs that say "**** you ****s" will do for environmentalists. I am certainly behind much, much stronger regulations, but I have very little respect for the opinions of people whose argument centers around rhetoric such as toecutter's.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I am certainly behind much, much stronger regulations, but I have very little respect for the opinions of people whose argument centers around rhetoric such as toecutter's.

All arguments are based on rhetoric. Those that aren't are usually called laws (phys), theorems, etc... And can stand on their own. That being said,

The reasonable being adapts to the world around him. The unreasonable being bends the world to their will.

Ranting about CAFE standards isn't reasonable, and protesting doesn't do much these days. A reasonable being would try to maximize the impact they have on the issues they care about. And imo, protesting and ranting don't do much...

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Unfortunately, calling the automakers names won't get anything done. 300,000 people (including myself) marching in the capitol could not give the country second thought about waging war, what do you think a few people waving signs that say "**** you ****s" will do for environmentalists.

I think you're selling yourself a little short. The only other comparable oil price spike was the result of the Iranian revolution and Iran/Iraq war. A reasonable assumption is that military action in the ME would spark another price spike, and the subsequent increase in profits. It seems like that's what happened. So, over ~4 years, an extra ~$30 in pure profit on every barrel is roughly a trillion dollars per year in pure profit on the world market.

An increase in CAFE regulations of ~30% would only cut a hundred or so billion bucks of profit from the bottom line. The administration is more likely to respond to 50,000 marching about an issue that can impact profit margins of their sponsors marginally than they will respond to 300,000 people marching about an issue that can cut the profit margins of their sponsors in half. If that made any sense... To put it bluntly, imo they are much likelier to cater to the more powerful lobby.

[rh77]

OK, the post was designed to provoke some intelligent conversation on the fact that CAFE standards were (as usual) being attacked by automakers. What didn't surprise me was the "Big-3" involvement, but rather Toyota.

I expected to delve perhaps into their strategy in the Full-Sized truck segment, but yet how this Political involvement doesn't help their image as a "Green" company.

Perhaps some solutions would be to:

• Continue to express your thoughts to governing bodies (write Congress)
• Boycott products by these manufacturers
• Vote for candidates with a platform similar to your interests, or run yourself
• Write a letter to the Editor to your local paper
• Make your opinion known in informal discussions
• Further Discuss the concept of CAFE: should a handicap be placed on Ethanol or other low-BTU fuels?
• Are you surprised that Toyota is in on it?

And let's keep it Civil folks, geez.

RH77

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by rh77

• Are you surprised that Toyota is in on it?

Not really, considering it's Toyota of America who's involved iirc. They're trying to cut into the juicy big truck/SUV market, and this potential CAFE increase is tailing the introduction of their newer, more powerful Tundra. Business' are around to make money, and some do it a wee bit more ethically than others, but they're still here to make ph4t l00tz...

Regarding the lack of decent economy from small cars, I'm surprised no one has mentioned inter-brand pressure. For instance, most car buyers believe that by spending twice as much, they're getting twice the car. But given the technology, that's just not possible. They're simply paying a premium for some add-ons... Most of the cost is in the platform. So, car manufacturers may detune a specific engine to not make as much power, and not threaten the sales of a more expensive line. Or leave off aerodynamic improvements in a base model, just so the mileage of the hybrid is noticeably greater. Because they want to make the more profitable high end cars more appealing. Even if they could offer a stripped down version with manual windows (Are these even made any more?), super tall OD, and a small engine that could do as well as the hybrid mileage wise, why would they hamstring their own hybrid sales?

There's also tooling and supply contracts. GM can't just tell Delphi that they don't want any more V8s. They have contracts, and I'm guessing stiff penalties if they're violated. So, they see where they have some wiggle room via analysis of the market and whatnot, and try to do the best with what they can. Like putting V8s in passenger cars with cylinder deactivation, etc... So they don't get hit by their suppliers too hard, and don't get hit in the market too hard. Until they can burn through the *current stock. In this context, the US would serve as the dumping ground for most major manufacturers less FE friendly components, since gas isn't taxed nearly as much here, and power/size has always been pushed. A CAFE increase may leave manufacturers with tons of unusable parts, that they have to sell off wholesale for a loss.

*Which is a PITA. Go check out GM trucks. They still have last year's models, which they're selling as legacy pickups or something. No a good indicator.

[The Toecutter]

Anyway, semantics aside, I think the manufacturers are guilty but the consumers are even guiltier; after all it is they who are voting with their dollars.

To an extent, yes, but the consumers can't buy a product that is not available. Consumer demand for EVs in the US where gas was cheap was extremely positive, but that is demand that the auto industry wished was not expressed and demand that the auto industry did not want to meet. Never mind Europe, where gas is $7.00/gallon and demand for EVs is even higher. The industry refuses to meet it, regardless of what the consumer wants. They know that the small companies willing to offer EVs don't have the economic means to make their product affordable.

If someone today were to put to market a 60 mpg midsize car that did 0-60 mph in 9 seconds, cost $15,000, and didn't use a hybrid drivetrain, the public would flock to it like crazy and demand more of these sorts of cars be built. But since such a car hasn't been built...

Even the hybrids of today fly off the lots like crazy. Just a few months ago no where near enough were being made to meet demand. Before the TDis were taken out of the market in the US, they were flying off the lots post $2/gallon as well, with demand unmet.

For fuel efficient cars, it's been a sellers market for years. With big SUVs sitting in the dealer lots colecting dust, the Big 3 complain about the foreign automakers offering a marginally better product, that marginally better product being that which customers flock to since that's the best the companies are willing to make.