Vehicle makers say US fuel economy standards put a million jobs at risk

[Natalya]

G2 Honda Insights are really cheap right now, in some cases almost as cheap as G1's.

I don't see how reducing fuel economy standards would help there be more jobs. All the FE tech that new 2017 cars have, the R&D has been done, it's just a matter of putting the physical components on the cars. Maybe you reduce the cost of your Focus by $500 or something. I doubt that's going to increase sales to the point that you start to hire more workers. I think this is all a red herring.

[MetroMPG]

Used Prius prices (mostly looking at gen 2) in my neck of the woods have dropped by 25-40% in the past year or so.

[ME_Andy]

I don't think gas prices are going far with the Tesla M3 on the horizon.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Government jobs maybe.
I think the fuel economy standards should go up over time. But not what the ridiculous standard they set, what was it something like 65mpg by 2025.
As lighter materials become cheaper to use and technology improves the auto makers would only implement these when it can make the vehicle cheaper to produce. That is the OEMs only motivation.

54.5mpg average CAFE--which is higher than EPA for any given car. But, that number is not accurate because the CAFE standard varies depending on the size of the car. Vehicles like the Prius, C-Max, and Sonata hybrid already easily exceed their 2025 CAFE.

Where it gets wonky is because of that size measurement--cars with similar wheelbases, like the Ford Fiesta (98") and Porsche 911 (96.5") are held to the same 2025 standard of 61.1 mpg CAFE, theoretically. That has to be qualified because, based on sales of a manufacturer's various models that determine its unique average CAFE mandate, the 911 doesn't have to get outrageous mileage at all if VW sells enough more-efficient cars to bring its average up, earns credit by selling cars with low-energy-consumption lights or other accessories, buys credits from other manufacturers, or sells enough alternative-fuel vehicles, which are counted at a higher rate than the real number sold (EVs are worth 2.0x, plug-in hybrids 1.6x, etc.) to increase its CAFE for the company as a whole, which is the number that ultimately matters.

Example:

Sketchy Motors sells 8 cars in 2025--two large cars that must achieve 46 MPG CAFE, 2 mid-size cars at 50 MPG, and 4 small cars, 2 ICE and 2 EV, that must get 61.1 MPG, the highest CAFE tier. Based on these sales, and since they aren't a subsidiary brand of a larger company, Sketchy Motors must achieve an average CAFE of 54.5 MPG. Since one of their models was electric, Sketchy Motors' accountants can multiply its sales by 1.5 (the credit phases down from 2.0 in 2021) when figuring the company's average fuel economy.

Say their large car gets an actual CAFE of 30 MPG, their midsize 42 MPG, their small car 55 MPG, and their small EV 105 MPGe. The EV gets counted 1.5x, and their actual CAFE average is 63.2 MPG. Not only does Sketchy Motors easily achieve their CAFE mandate despite 75% of their model line-up underperforming their ostensible targets by a wide margin, Sketchy Motors has enough excess credit that it can sell to an unlucky manufacturer, like truck-heavy Chrysler, and make some extra profit.

Here's a primer on CAFE published when the mandate was first proposed that explains everything. Despite the "unlikely chance" mentioned in that article of gas going back to $2.00/gallon having happened, the CAFE mandate remains generously biased toward manufacturers, and is tied to the actual size and number of models sold, not some theoretical average (like the 54.5 MPG that has constantly been reported; that number is drawn from predictions and industry forecasts which are subject to change and inaccuracy).

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Though I'm highly unfavorable to the engine displacement-biased taxation system enforced in my country, I do believe some measure that would be deemed quite "extreme" by a bunch of V8-loving rednecks are the only realistic way to achieve higher fuel-efficiency standars. For example, why nearly everyone else in the world is still allowed to buy a forward-control van about one inch narrower and just a few inches longer than a Corolla that can actually perform the very same duties an American small business owner is forced to get a gas-guzzling V6 or V8 boat anchor to perform? Considering that foreign automakers actually set factories in America when the domestic ones were flying to Canada and Mexico, it would seem more reasonable to allow those companies to offer some of their higher-efficiency products already available not just to overseas markets but also in Mexico. Japan has a taxation system that sounds quite smart to me, since it's based on vehicles' external dimensions and then leads to some optimization of the internal layout.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by botsapper

They ask (regulation killer)Trump, they want 'regulations' combined to a single standard and fuel economy targets reflect the kinds of cars Americans actually want to buy...F-Series, Rams, Silverados...

I wonder - well, no, I'm actually pretty darn certain that the advertising budgets for those F-series &c are many times higher than for the US automakers more fuel-efficient models. So do Americans [u]actually[u] want to buy them, or are they persuaded by the drumbeat of endless advertising? And conversely, if a lot of people really wanted to buy those things, why do the automakers think they have to spend so much on advertising?

(Warning: sorta political rant ahead)

Really, isn't this just more of what we've heard from US automakers ever since the first VW Beetle landed on these shores? "Oh, we can't possibly build cars like that/meet those pollution standards, whine, whine..." Then foreign automakers just go ahead and do it, US automakers lose market share, beg for taxpayer bailouts, then finally manage to sorta catch up - at which point the cycle starts again, after the loss of more market share (and US jobs) to foreign competitors.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I wonder - well, no, I'm actually pretty darn certain that the advertising budgets for those F-series &c are many times higher than for the US automakers more fuel-efficient models. So do Americans [u]actually[u] want to buy them, or are they persuaded by the drumbeat of endless advertising? And conversely, if a lot of people really wanted to buy those things, why do the automakers think they have to spend so much on advertising?

The average Joe has been persuaded to see the full-size trucks as a part of the American dream, in spite of them being rather crude with their body-on-frame layout and leaf-sprung solid rear axle that didn't really evolve so much in the last 60 years. But it's quite cheap to make, subjected to less stringent fuel-efficiency and emission standards, and can be loaded with so many gadgets to a point that its payload may eventually become ridiculously low in order to remain at a low GVWR class in order to not require a commercial driver license. Then, while an ego-hauler truck might be profitable, the artificially-grown demand for them ends up serving as an excuse to phase out simpler features that would serve just right for many professionals who would be just looking for an affordable workhorse.

Really, isn't this just more of what we've heard from US automakers ever since the first VW Beetle landed on these shores? "Oh, we can't possibly build cars like that/meet those pollution standards, whine, whine..." Then foreign automakers just go ahead and do it, US automakers lose market share, beg for taxpayer bailouts, then finally manage to sorta catch up - at which point the cycle starts again, after the loss of more market share (and US jobs) to foreign competitors.

Considering that both Ford and GM were still able to either develop efficiency-enhanced vehicles catering to other markets through their overseas branches or occasionally just outsourcing them, sometimes their domestic market strategies on how to compete with foreign automakers becomes somewhat dumb. For example, why did Ford take so long to introduce the Transit to the American market? Even though the E-Series vans could rely on some parts interchangeability with the F-Series trucks, the enhanced efficiency and practicality of overseas-designed vans and their broader appeal to global markets would not only justify their presence in the domestic market but also become a more valuable asset for export.

[ThermionicScott]

"Ego-hauler", I like it.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

...can be loaded with so many gadgets,,,

I may have seen the ultimate the other day. Oversized forget-the-brand (if I even noticed) truck pulls up as I'm coming out of the grocery store, I hear this electric motor sort of whine, and it extends running boards with steps so the people can climb down.

I also have to wonder how the so-called average Joe manages to pay for these things. Not to brag or anything, but I'm well above average financially, and the end-of-model-year discounts I hear advertised are more than I've ever paid for a car.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Oversized forget-the-brand (if I even noticed) truck pulls up as I'm coming out of the grocery store, I hear this electric motor sort of whine, and it extends running boards with steps so the people can climb down.

I noticed this feature for the first time in a previous-generation Cadillac Escalade.

I also have to wonder how the so-called average Joe manages to pay for these things.

I also have no idea about it, but it's often pointed out that some small businessmen or entrepreneurs use income tax rebates when they buy such an ego-hauler just because it's titled as a commercial vehicle even though it's not likely to be used for business purposes at all.

Not to brag or anything, but I'm well above average financially, and the end-of-model-year discounts I hear advertised are more than I've ever paid for a car.

It's a matter of priorities.