Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH
It also means that OEMs have an incentive to make vehicles larger.
Take for example the produce changes at Fiat Chrysler. Chrysler has returned to profitability and paid off their debt by abandoning cars almost completely. If you look at their product portfolio the only cars left are the 300, Challenger, and Charger. The 300 will be dropped in 2020 without a replacement. Chrysler's CEO has recently stated that the plan going forward is to focus on greatly expanding the sale of Jeeps. None of this would have been possible under the old CAFE system with a one-size-fits-all CAFE target.
The CAFE change also killed the compact truck and ensures that it won't return.
|
So, basically, it's more comfortable to the automakers, but not so great to improve the overall efficiency of the vehicles. But anyway, when it comes to footprint, I always remember that Japanese policy that charge a lower taxation on vehicles less than 1,70m wide and 4,70m long. OTOH there is a displacement-based taxation that I don't agree at all, even though it could have pushed U.S. automakers to embrace the downsizing earlier and make their products more competitive in global markets.
Quote:
|
Personally I think the design calls for a wagon version. My Prius is much less useful than the 2003 Jetta Wagon it replaced due sharply sloped hatch.
|
I'm actually more favorable to wagons than sedans (or hatchbacks with a sedan-ish profile).