Automaker support for Trump's CAFE roll-back

[JSH]

I was reading an article last week about Trump's proposal to roll back of CAFE requirements. His current proposal is a 1.5% annual increase in fuel economy from 2021 - 2026. (That is down from the current regulations that require 3.5% for trucks and 5% for cars through 2025).

It is interesting which automakers are supporting the roll-back vs pledging to stick to the old standard:

For a roll-back
GM, Fiat-Chrysler, Toyota,

Stick with the old standard
Ford, VW, Honda, BMW

I got to thinking a bit and it hit me that this lines up nicely with the full-size trucks each company sells. Under the current rules will require a full-size truck to get 30 mpg in 2025. (That is 30 mpg CAFE which equals 22 mpg combined on the EPA window sticker) While some automakers say they can't hit such an aggressive target some trucks meet 2025 targets in 2020

27 mpg - 2020 Chevy Siverado 3.0L Diesel
26 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 3.0L Diesel
23 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 V6 eTorque
22 mpg - 2020 Ford F150 2.7L V6 ecoboost
22 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 3.6L V6
22 mpg - 2020 Ford F150 3.3L V6
21 mpg - 2020 Chevy Silverado 2.7L I4
20 mpg - 2020 Chevy Silverado 5.3L V8
19 mpg - 2020 Ford F150 3.5L V6 EcoBoost
19 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 V8 eTorque
18 mpg - 2020 Ford F150 5.0L V8
17 mpg - 2020 Chevy Silverado 4.3L V6
17 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 5.7L V8
16 mpg - 2019 Toyota Tundra 4.6L V8
15 mpg - 2019 Toyota Tundra 5.7L V8

Ford has already spent the money to switch their F-150 to an all aluminum body and invested in a line of turbocharged engines with better fuel economy. They have successfully convince their customer to buy these turbo engines so that only 25% of their sales are V8s.

Meanwhile GM's most fuel efficient options are a 4 cylinder that has failed to catch on, very expensive diesel, and a very OLD V6 that gets worse mileage than the V8. GM's bread and butter is still the 5.7L V8.

Ram has the eTorque 48V hybrid that hits the target today but they haven't convinced buyers to buy it. Their bread and butter is also a 5.7L V8.

Toyota is even farther behind with pitiful 16-15 mpg V8s.

VW and BMW are forced by the EU to hit even higher standards so they are stuck spending money to boost fuel economy regardless of what happens in the USA. Honda is 2 mpg ahead of their targets and rapidly building credits.

[freebeard]

I was reading an article last week about Trump's proposal to roll back of CAFE requirements. His current proposal is a 1.5% annual increase in fuel economy from 2021 - 2026. (That is down from the current regulations that require 3.5% for trucks and 5% for cars through 2025).

Ah, The old decreasing rate of increase trick. Doesn't fool me — it's not a rollback.

[oil pan 4]

Getting rid of that mandate also kills retarded credits like what Honda gets for building pointless hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Gas just needs to go back to 3.50 a gallon and that batteries included ram will get more popular.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Getting rid of that mandate also kills retarded credits like what Honda gets for building pointless hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

There is no word yet on what happens to the credits system. Today there are credits for hydrogen fuel cells, EVs, stop-start systems, different A/C coolant, E85, etc. Mostly they are for features that improve fuel economy but don't show up in the official tests. However, that isn't where most credits come from.

The way NHTSA credits / fines work is this. If you exceed your CAFE standard in a year you bank credits that can be used in a later year that you miss the target or they can be sold to other manufacturers. This is to encourage automakers to implement new technology before it is required instead of waiting until it is needed to hit CAFE.

Honda's 2017 Fleet Performance:
Domestic cars: 43.6 Actual - 38.9 CAFE = 4.7 mpg ahead
Imported Cars: 45.0 Actual - 41.3 CAFE = 3.7 mpg ahead
Light Trucks: 33.2 Actual - 31.00 CAFE = 2.2 mpg ahead
Weighted average = 3.75 mpg above CAFE target

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Gas just needs to go back to 3.50 a gallon and that batteries included ram will get more popular.

That would help but isn't as effective as CAFE.

Passenger car CAFE went from 18 mpg in 1978 to 27.5 in 1990. It was frozen from 1990 to 2010. It went from 27.5 in 2010 to 38.5 in 2017. Average fleet fuel economy follows CAFE. It does not follow gas prices.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by JSH

27 mpg - 2020 Chevy Siverado 3.0L Diesel
26 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 3.0L Diesel
23 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 V6 eTorque
22 mpg - 2020 Ford F150 2.7L V6 ecoboost
22 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 3.6L V6
22 mpg - 2020 Ford F150 3.3L V6
21 mpg - 2020 Chevy Silverado 2.7L I4
20 mpg - 2020 Chevy Silverado 5.3L V8
19 mpg - 2020 Ford F150 3.5L V6 EcoBoost
19 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 V8 eTorque
18 mpg - 2020 Ford F150 5.0L V8
17 mpg - 2020 Chevy Silverado 4.3L V6
17 mpg - 2020 Ram 1500 5.7L V8
16 mpg - 2019 Toyota Tundra 4.6L V8
15 mpg - 2019 Toyota Tundra 5.7L V8

Don't forget the F-150 diesel; it isn't showing up as a 2020 model on fueleconomy.gov for some reason, but is on Ford's site. 25 mpg combined.

[redpoint5]

I begrudgingly admit that the federal government has no business dictating CAFE. They are a state unto themselves.

If the federal government wants to reduce fuel consumption, their appropriate lever is taxation. Everything else is ignorance at best, corruption at worst.

I'm surprised plug-in trucks haven't been a thing 12 years ago. Perfect application for a plug-in hybrid. The power you come to expect in a hybrid; and the fuel economy to ease the sting at the pump. Heck, eliminating the traditional automatic transmission alone should be motivation enough.

Looking forward to seeing how the RAV4 plug-in fairs. I'm very optimistic, and expect larger vehicles to adopt the strategy.

[Xist]

Toyota entered into this legal action not as a plaintiff or a defendant, and not to favor any political party. Toyota is intervening to impact how emissions standards are applied. We want to help forge a sustainable compromise for consumers and the environment. Without joining this legal action, we would have no ability to affect the outcome.

Multiple standards will result in higher vehicle prices. And if vehicle prices increase, consumers are more likely to keep older, less efficient cars longer. We can do more to reduce greenhouse gases by focusing on the 250 million vehicles already on the road today. We need to encourage consumers to trade in older, less efficient vehicles for newer vehicles that have higher fuel economy and therefore emit fewer greenhouse gases. We won’t be able to do that if prices are beyond what people are willing to or can afford.

Toyota’s Statement Regarding Uniform National Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards

I commented:

It sounds like they do not want to sell CARB compliant vehicles nationwide because fewer people would trade in older vehicles for newer, cleaner, and more efficient ones because prices would be higher.

here: Is Toyota conspiring to kill the planet?

I complained about a terrible article that my phone recommended. It was horribly biased and unrealistic. It went on and on about seven people who drove electric cars and swore they would never buy another Toyota.

So, they drove Volts, but were boycotting Toyota?

[redpoint5]

Toyota's ONLY job is to profit their stakeholders, and primarily accomplishes this by manufacturing vehicles. If paying lip-service to the environmental fads of the day helps them further that singular purpose, they will. Otherwise, they will oppose those things that place barriers to profitability.

[oil pan 4]

Nothing clears the traffic like $3.50 a gallon gas.

[Xist]

I am sure that some people would get a second job before changing other aspects of their lifestyle.