CAFE corporate average fuel economy ... works?

[oil pan 4]

This CAFE scam spawns other scams like aptera. I still don't believe they ever intend to mass produce their thing and are hoping they get bought out by some industry giant that will cut a check for tens of millions of dollars with out even thinking about it.
If all a car company had to do was make motorcycles to beat CAFE then all the US auto makers would become like Honda and sell motorcycles too. But something tells me thats not how the law is written.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

We don't penalize fuel efficient vehicles, we subsidize them. In California, between the state and federal gasoline tax, it amounts to $0.72/ gallon. Guzzlers are penalized. When gasoline is $2.16 / gallon, 1/3rd of it is taxes.

Show me anywhere where a fuel efficient vehicle is paying more per mile in "taxes" and we'll have a discussion.

Gotta get your head out of California, what happens there is unique.

They don’t do that anywhere outside carb.

My antique stick pays $38 a year in annual gas taxes to Wisconsin

My Volt and Insight pay $75 state + $25 county just in extra fees before I even start paying “gas tax” and that doesn’t include the increased title fee if I ever had to do that again.

Not everyone drives a million miles a year.

Looking to “other states” there are several with a $200-$250 “plug in fee” and on the bolt forums some are set back around $800 a year to register a Bolt.
My more efficient stick shift cars only used about $200/year in 2020 of gas, up to about $250 now, why would anyone pay more on tax than I do on fuel?


Even in California they charge about $700 total registration which includes $175 of road tax fees on an EV.
So your “rebate “ is just a loan.

Depending on your choice of gas car you can end up at about half that amount owed in California due to the progressive nature of taxes there including your use , value, etc.


The worst state is a place like SC that charges efficiency penalties that increase depending on your fuel economy.

[redpoint5]

Sure, there's personal use cases where fuel efficient vehicles are, on balance, penalized.

Mostly though, they avoid federal and state fuel taxes. EVs in particular have a $7,500 federal tax subsidy, and many states have their own subsidies.

I'm not arguing for increasing the registration fees for EVs and fuel efficient vehicles, I'm arguing that paying for necessary infrastructure absolutely everyone depends on with fees, is stupid. I'm further arguing that EVs generally avoid more taxes and fees than their ICE counterparts. You're not having to smog check EVs, as one example.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Ecky

When I looked at the difference in registration costs between motorcycles / diesels / gasoline cars, I pretty much ruled out the first two. The motorcycle registration cost is apparently pegged to the relative increase in cost to the public healthcare system. I can only assume the same is true for diesels due to emissions differences.

Motorcycle registration is more expensive in Brazil exactly due to the increase in cost to the public healthcare system, yet tricycles which would be supposed to be safer are also charged more than a car. When it comes to Diesels in New Zealand, once a New Zealander told me it's because Diesel fuel was exempted from Road Tax, as it was also widely used on agricultural and stationary devices which were not road-going anyway.

[redpoint5]

New Zealand doesn't have local pollution problems from particulates. I didn't Google that to confirm, but hardly anyone lives in those islands, so local pollution is hardly a problem. Diesel stores well and has more BTU per volume, so it's not a bad option.

[JSH]

Yes, CAFE standards work. When we force manufacturers to make vehicles that get better fuel economy they do. They don't focus on fuel economy on their own because fuel economy isn't important to US new car buyers. Buyers will routinely pay more for a larger, more powerful, and quicker vehicle. More recently they will pay more for AWD and larger touchscreens. They won't pay for better fuel economy

The increase in US vehicle fuel economy is best shown graphed on top of other vehicle traits. Fuel economy is increase is combination with massive increases in power and weight of vehicles.

(I'll add that in addition to vehicles getting larger, more powerful, more technologically advanced, and more efficient - they are also cheaper to buy today than 40 years ago adjusted for inflation)

From the 2022 Automotive Trends Report

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by JSH

Buyers will routinely pay more for a larger, more powerful, and quicker vehicle. More recently they will pay more for AWD and larger touchscreens.

This also applies elsewhere anyway.

They won't pay for better fuel economy

Meanwhile in other countries, you'll still see actual service vehicles fitted with the most austere engine available within its range and manual transmission. For instance this Ranger for corpse removals.

[Piotrsko]

I need to point out that austere engines and basic interiors cost less. As a buyer, it was my job to get stuff as cheap as possible and I don't care about the low level user as long as I met the specs. If removing the heater would save a grand, then the user better have a good coat. Oddly, on new vehicles, having cold A/C was cheaper than deleting it.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

I need to point out that austere engines and basic interiors cost less. As a buyer, it was my job to get stuff as cheap as possible and I don't care about the low level user as long as I met the specs. If removing the heater would save a grand, then the user better have a good coat. Oddly, on new vehicles, having cold A/C was cheaper than deleting it.

That doesn’t surprise me. There comes a point in a product mix were the “cheaper” base option becomes more expensive than the optional upgrade just due to economy of scale. What surprises me is how long companies can take to adjust product mix and pricing to reflect reality.

Manual transmissions are a good example of this. Volumes are so low now that even just the parts cost more than an automatics without even adding in the extra cost for development, logistics, manufacturing, and service. (For A/C is is likely still cheaper to delete just looking at part cost) You would think companies would logically react to that by making the automatic standard and offering the manual as an option with a cost increase. Eventually the ever increasing cost of the manual will kill it completely.

However, very few companies have gone that route. For vehicles still even offered with the manual some companies have offered automatics as standard and made the manual a no-cost option. The most common treatment is to offer the manual in a bare bones base trim with no options and then have the real trim that people will buy cost thousands more. This give the manufacturer and dealers a low base price to advertise but insures they won’t sell many of that low or even negative profit margin vehicle. Low advertising price is key – manufacturers and dealer know that it is easy to upsell customers once you get them into the dealership – especially if you can get them to shop based on monthly payments not purchase price. However you have to get them in the door and low priced base model + teaser ad can do that.

[Piotrsko]

According to a local dealer, I am the only nut that came in last year looking for a manual tranny and I think he sold a thousand vehicles. Even the jacked up big tire 4wd truck idiots didn't want one.