01-30-2017, 03:05 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
PSmodder lurker
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chino
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 26
Thanked 908 Times in 522 Posts
|
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
Last edited by botsapper; 01-30-2017 at 04:13 PM..
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 03:30 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
Corporate imperialist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,265
Thanks: 273
Thanked 3,569 Times in 2,833 Posts
|
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.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 03:42 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
ScanGauge <3
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: CID
Posts: 364
Thanks: 226
Thanked 129 Times in 91 Posts
|
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.
__________________
Best tank (so far): 32 MPG
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 04:33 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,527
Thanks: 4,078
Thanked 6,976 Times in 3,612 Posts
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-30-2017, 08:30 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
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.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-30-2017, 08:51 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,745
Thanks: 206
Thanked 420 Times in 302 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
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.
|
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.
__________________
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 10:26 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 975
Thanks: 193
Thanked 312 Times in 221 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
A national fleet composed of V8 4x4s would be pretty silly in an era of expensive fuel. Actually it's pretty damned silly anytime.
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
01-30-2017, 11:38 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
(:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by vskid3
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.
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. 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???
|
|
|
01-31-2017, 01:33 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
Corporate imperialist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,265
Thanks: 273
Thanked 3,569 Times in 2,833 Posts
|
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.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
|
|
|
01-31-2017, 01:57 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
ScanGauge <3
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: CID
Posts: 364
Thanks: 226
Thanked 129 Times in 91 Posts
|
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. >
__________________
Best tank (so far): 32 MPG
|
|
|
|