Perverse side effects of the new CAFE standards?
Automotive News (subs req'd) has published a very interesting article on how the new CAFE rules might bring some surprises for American car buyers.
First and foremost, there's the "work truck" classification, which exempts those types of vehicles from these tougher standards. According to John DeCicco, from Environmental Defense, the first CAFE standards from 20 years ago allowed vehicles outside the car category - such as SUVs, light trucks and minivans - to survive with terrible fuel economy. Now the story could be repeated with larger vehicles that technically fit the definition of "work truck" but probably aren't used for work (the article uses the 2008 Ford F-250 Super Duty with King Ranch trim as an example) to again skate by legislation.
Then there's the issue of weight reduction, which has actually been a way to go for several car manufacturers (we even have a full category for it) to increase mileage ratings. But could this lead to cars that are less safe? The truth is that fuel economy targets will vary according to a vehicle's attributes - most likely size, measured by "footprint" or the area bounded by the four wheels, which is a system that ensures that automakers won't sell a bunch of smaller cars together with larger less efficient vehicles. However, this could also lead to cars that would weigh less than similar counterparts from the late '90s or early 2000s, which are, according to DeCicco, simply overweight.
The "footprint" of the car could also lead automakers to push wheels against the corners of the cars, something that might affect Honda or Nissan, marques that already sell smaller vehicles, says Ed Cohen, chief Washington lobbyist for Honda North America Inc. He also believes that some automakers will simply cope with the cost of fines (or add it to the price of the car), something premium marques have been doing in the past. Jim Kliesch, an engineer in the clean-vehicles program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, says: "It's going to be a fairly simple process," and he forecasts that this will only cost about $1,500 per car.
Related:
[Source: Automotive News (sub's required)]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rgseidl 3:27PM (2/12/2008)
The work-truck classification should be easy enough to tighten up: just invent a new Light Commercial Vehicle category that you need a special endorsement on your drivers' license for. Also restrict work-truck registrations to formal businesses with a reasonable need for such a vehicle (i.e. a need to actually haul heavy loads around on a regular basis). Some of those who buy trucks purely for recreational use will find a way to jump through these hoops, but most will just look for a different hobby.
Nevertheless, this proves that fuel economy regs will always prompt manufacturers to seek exemptions and loopholes. EU Commissioners looking to impose fleet average CO2 emissions should take note.
Unfortunately, the only proven way to achieve greater fuel economy per mile for the entire vehicle fleet is to impose high fuel taxes relative to disposable income. Ramping the tax up takes a decade, significant progress may take even longer. No pain, no gain. Even in America.
The other, complementary option is to reduce average annual mileage. You can use zoning laws etc. to very gradually bring commuters closer to their place of employment. Telecommuting and satellite offices are modern options that can be implemented much more quickly. Of course, high fuel prices increase demand for such solutions.
Reply
GoodCheer 4:32PM (2/12/2008)
I agree that much of the problem is in the schizophrenic definition of a "work truck". I think it would be pretty easy to only count as a truck a vehicle registered by a company as a truck, or include some significant tax that can be completely written off as a business or farm expense.
I'll bet people are far more willing to find loopholes in the regulations when it's the department of Highways than they would be if it was the IRS to whom they had to answer.
Reply
Joseph 6:12PM (2/12/2008)
"The "footprint" of the car could also lead automakers to push wheels against the corners of the cars, something that might affect Honda or Nissan"
What does pushing wheels against a car mean? How would that affect Nissan or Honda?
Reply
anonymo 5:33PM (2/12/2008)
CAFE is built for loopholes. It's not that it's intentional, it's that the design of the entire thing is faulty.
Building a 100mpg NEV? Guess what, your company now has an economic incentive to bring your CAFE average down to the minimum required by selling profitable pickups.
A carmaker which brings heavy-van-microbus efficiency up from 5mpg to 10mpg, on the other hand, is ruthlessly penalized. You can't sell that, without also producing high-MPG cars.
It heavily favors a few larger companies which are required to be jack-of-all-trades in their manufacturing, and it cripples market competition with a bureaucracy.
We have a way to increase the weight consumers put on mileage. Increase gas prices. We even have a way to do it without hurting the poor, targetting only those who are currently wasting gas on low-utility activities:
Tax everybody $1/gallon, and then refund every grown American citizen with a driver's license the resulting $650/year, so the whole thing is revenue-neutral, government doesn't become dependant on the income, and people get an incentive to buy more efficient cars and use mass transit. Up both of those ammounts by 20% a year until we're equal with Europe.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 7:43PM (2/12/2008)
What we don't need is places like autobloggreen repeating bullshit from people like George Will who say lighter vehicles are less safe.
A Subaru Forester earns a better safety rating than a full-size SUV. And it's cheaper too!
Reply
jcwinnie 11:50AM (2/13/2008)
Well, why not the LS2/LS7?, it is a valid concern that automobile companies might cut corners -- Everybody say, "Oh, No, We Don't Want No Pinto" -- And, ABG has given some space to Amory Lovins.
On the other hand, your point is well taken that it would have been more responsible, journalisitically, if Xavier Navarro had made reference to the assertion that smaller and lighter actually could be safer, if nothing more than a passing remark about the Fiat 500 and life as we know it on this planet.
As it is, the lack of balance does makes it seem alarmist and just another hack job for Dogbert.
Reply
rob 8:57PM (2/12/2008)
Pushing the wheels to the corners is a good thing - it helps stability, handling and interior space...
Reply
texmln 6:43PM (2/13/2008)
I bet we'd save a lot more gas if all the tree-hugging leftists would just stop driving their cars and ride bicycles everywhere. Just like your hero, Chairman Mao. Instead of taxing my Suburban, how about implementing a 'hypocrisy' tax for those people who want everybody else to sacrifice their way of life but all the while continue to drive horrible carbon spewing vehicles themselves? You're no different than the PETA protesters who wear leather. If you want to cut emissions so badly, then YOU cut YOUR emissions completely if it matters so much to you.
I'm also supremely confident that waiving a five star government crash certificate around ain't gonna stop the hurt when I hit your 3,100 pound Forester with my 6,000 pound Suburban. Good luck with that.
Reply
anonymo 5:51PM (2/23/2008)
I know your aim is to be an asshole, but I'm gonna respond anyway...
What I want is the economy to not totally collapse when world trade agreements shift, exporters decide to stop, and gas hits $20/gallon over the course of a month. We currently import more than 2/3 of our oil, and that addiction is just as problematic for our nation as, say, heroin, or losing a war. Withdrawal is a bitch. And I don't want your junkie ass robbing my house when you inevitably find yourself unable to fuel the Suburban.
Taxing gas arbitrarily with a revenue-neutral rebate scheme allows market action and personal initiative to reduce fuel usage without compromising flexibility of individual action.
PS: "See how long your 6000 pound suburban lasts against my Chainsaw-mobile." Now go back and think about your statement.
Reply
psarhjinian 5:57PM (2/13/2008)
The CAFE exemption and similar programs like Canada's ecoAUTO** that arbitrarily class cars is an incredible waste. The original CAFE light truck exemption is directly responsible for the SUV craze and the death of the wagon. Where's the incentive to make a more fuel-efficient car if it's cheaper and easier to slap a covered cargo area on a pickup truck or jack a midsize sedan up six inches?
I'm sorry, but the work truck exemption needs to go. Does that mean businesses will either have to pay more or need to buy smaller? Why yes it does!
Businesspeople in Europe and Asia seem to get by with smaller trucks and vans, so why not here? Why can a landscaper in Italy get by with a Piaggio Ape while the same work here needs an F-150?
** I saw this in an ad a few days ago: it really pisses me off that the Nissan Rogue gets a $1000 rebate under Canada's ecoAUTO program while the Versa does not, yet the Versa has practically the same capacity and gets better mileage. The difference? The Versa is a car, the Rogue is a "light truck". Does anyone buy Rogues for business? Anyone?
That's why this arbitrary classification is crap. Other examples: Subaru Outback = Truck, Legacy = Car (guess why the Legacy wagon is gone). PT Cruiser = Truck. Ford Taurus = Car, Ford Taurus X = Truck. Chevy HHR = Truck.
Reply
Jason 7:04PM (2/18/2008)
Apparently some people out there have forgotten that there is a legitimate segment of the population that does need these larger trucks and SUV'S. Its called being egocentric!
That is not surprising as most of the population has never really seen much outside of the massive concrete jungles in which they live.
For example, my Chevrolet Suburban makes life considerably easier for my family. We have 4 kids, and live in a remote area, where winter is generally severe, and services are many miles away. Minivans, and cars do not fair very well in the harsh conditions of winter, or on rough country roads (I have tried it).
I would prefer not to be stuck in a snowbank or run off a muddy road with the safety of a young family at stake.
As for the use of trucks, I completely agree that it isn't entirely necessary for those recreational users to own them, so perhaps discouraging that is appropriate.
But don't punish those who need them for what they are intended!
The comparison of North American farms and European farms is entirely inappropriate. The farmers grow different types of crop over there. What they regard as a crop many over here would call a large garden over here. The size of the European farming operation is a fraction of the size of farms over here. Why? Land prices (much higher in Europe), density of the farms, towns, and services, economy of scale (required over here), and MASSIVE government subsidization in Europe. Sure there are some subsidies in the U.S., and much fewer subsidies in Canada, but these pale in comparison to those of Europe.
So if farmers could make a living off tiny farms, then they could also drive Ford Rangers, but that isn't going to happen here. Bigger farms require bigger equipment, and larger amounts of livestock and crops.
Half ton trucks are a minimum requirement for most farms!
Now, do manufacturers need to sell many millions of trucks and SUV's each year. No! There isn't many millions of people who require them, but there are still a legitimate amount who do.
As far as the extreme luxury in some of the trucks (Ford King Ranch), yeah its a bit excessive, but it doesn't exactly contribute to many of society's problems so why worry about it. Besides, why can't a farmer of construction worker have a luxurious vehicle in the same way that a business executive in Los Angeles or chicago can have a luxurious car?
That is my perspective , thanks for yours.
Reply