Car "CAFE" Standard and SUVs

[windsurfer]

For those who don't know it stands for Corporate average fuel economy and doesn't include "light" trucks (suvs, vans, pickups).

Interesting thing is that everytime someone suggests raising it the conservatives (and by conservatives I am mostly going by blowhards like Rush) have a fit, the U.S. automakers say it will destroy the industry and make cars unsafe, etc. etc. etc.

We've all heard the big 3 (though Chrysler shouldn't really count anymore what with being a german company and all) make these arguments, but auto safety has steadily INCREASED since the CAFE standards were put into effect back in the 70s. In addition midsize cars (NOT large cars or suvs) are the safest vehicles on the road and generally get pretty good mileage (at least above the current standard, which I think is around 27).

Every single time that auto regulations have been passed (and I really mean EVERY time) the auto industry has claimed doom and gloom and that it was not even achievable. Yet the new regs have been met, the industry is going strong, and safety goes up.

Which brings me to the real reason for the post...why don't light trucks have to meet the same safety and economy standards? Used to be because they were primarily work or farm vehicles and it was considered of little real value, but now they account for a HUGE chunk of the market. The sad truth is that these types of vehicles are unsafe to both other drivers and the drivers of these vehicles precisely because they don't meet passenger car standards (not just fuel economy, either, but other stuff like bumper heights). Fuel standards were in response to the energy crisis and they are as important today as they ever were. It's not like they couldn't be done either. Stanford, in response to a GM challenge, managed to make a Suburban get 25 mpg without any decrease in power. Mostly through weight reductions and refining the aerodynamics.

Any opinions?

[pmpjohn]

By safety I assume you mean the ablility to survive a head on collision with a brick wall at 55mph while putting on make-up in the rear view mirror and having a heated conversation on your cell phone. The most important safety feature of ANY motor vehicle is the loose nut behind the wheel. The second is having a vehicle that is actively safe. By that I mean a steering, suspension system and brakes that will allow an alert, educated driver avoid the collision in the first place. Drivers education should include closed circuit high speed handleing and skid pad work. If this was done then when you find yourself in a "panic" situation you will know how to handle it and eliminate the panic instead of hoping the ABS and air bags will save your butt.
What has all this safety cost the consumer? $40 grand for a Chevy? I was working in Michigan during the 70s and saw first hand what the constantly changing regs being handed down by people who have no idea of which end of a screwdriver to pick-up did to that economy for ten years.
Did I mention drivers education?

My $.02 worth
John

[radix2]

Originally posted by windsurfer
For those who don't know it stands for Corporate average fuel economy and doesn't include "light" trucks (suvs, vans, pickups).

This is not correct, there are in fact 2 standards - one for cars - 27.5 MPG, and another for light trucks - I think 21 MPG or so.


Interesting thing is that everytime someone suggests raising it the conservatives (and by conservatives I am mostly going by blowhards like Rush) have a fit, the U.S. automakers say it will destroy the industry and make cars unsafe, etc. etc. etc.

Have you ever "bargained" with the government ? The way it works is this - one side jumps up and down saying "do as I say or the world will end - global warming, middle east dependence, pollution, etc etc." ditto for the other side " we are already doing everything possible, so any added burden will put thousands out of work, etc."

A proposed rulemaking from the Feds is the last place you will find quiet disspassionate discussion.

The stakes from both perspectives are very real. The automotive bussiness is a very large component of the economy, and one of the last bastions of US manufacturing, it is also unbelievably competitive and unprofitable. The manufacture of vehicles today involves massive cashflows, with the tiniest of margins - what this means, is any change, unanticipated event or effect, can mean the difference between health and death. For example, GM has net sales in the range of $180 Billion a year, from this they make a few Billion if everything goes according to plan. A down tick in the economy, some mistakes, and losses are also 5-10 billion a year, and people get hurt.

We've all heard the big 3 (though Chrysler shouldn't really count anymore what with being a german company and all) make these arguments, but auto safety has steadily INCREASED since the CAFE standards were put into effect back in the 70s. In addition midsize cars (NOT large cars or suvs) are the safest vehicles on the road and generally get pretty good mileage (at least above the current standard, which I think is around 27).

Every single time that auto regulations have been passed (and I really mean EVERY time) the auto industry has claimed doom and gloom and that it was not even achievable. Yet the new regs have been met, the industry is going strong, and safety goes up.

Have you ever thought that these results have been because after all of the hyperbolic aguments, that this in the end resulted in standards which were achievable ? If the industry didn't come back with all guns blazing, you can be assured that either cars would cost $100,000 or we would be riding horses.

the gov. comment period for new rules works like a court - each side argues only their side - the enviros don't consider the costs or engineering required, and the companies argue to do what is easiest for them.

You are confusing what the process looks like from the outside with what is really happening.

Which brings me to the real reason for the post...why don't light trucks have to meet the same safety and economy standards? Used to be because they were primarily work or farm vehicles and it was considered of little real value, but now they account for a HUGE chunk of the market. The sad truth is that these types of vehicles are unsafe to both other drivers and the drivers of these vehicles precisely because they don't meet passenger car standards (not just fuel economy, either, but other stuff like bumper heights). Fuel standards were in response to the energy crisis and they are as important today as they ever were. It's not like they couldn't be done either. Stanford, in response to a GM challenge, managed to make a Suburban get 25 mpg without any decrease in power. Mostly through weight reductions and refining the aerodynamics.

Any opinions?

You are mixing a few things here - you have, however qouted that sound bite quite accurately though...

In terms of safety, it is just too simple to say one type of vehicle is safer than another - in many scenarios, one will be better, in others, a different picture.

A light truck, to do what it is designed to do will have different characteristics from a car, by definition they can't be alike.

I think your real beef here is that you don't think that the people drving these vehicle have made the correct choice -that they don't need the capability to tow heavy trailers, extra ground clearance, ect. - you may be right, but the proposed solution is simply to take this choice away - isn't it ?

There is no doubt that technology exists to improve everything, but even at the prices we have today, the public is aready paying all they can, the manufacturers are not making anything, so where does the money come from for extra aluminum parts, carbon fibre, ect ? Also the man on the street is expecting some of his additional dollars to go to more leather seats, better audio, navigation systems, improved active safety, it all has to be balanced carefully. Oh yeah, one slip up and the trial lawyers will take a multi-billion $ bite out of your A$$.

[AndrewK]

Originally posted by windsurfer

why don't light trucks have to meet the same safety and economy standards?

SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBYING!

and the Republican administration...

and before someone says "why didn't Clinton do anything?", I believe it would have to be approved by congress which would not have happened with the republican control of the house and senate.

[radix2]

Originally posted by AndrewK


SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBYING!

and the Republican administration...

and before someone says "why didn't Clinton do anything?", I believe it would have to be approved by congress which would not have happened with the republican control of the house and senate.

Sorry, the laws of physics know no party.

Explain which safety standards you are insisting light trucks do not meet.

do you think that trucks can be made safer with no added weight ?

at a similar cost ?

with increased fuel economy ? (lower weight)

how

Partisan hackery is boring, lets have some intelligent discussion.

If light trucks become a majority of vehicles, who is the special interest ...?

[radix2]

read this article on how the trial lawyers will be constructing cases to mine some money out of car/truck accidents and how complex even one aspect of this topic is.

http://www.palmerlaw.com/Article%20-...at%20Costs.htm

[logan5]

anyone ever thought that perhaps if the Big 3 made better cars (regardless of silly government standards) they'd make more money? IF the Asians and the Europeans make cars that are safer and get better millage and America doesn't, then simple economics will mold the buying trends of American consumers, there-by forcing American car makers to either step up to the plate or fade into the darkness. Of course, in order for this to work, corporate welfare must end, making the Big Three fend for themselves as they should already be doing.

Volvo is world know for car safty ... Honda makes cars that beats the government emissions standard by an order of magnitude. I doubt that any ridiculous government standard had anything to do with that.

The only people Car Makers ought to be lobbying is the American Consumer. The reason they aren't are two fold ....

1) Corporate Welfare
2) They are too busy trying to find ways around sill government regulations.

Logan5

[Tim Jonas]

Originally posted by AndrewK


SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBYING!

and the Republican administration...

and before someone says "why didn't Clinton do anything?", I believe it would have to be approved by congress which would not have happened with the republican control of the house and senate.

You're joking, right?

[DaveSawers]

Originally posted by logan5
IF the Asians and the Europeans make cars that are safer and get better millage and America doesn't, then simple economics will mold the buying trends of American consumers, there-by forcing American car makers to either step up to the plate or fade into the darkness.

There is no doubt that European and Asian cars are of a much higher quality than American made cars. Both in their safety and economy. But there is a price to pay for this. The purchase price of the vehicle.

North Americans aren't used to paying for quality vehicles. Raising the gas prices by a factor of two or three to make them in line with the rest of the world would solve many problems, including the removal of inefficient unsafe vehicles.

Clearly such a price hike would have to be done over a number of years to allow the old inefficient vehicles to be scrapped. And before the gloom mongers step in and say the economy would die should look at how the rest of the world copes.

If you want to save energy, reduce pollution and increase safety on the roads. Don't buy American vehicles.

[Dereck]

Gas price hikes - in England back around 1973, prices close to tripled within a year (made me real glad I didn't buy that MkII Jag I was drooling over for a while, the Mini was much easier to live with at the higher prices)

Look upon the SUV as one of the pinnacles of the higher causes of marketing. Take a builder's truck - used to haul sand, tools WHY. Weld a top on it, tart up the interior, fit it with huge alloy wheels and chunky, drag-ridden tyres. Slap a really good premium price tag on it.

You now have a top heavy, bad handling vehicle that costs plenty anyway you look at it.

Now get marketing's finest to find people who somehow can make enough to buy these heaps, but are feeble minded enough to be convinced they have to buy them at all costs. Every couple of years, ratchet up the trinkets so those feeble minded suckers come back and buy another.

My next door neighbour, who is smart enough to keep his small software afloat in the present economy, was suckered into a lease on a Toyota tart-up (Lexus 300) SUV. Despite that it will find him the fastest route to a Starbucks (two miles away, known throughout the town funnily enough), he hates the vehicle he couldn't wait to get his buns into. It's cramped, is hard to get the kids into and out of, handles far worse than his last vehicle - a Lexus sedan - and barely takes his golf clubs.

I reckon the SUV is one of the US system's finest achievements. The last gallon of gas on the US market will probably be used to drive a Ford Excursion into the US History Museum (if it'll fit into the museum ). Those of us who prefer 'other vehicles' will still be looking up the back of a Silly, Useless Vehicle when the oily stuff runs out. Better live with it, marketing can always find suckers.

Regards

D

[DaveSawers]

Originally posted by Dereck
I reckon the SUV is one of the US system's finest achievements.

I thought Rover invented the SUV when they brought out the first Range Rover!

[Tim Jonas]

touche!

[Dereck]

Originally posted by DaveSawers


I thought Rover invented the SUV when they brought out the first Range Rover!

Land Rover built the Range Rover to sell to yahoos whose idea of offroad is driving on the grass at Ascot.

Maybe Britain was ahead in marketing too? The early RRs had two doors and rusted as fast as a Vauxhall (UK GM brand, a car had to rot fast to beat them), but still sold every one they could roll out the door.

OTOH, I understand the RR is a slightly larger, very tarted up LR, with all the offroading abilities of its utilitarian elder sibling. That cuts it out of being in the same class as an American SUV

[dave morris]

geez I like my suburban, was thinking of getting another one or if not that a big block chevelle from the late sixties. I just hope people stop buying so many SUVs so there will be plenty of gas left over for me.

[Daren]

Originally posted by windsurfer
Which brings me to the real reason for the post...
Any opinions?

It sounds to me like you had an SUV behind you last night with it's high-beams on and your rice-burner doesn't have a dim switch on the rear-view mirror.

But that's only my opinion,
Daren