The president moves to adopt California’s mileage standards as a way of reducing overseas fuel purchases and overall emissions:
President Barack Obama’s new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil but are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for vehicles, as well as require an overall or industry average fuel efficiency standard at 35.5 miles per gallon.
The auto industry welcomes the move, since it nationalizes one standard rather than those of the several states, while the EMD costs will be passed on to the consumer.
Some of this can be done with more efficient engine designs, but much of it I suspect will come in the form of smaller, less powerful engine designs and smaller, lighter vehicles, the market for which our own domestic auto industry has not successfully tapped so far.
Since these changes are dictated by the government rather than market forces, my own prediction is that there will be a robust opportunity for those who extend the life cycle of existing vehicles. In time, government might well adopt a progressively higher taxation regime as a way of incentivizing new car purchases.
I guess we’ll see.
Update: A loss of 148,000 jobs?
I cannot help but wonder why this is the solution to our “dependency” woes. As you so expertly stated the models which will emerge will resemble those I recall plying the streets of Ayase-shi, with passengers sitting within inches of the rear bumper.
I fear that the feel good selling point of reducing 1.8 Billion barrels of dependency, or the equivalent of 4 months of current oil imports, will convince the kool aid drinkers to pursue this without considering the logical conclusion: higher State and local fuel taxes resulting from reduced revenues from higher fuel economy.
Would not America be less dependent by pursuing our own supplies of oil and shale, which would also bolster the employment rolls?
Just a thought.
Reggie
Lex is correct, there will be a great market for older vehicles, kind of like the junk cars we all drove in Atsugi – run em til they drop, and go spend another thousand bucks. No one has even thought about better fuel efficiency = less gallons = less tax dollars so, Home Simpson “Doh”, now we will double the tax per gallon.
Me? I wanta see those crash tests for the Smart car – maybe two of ‘em hitting head on at 50 mph. Lessee what we get out of that. As car size decreases highway deaths invariably tend to increase. Maybe someone with loads of web time can worm that data.
I have no doubt there will be a great market for older cars, and I’ll be in line to get a good deal!
I think you are spot on about highway deaths, since people also forget that safety standards in the U.S. tend to be more restrictive than those overseas. It will be interesting to see the clash between economy and safety which emerges through this process.
I don’t worry so much about two of them hitting head on. Now, one of them hitting my 1989 Chevy K1500 Pickup head on…
I want a SMART with the European 76MPG engine, but I would not buy one, as I live in a world where the vehicle that smacks me might be a Peterbilt.
SCOTTtheBADGER/
Of course the NTSB/DOT go to GREAT lengths to hide and/or obscure the facts/statistics on the safety and survival rate for passengers of small cars.
Mark, you have nothing to worry about. Neither will the deceased driver of the Smart Car,
G-man,
The video for the Fit in a 3/4 head-on offset to the driver’s side were released about a month or two ago. Fox News had it as a morning segment. The results were decidedly grim for those who support small “efficient” coffin-cars. Particularly when you compare the sizes of the microvehicles that have been shown to date against even the Fit – think about the same level of disparity between a Fit and a H2 Hummer.
Anybody listened to the Rush tune “Red Barchetta” recently? Behold, the world of tomorrow, brought to you today!
Looks like keeping this ole ’92 Accura was a good move, eh?
That would be a good move under any circumstances. I’m hanging onto my 2003 TL for as long as I can – they are designed to go forever as long as they are maintained.
Smart!
“Since these changes are dictated by the government rather than market forces…”
If left solely to “market forces,” GM and/or Chrysler would no longer be in business.
Then there would be no industry (or jobs) for the “lender-of-last-resort” to dictate to.
And there is nothing wrong with lenders dictating terms, especially when a business is on the brink of liquidation.
“If left solely to “market forces,” GM and/or Chrysler would no longer be in business.” And your point would be? GM and/or Chrysler would have either gotten their act together or indeed closed their doors. And you thing no one else would ever build a car?
Perhaps we should allow market forces to work properly and allow the old ways of GM/Chrysler to die on the vine. There will be others with a new vision and “life” to breathe into a new line that may truly re-invigorate America’s automotive industry.
1973-74 all over again. New emissions and CAFE standards coming on the heels of an embryonic horsepower war and industry shakeout. Pinto anyone? How about a Gremlin? Hornet? Oh yea – here’s a winner – a Vega and don’t forget the V-8′s that barely made 100hp.
It was a good decade before Detroit regained it’s bearings (sort of) and another decade or two before they started to *really* get the mesage about quality et al.
The saving grace, I hope, is that some companies, like Ford, are already moving in that direction with vehicles like the Hybrid Fusion, an all electric new Focus based on it’s European cousin’s platform and smart design like the eco-boost V-6s.
Wait — they didn’t take a goverment bailout, did they? Hmmm…
- SJS
If left solely to “market forces,” GM and/or Chrysler would no longer be in business.
Then there would be no industry (or jobs) for the “lender-of-last-resort” to dictate to.
That conveniently ignores the 70% of US car sales that are not by Government Motors or Chrysler. There would be a domestic car industry — it just wouldn’t dominated by a politically protected creditor class.
All the more reason I plan to get a CJ5 as soon as I can get my hands on one.
I’m not selling my Wrangler!
Lex and all … Looks like I was right last June, when I took my beautiful old 1991 Volvo station wagon to the Swiss Garage and had them go over her from top to bottom fixing anything that needed fixing [not much did], getting the belts, etc. changed and renewed, ending up with a car which runs just really fine, and has less than 50,000 miles on the clock. Until the dam busybody Democrats take it away by force, I’ll keep it and drive it, and thank the Lord every day that it’s not a “hybrid.” Hybrids are orchids and dogs, not cars.
Besides, now it’s officially a “classic car.” Never thought I’d have one of those, when I was pit-crewing for a sports car [Class B modified, the crazy class of innovators] at Road America et al.
Marianne
Marianne,
I learn something new everyday! Pit crew! Wow!
As I read an objective analysis of this effort, including the obstacles — economic and technical (unlike the AP, which tried to stick the downsides into a worm hole) — I thought of these famous lines from Shelly:
Nice ring — King Obama-mandius. Only problem is, those “lone and level sands”? That is where your house used to be.
RE: older vehicles…..
I’m thinking that California passed (or tried to??) a regulation that would effectively remove older vehicles from the road…..
Just wonderin about the future of my Tundra…..
bizjetmech/
We are going to all end up like Castro’s Cuba–driving 15-20 yr-old cars (hell, 30-40 yrs old) and buying parts on the black-market.
The government mandated CAFE cars will add $1300. to the price of a car?
Good luck with that! All together now, let’s spell: C-O-S-T-O-V-E-R-R-U-N-S!
As I explained to my mother-in-law over supper this evening, the person who came up with the $1300 per car is a liar.
These cars haven’t been made yet, therefore there is no formula that can be used to determine the price.
They’ve been made elsewhere, the technology is well-known and the trade-offs equally well-known. What remains is how much it will cost to produce them here, and if the market will bear it.
After all, all three of the Big 3 have been making these vehicles elsewhere on the planet for other markets.
So why no 70mpg diesels in the USA like they have everywhere else?
One answer — state and federal standards on emission and crash-worthiness.
Mileage and safety are at opposite ends when it comes to cars, and emissions limit the motors.
– Max
Higher mpg means more miles will be driven. The gain in oil savings and reduction in emissions is (always) much less than advertised. If that’s our goal then we should do a mileage tax; that is if our politicians and we want to be honest about it.
As the passenger cars get smaller, lighter to gain more efficiency, the commercial heavy trucks that ply the same roads will continue to grow in size and gross tonnage – also in the name of efficiencies, just a different kind. And on those occasions where the two intersect? Well, it won’t be pretty for the passenger cars.
- SJS
SJS/MAX:
As I said up-post@2.2.1.1 the Govt AND the media never manages to talk about such trade-offs. You’re both so right. The Govt. can repeal or change the laws for car-makers, but it can’t do the same for the laws of physics–even King Canute realized that–which was the point of his little demonstration. Unfortunately, the knowledge gaps in our current Maximum Leader’s education are so obviously numerous he probably thinks that allegory was a success story devoutly to be emulated. Else why would he believe he can repeal the most basic Newtonian laws of physics ( f=mass x accel; the 1st & 2nd laws of Thermodynamics, etc.) and economics simultaneously? “Lightworker” indeed.
Unfortunately for us, objective reality–that which Henry James described as “those things you have to take into account, like it or not”–probably won’t collide with the more delusional aspects of the Lightworker’s feeble thought processes until we’ve already reached the economic/financial and technological point of no return’s “event horizon.”
My thought on this “solution” is that it mandates a single solution. I live in Woodbridge, VA and commute daily to the Washington Navy Yard area. As many of you are aware, this gives me many options (Rail, bus, vanpool, slug, etc.). Last summer I bought a new Saturn Outlook partly on the logic that since I don’t drive that often, mileage wasn’t as big an issue and it’s nice to have the extra room on occasion. If I did drive every day, my choice would have been different.
Nice discussion of many of these issues here. Several excerpts:
If the administration was really serious about increasing fuel efficiency, reducing carbon emissions, and our dependence on imported oil, they would pass a $1/gallon tax, and immediately rebate it in a payroll tax reduction. This move does nothing to get gas guzzlers off the road, and is a 30 yr. old (Jerry Ford creation) solution. But we all know why that market based solution will never happen.