Feds' New MPG Mandate May Collide With Buyer Preferences

Lots of mainstream nameplates could make it with a little tweak or two. The run-of-the mill four-cylinder automatic versions of the Accord, Camry, Altima, Malibu and Fusion are only a couple of mpg away. Add direct injection, low friction lubricants and lighter weight wheels and tires, and you're there.

The dirty little secret that gets lost in the hype over this story is that most cars are available in a form that is already very efficient. The problem is the number of people who buy more than they need--more vehicle, more horsepower, more stuff--just because they might want it some day.

Instead of imposing a tax penalty (gas guzzler tax) on vehicles not achieving the CAFE number, whatever it turns out to be, we could institute a tax CREDIT on a graduated scale.
It could begin at 90% of CAFE and cap at 125%, for example. So vehicles that got 35 mpg would qualify for the lowest credit and the ones getting 49 mpg or above would qualify for the highest.

This is still trying to legislate demand by determining what is built. The Europeans do it the other way around, by legislating the demand based on actual usage: taxes on the fuel. Sales of higher mileage vehicles increased when gas was $4+/gallon, so there is a lesson there: people will look after their own self-interest (in this case, operating cost) ahead of any artificially imposed "this is good for you, this is what you should buy" approach.

Lets face it, the manufacturers can't control demand, and the gov't can't dictate it outright: people will buy what they want (whether they need it or not). However, given economic incentives, people will generally go in a particular direction. A program to hand out rebates or incentives just means more bureaucracy, and just another "system" to get abused. The gov't is already collecting taxes on fuel, it would be a matter of setting a new amount. Penalizing the car makers because people don't buy something is going after the wrong party. If you want people to change what they buy, give them an incentive to do so, and not a one-time rebate, but a long-term incentive to change.

The best way to solve all the problems regarding to cars related damages is make all non commarcial vehicles THE SAME SIZE AND THE SAME WIGHT (give or take 10cm 50kg). This figure will be a standard that will change according to the situation. Still polution, make the standard smaller. Also the size should be the smaller and lighter that we can start with.

Well said Pushrod. Raising the taxes on fuel is the most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions. However, you can't raise fuel taxes until you have more fuel efficient vehicles already on the road, or you end up hurting the lower and middle class. Once everyone is driving fuel efficient vehicles the price of gas should start moderately coming up (either by market oil prices or by increased taxes).
Studies show people have a fixed budget for fuel. If the price of gas goes down, they drive more and vice versa. This means more fuel efficient cars without a price increase in gas won't reduce CO2 emissions.
Although the required MPG sounds high, it can be achieved. However, it will probably mean sacrificing power and performance. For example, if all engines were required to run using the Atkinson cycle, you can easily gain an extra 1 or 2 MPG.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but...I keep reading all these articles in the automotive press saying that Obama's new fuel-economy standards are going to make it harder for automakers to sell cars. If the standards apply to all automakers, which they will, then everyone will have to make fuel efficient cars, so it won't matter whether or not people would rather have Hummers and Suburbans because no one will sell them. Now, perhaps GM won't be able to make money on small cars--that's an open question--but the issue is not that people won't buy small cars generally. Am I wrong here?

In 1986 a Chevy Sprint (which I do NOT recommend chevrolet) got 50+ mpg. OF COURSE A MINOR ACCIDENT ENDED IT'S LIFE & ALMOST MINE. Any comparable but heavier tin-can would have handled the situation better, & saved me a lifetime of grief. My great big beautiful comfy 1960's convertible cadillac weighed TONS, literally, & could carry tons, & still got 23 MPG - & a fender-bender wouldn't have totalled it, or me!

So what do all these numbers mean? This & previous administrations have spent BILLION$ in US citizens tax dollars to encourage "new" developments, which are basically not all that innovative, or energy saving.

So what DOES the GOV get for these BILLION$? Well, other than kick-backs, um... a more vulnerable, gullible, possibly disabled peasant class!

Re: pushrod & batleofwaterlo

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS:

TAXES & FINES don't reduce emissions, it just generates temporary income for municipalities. Only awareness followed by diligent responsibility influence one's contribution to whatever - & what impact do these emissions actually have?

If one vehiclecarries 8 passengers and gets 23 MPG, but another carries 4 - & thus requiring 2 drivers to shuttle the same 7 passengers, but let's keep it simple, just the TWO cars for the same payload, even if those 2 cars get a whopping 39 MPG (which the new CAFE numbers are inflated 25%) you'd still be a t a 'net loss' for those FUEL CONSUMPTION CONCERN.

Also does fuel consumption = emissions? that is to say, does someone's stinky 25 MPG car that's not tuned perfectly actually contribute less filth/particulate matter/dreaded CO2 than my silky smooth purring 23 MPG car?

How well have those FINES & TAXES worked on manufacturing plants/distribution? Who says that tinkering with SAFE & RELIABLE cars, TAKING AWAY our OPTIONS, does anything more than generate TAXES?

Without product that achieves the standards, you can raise the taxes to achieve $10/gal and current supply would force huge price increases based on the surge in demand. Most folks, forced to save by reducing the miles driven in the older rigs, would end up with a huge financial burden.

There is no one way to get this done efficiently by increasing Gas taxes...that is absurd but when it is done, we will see a baklash against elected officials never seen before.

The D3 are idiots for not producing efficient vehicles ie every category ahead of Japan. Idiots. That's why they are history. Raise the gas taxes and history will be made once again! This time it will be Congress, the President and the corrupt state government political clubs that will suffer the wrath.

Go ahead, Punk...raise the gas taxess...Do you feel luck? Huh, PUNK??

Regards,
OW

Batleofwaterlo,

I agree taxes should be raised, but I think your argument goes too far. People might have a fixed budget for fuel, but they also have a fixed amount of time to drive in. If greater economy means now it's costing them a third of what it was, that doesn't mean that they'll get on the road until they get their expenses back up where they were. Sure, there will be SOME increase in driving, but not all of the gains will be lost. Most folks will take the majority of that money and spend it elsewhere. They might drive a little bit more to go shopping, but to say it'll be a wash is going a bit far.

An overall energy policy should include aircraft, trains, ships, trucks, cars, and other vehicles. Trains, ships, and buses (when full) are much more energy efficient, economical, and earth friendly. As such I see them playing an increasingly major role in any serious national strategy.

Note that for cars or aircraft, less than 1% of the petroleum energy is used to move occupants. The rest goes to move the vehicle or is wasted in friction and other heat losses. This makes for an obvious place to make improvements in whatever solutions are developed.

Clean diesel, turbo charging, and battery hybrids could easily meet these standards.

circleW:

You sound like an idiot. The Japanese make more efficient vehicles because in Japan people primarily buy small cars with small engines. SUVs and pickups are rare over there. The US has always had cheap gas and open space and our vehicles reflect that. Many of the large vehicles the Japanese sell here arent even sold in Japan because they wouldn't be practical over there.

Also, you say "they" are history. Who is "they"? Ford isn't going anywhere.

Also people are saying you can "easily" meet these standards. A Honda Accord four cylinder averages about 23-24mpg combined. Getting such a vehicle to 29mpg without some sort of hybrid powertrain is hardly "easy" or cheap. Many cars are already using low resistance tires, VVT, 6 speed automatics and other technologies just to get their current mileage. Getting another 20% out of a vehicle is hardly "easy".

In the developed 'western world' there are three systems of mandating higher fuel efficiency:
In the US it's CAFE
In Europe it's much higher fuel taxes
In Japan it's taxes on the size of the engine.

All three systems work.

All three systems however are tailored to the specific personal and political characteristics of those societies.

Europeans are OK with high taxation rates for the betterment of society. That doesn't fly in our society.

The Japanese are OK with smaller and smaller engines for the reasons noted just above. This definitely won't fly with Texas ranchers facing huge taxes on their big V8 trucks.

If it weren't for the 30 yrs of intransigence on the part of the D3 in fighting and bad-mouthing CAFE we would see it for the simple and elegant solution that it is. The vehicles in 2016 will use less fuel than the vehicles in 2009 for the most part. Who in the US is against using less fuel?

Our system allows us to buy whichever vehicle we want from small econoboxes to huge luxo barge SUVs. With current technology both vehicles meet or could meet the new standards today.

The obvious next issue is cost effectiveness of the new technologies for fuel efficiencies. That's a specific manufacturer by manufacturer discussion.

1487, you obviously are "the glass is half-full" type. If you think that a Civi only gets 24 MPG combined, think again - combined mileage is 29. The 3gen Prius gets 50. NO vehicle built here gets that efficiency so to add a gas tax would be an over burdensome way to promote fuel efficiency.

Who is HISTORY? Wake up. Ford is not the old Ford...they I respect because they took the hits but it's far from over.

At the end of the day, if the Asians can do it, WE CAN DO IT!

I would like to point out, alot of us dont want a small car. I dont want to drive something with absolutely lackluster performance and no head/leg/shoulder room. I dont want to ride the bus or light rail or train. I DO want to drive a decently sized vehicle, with solid performance. I DONT want to pay any more taxes, I pay enough - over one third of every dollar I make goes to the gov, and I think thats crap.

Easy efficency solution for American cars - remove the overly restrictive and efficency robbing emmisions control devices on all of these cars. Lower car prices, better economy, more power, and about a 0% increase in polution.

Honestly, Government, stop over complicating simple problems.

Smaller cars do not mean lower performance. Take a ride down a German autobahn and see the size of cars running 80 to 100 mph. Most are mid-size cars with 4 or 6 cylinder engines.

Emission controls do not rob performance. That was true 20 years ago, but no longer. Modern engines are far more efficient in terms of power generation, fuel economy and reduced emissions than they were before emission controls and computerized engine management systems were around.

Take off much of the junk cars are being loaded down with, like navigation systems, back up cameras, DVD theater systems, electric motors to close doors, etc., etc. and you save a lot of weight which in turn saves fuel.

Relatively few people need V8 powered vehicles as their daily drivers. A V6 or a turbocharged 4 cylinder does the job quite nicely. I have 2 turbocharged cars in my garage that hold a lot, are pretty fast (0-60 in 6 seconds, 130 and 140 mph), and get 24 mpg local, 33 highway. Nothing wrong with that picture.

And we need more diesel cars in the US.