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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-jobs-iygg9wja

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...

No where else to go or say but laugh or cry

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.

I'm all in favor of government and industry working together, but I think they've decided that pretending "millions" of jobs are at stake is their best tactic for getting looser regulations. And they might not be wrong.

Pro-active statement from your benevolent forum overlords!

We've had a no-politics rule for a long time, but sometimes auto efficiency-related topics clearly mesh with the political world. Tim and I just want remind members to keep things civil when these types of topics crop up.

I've seen too many comment sections on other auto sites ending up in flame wars recently.

People here are generally good about these things - please keep it that way if you're going to talk about these topics. We don't want to have to tighten topic restrictions further.

I think what Ford's Fields said was we can certainly build the high fe cars but consumers want Canyoneros. Also we want one national set of regs, none of this special stuff for Cali and elsewhere. I think the 1M jobs jobs jobs thing was B.S.

Those CAFE target fe numbers aren't just pulled out of a hat. A thorough engineering and economic analysis attempts to forecast what is reasonably attainable.

Let gas go to $6 and suddenly it all looks pretty good. Maybe the prediction is for expensive gas? Just because gas has been cheap lately doesn't mean it will be indefinitely. A national fleet composed of V8 4x4s would be pretty silly in an era of expensive fuel. Actually it's pretty damned silly anytime. :rolleyes:

I'd love to "upgrade" to a v8 sports car, but i have a feeling gas is going over $3/gal in the next 18 months. More inclined to go boosted 4 cylinder and tune with ethanol.

Everytime lifted truck DD i see is just one more person to laugh at when gas goes through the roof.

I'm sure it'll be much better for the economy when gas prices go back up and no one can afford to make their 100 mile commute. ;) Maybe we should stockpile hybrids and EVs to sell at that time and make some sweet profit. :thumbup:

Is there anyone who knows why so many jobs would supposedly be at risk? Seems to me that they could just crank out more high MPG cars and jack up the prices for lower MPG vehicles to shift demand and make up for the lower profit margins of the cheap cars.

Like it would have been nice to have had a stockpile of Metros and such when gas hit $4 and Metros were selling for crazy coin. :eek: That day may come again.

I haven't researched the jobs jobs jobs thing but that crazy number probably presumed an "inability" for an Uhmerican production facility to build something small. So all Uhmerican production would halt and the mfgs. would simply import all the little CAFE compliant cars. Oooooh, does that sound like a THREAT??? :eek:

Almost nobody wants fuel efficient vehicles at the moment.
If you have the funds and land go for it. I agree that it's only a matter of time. Gas will be at $3/gal soon and $4/gal soon enough.

Hmm, to buy that Mitsubishi Mirage now while gas is cheap and the tariffs on foreign cars haven't kicked in, or roll the dice on not needing to replace our cars for a long while... ?

<trying to make this as practical and not political as possible. ;) >

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.


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.

"Ego-hauler", I like it. :)

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.

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


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.


It's a matter of priorities.

http://www.sickchirpse.com/wp-conten...dit-Cards-.jpg

I have no doubt that the auto industry would collapse if people could only buy cars with their savings.

Boom

I for one think it is unreasonable to expect fuel economy on new cars to improve faster than I can modify it on my Civic--and that might finally convince me to get off of my ever-expanding four points of contact and work on my car.

Isn't oil subsidized, then taxed?

For the record, top oil subsidies are:
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Reimbursing farmers for fuel taxes for farm vehicles (used on their own farms)
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (so poor people do not freeze in the winter)

Hey look, something else is more complicated than I had realized. Forbes Welcome

http://assets.amuniversal.com/fc7584...51001dd8b71c47

Quote:

On every corner there's a giant metal Santa Claus, who watches over us with glowing red eyes. They carry weapons and they know if you've been bad or good. Not everybody's good but everyone tries. Jonathan Coulton Chiron Beta Prime

https://wiki.jonathancoulton.com/Chiron_Beta_Prime/Lyrics

Regulation may attempt to steer processes it can't control ('member Prohibition?). Fortunately we have Elon Musk, possibly the only person in the country who moves faster than #45. https://www.wired.com/2017/01/inside...g-los-angeles/

"Jobs at risk" is a logical fallacy — Red Herring. There's twice as many jobs at risk if you do relax regulation. Just different jobs, like not mining coal.

The problem is always the same. We put the burden on the auto manufacturers to "push" fuel efficient cars on the buyers who don't even have the slightest care in the world about fuel efficiency with gas at $2.39. You can't force a retailer to sell something that people don't want to buy. And still stay in buisiness. If the goal is to get people to quit burning up so much fossil fuel, it must be heavily taxed. And then the windfall can be given back to the working classes in other breaks so they can still get to work such as the subsidies that are currently running on electric cars and programs like the successful "cash fo clunkers" to get these old pick up trucks off of the road. Windfall money would also be available for loans to green energy developement, mass transit, efficient housing, food subsidies. A carbon tax doesn't have to hurt the poor and middle class. And then the rich guys can drive whatever they want and gripe every time they fill up to pay for the mess they are making. Many people have been saying it for a long time and now people like Musk have a loud voice. Start phasing in a big carbon tax now.

Haha, they don't. The bank pays for it then the average Joe ends up paying the bank back almost twice the price of the car.
I think I have my wife talked into saving up, paying cash for a 2 or 3 year old lease turn in here in the next year or 2.
She wants a new car, I don't want her to be locked into a 5ish year payment plan.

Step 1 - propose ham-handed government regulation to increase fuel economy by "punishing" the auto manufacturers if they fall below the fuel efficiency standard. Make the standard force cars to have a 5% improvement in fuel economy every year, but only require larger vehicles to have a 3.5% improvement per year. Also grant exemptions to those larger vehicles, and allow math tricks to gimmick fuel economy improvements that are not allowed with cars.

Step 2 - implement and watch the market favor larger vehicles in general, and a tiny amount of cars that get insanely high fuel economy but that are so pricey that only "rich people" can afford them, so as to avoid the "punishment" called for in the fuel economy standard.

Step 3 - whine about market choices and grumble about finding ways to punish the market.

Step 4 - ignore that step 1 was heavily influenced by the very automakers who were being "punished" to begin with, via regulatory capture.

Anywhere from not having a desire to make the banks more rich, lack of insecuritty, to having no need to impress or to be in fake competition with peers and total strangers.

Millions of jobs got lost when Detroit didn't build what the market wanted... But management liked the fact that Hummers made more profit per unit than Aspires. Oddly enough, when the factories closed and the shareholders and bondholders were left empty handed, the upper management that created that situation survived.

And that's the most efficient way to do things. Given the public policies that pollution is bad and using less fuel is good, Here's the cost you're going to pay to burn the stuff: figure things out. Let that invisible hand that the free market people like to talk about do its thing. We're already subsidizing cars with all our road construction, parking requirements and the like- what's so bad about shifting the subsidies to other transportation options that have a shot at reducing congestion?

Generally, people do not want efficient cars. Because gas is cheap. Huge sales volume still comes from large SUV's and pick up trucks. Not because the manufacturers make more profit. Which they do. But because this is what people want. Because gas is too cheap. The general public in the US has intentionally yet to grasp the inconvenient truth that they are hogging up way more than their fair share of resources.
.
The trouble is a long way off. More than a lifetime. So people refuse to face it. Even if the media would allow them to know about it. But it is big trouble. The whole free market world economic paradigm requires constant economic growth. Which is directly tied to energy consumption growth. 0% growth equals deep recession. Prolonged negative growth of any amount equals collapse.
.
Crude oil will pass peak and start getting more and more expensive. We will have done not enough to replace it or our obsolete economic paradigm and be caught in an energy trap where it is too expensive to do anything about it.
.
Fair warning. If you are reading this, your eyes have been opened. I will let your imagination fill in what happens in 50 - 150 years when we inevitably pass peak oil. Sorry.
.
Please read Tom Murphy among others. Who was an Astro-Physicist by trade and all around smart guy who apparently just started to think about things.
.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/

The auto maker bourgeoisie only care about profit. The only thing they care about more than profit is making more profit.

AKA willful ignorance.

https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/re-im...ing/2016/12/14
https://degrowth.org/definition-2/


Don't get ahead of yourself.

Magnetic space coupes?

That's a good point.

Had fossil fuel been heavily taxed before, maybe the "cash for clunkers" program would have been more successful. Some years ago I found some reports claiming that it didn't really have fulfilled some of the goals when it came to improvements to the overall fuel-efficiency. BTW I must confess I got quite surprised when GM phased out the hybrid versions of the Silverado, Tahoe, Escalade and Yukon.

I'm not sure what kind of "green" energy development you would be favorable, but it could eventually get in line with food subsidies. For example, biodigesters seem to be a good option to decrease farmers' dependence on petroleum-based fuels for their tractors and trucks with biomethane, that could also be used in gensets and as a replacement to kerosene used in heaters.

I consider the Japanese approach at setting different tax bands based on the vehicles size as a viable way to reduce congestion, but it's unlikely to happen due to different crash standards set by NHTSA. I'm also favorable to tricycles as a way to circumvent some crash standards and save weight in order to improve overall fuel-efficiency, but not even Harley-Davidson could challenge the automakers lobby...

The social anarchist approach is to neither support nor hinder government, but to instead go out and invent Internet or Bitcoin and make a dent in Universe.

https://www.arcimoto.com/wp-content/...-Update-II.pnghttps://www.arcimoto.com/blog/

The key point here
.
"And Fields cited studies that suggested up to 1 million U.S. jobs could be at risk "if we're not given some level of flexibility in aligning with market realities."
.

Aligning with MARKET realities.
.
Most people in the US don't have a care in the world for wanting a fuel efficient car. You can't force the manufacturer to sell what people do not want. You have to make the the buyers want what you want them to have. And then they will demand it.

I think if the automakers directed their advertising budgets to fuel-efficient cars in the same proportions as they now direct it to trucks & SUVs, they would find a lot of people who suddenly wanted those cars. And they could raise the price until they were making just as much profit per car, instead of selling their fuel efficient models at or near a loss in order to meat CAFE standards.

Wishful thinking. Not happening. Unless they flat out made adds about the ramifications of using up half million years of stored fossil fuel in 300 years with no back up plan in action. Science education and global resource stewardship in high school is the only hope to open the eyes of the general public. Most kids in the USA take the minimum amount of science and can't read a ruler.

If natural gas was cost effective to run farm equipment they would already have been using it.
Bio gas is some pretty nasty stuff. You do not want to be putting that into a piston engine with out essentially refining it.

.
We have to start learning to use alternative energy. Market forces may dictate the cheapest route but this is always short sighted. We will eventually get caught in an energy trap with no way to build alternatives, no experience, and fossil fuel that is too expensive to use to grow food.
.
Cummins has a new range of natural gas engines that Fedex is adopting for over the road transport.
.
Cummins Westport - Natural Gas Engines - Videos
.

I read that the Toyota Mirai, which was designed as a hydrogen car using fuel cells to convert that to electicity for its motors, can run on biogas as well.
That would be a win-win. Not only can it prevent letting all the animal waste go to waste, it can also put the hydrogen cars to good use. If affordable hydrogen never happens there is still biogas. Not enough to power a nation, but ample to fuel the few experimental showcase hydrogen cars.

Cummins has been making natural gas engines for decades.
Problem is all the nastys in bio gas will eat the pistons down to the ring groves. It has to be refined at least as much as natural gas.