New cafe standards -- will 35 MPG kill the auto industry??

[chargergirl]

Correct me if I am wrong but there was a promise of American drilling prior to election from both parties. Upon election one of the first orders is that drilling cease, then any new drilling would not be approved. Our independence from foreign oil was part of the platform and now it is all we have to look forward to. The auto industry was in great peril prior to the 35mpg push. To simply state that American auto builders are  going to suffer for this is to not look at the actions of poor management in the last ten years. The information and technology for more fuel efficient cars has been there for years; it was ignored. The entire industry mysteriously began mass producing energy efficient cars. It is naive to believe these cars were not already in the works and instantly mass produced. One reason that people have steered away from American cars; even more than fuel efficiency is that every time you turned around the car or truck you just purchased was being recalled. Not silly stuff like a bad switch handle, but a bad switch that made your automobile catch fire. Prices were exorbitant and quality was horrendous! I still bought American, I simply bought used. As it has been said...all those cars will now be crushed forcing the American public to buy new. All but the 300ZX is American in my driveway and garage. They are also all Mopar.

[greenpigs]

We need to buy that 5.0 mustang or turbo shelby charger and any 80's - 90's performance car up before they get crushed. They and others from that era are the next new wave of "musclecars" and someone needs to keep them out of a chrusher. They are restoring some now but if they let them get crushed whats the next generation going to mess with? Motorcycles, video games.

[Sublime69]

I can't even begin to read all the posts on here because they vary across way too many topics for me to get too involved.

China: They have alot of damn people over there. They get paid what they want to pay them, they're a communist country. If you want them to phase away, STOP buying their crap. Do you just have to have those designer jeans, or those expensive ass shoes?

The U.S. Government: The only thing that gets the slightest voluntary movement out of these people is MONEY. Money is the only thing that moves the government. Somewhere, there is an interested party backing every ridiculous law our government passes. They are suppose to work for us, we give them our votes as a form of hiring. Like any employer, they should meet OUR expectations as we have hired them. There is obviously something wrong in our system when they think they have the power to CONTROL instead of govern.

Ghetto's: You know how they get that way? Piss-poor government programs that use tax dollars to fund people that have no ambition in life. Because if you actually tell people to get off their ass and become a productive member of society, there is always a party somewhere that wants to lable you as a racist. So instead our government thinks of "creative" ways to encourage progress in these inner city slums and instead it costs us more and more and more....because they know we will gladly pay for them and their 5 kids by 5 different men to sit on their ass all day (while we work or LOOK for work) and watch t.v shows telling them how unequal they are treated. Every major city in the U.S. has been stripped of all the progress it's ever made because of government programs and "services". But you know what, you lose your job and go on unemployment and our government gives you a time limit to find a job before they cut you from life support. Imagine that. A productive, tax paying member of society has a time limit but a lazy, unproductive member of society gets welfare and who knows what else for as long as he wants to remain a lazy unproductive member of society.  

Driving: Yes, I am a car nut. Even more I'm a Mopar nut. The government has no right to tell me how much I can drive a registered, insured car. That's ridiculous. Tax gas even more? Is that suppose to give us a surplus of tax money?   The government would just use that money on some other useless program, if not their own pockets, so I'm positive taxing fuel MORE would not help a damn thing. Remember, these are people who can't even manage their own finances. You want to know what they do with the extra taxes they make off things like fuel? Here in TN they rip up a completely perfect highway only to inconvenience all the drivers and repave it. You can't change a thing about gas prices and it's not up to our government to solve high gas price problems. Besides, the shortage is artificially created by OPEC and traders/investors who buy low and sell high, just like stocks. It should be up to you and I to decide what the auto companies build based off demand for their product. We are the driving market. We decide what is produced by what they make their profits from. But instead we elect a government to step in and do it for us like their our best buddies because we would rather trade our individual freedoms for government assistance.

You really want to start saving some money? Make the government smaller, not bigger. And I hope this doesn't lock this thread.

[tricky lugnuts]

Overtly long political rant. (Apologies in advance!)

A Brave New World, folks. That's where we're headed... Only not so free, and not really so brave. Americans had a chance for a "free market," "local determination" president last election cycle. Guess what? He got about 10% of the Republican primary vote in a few libertarian leaning states. (Here's hoping you at least know who I'm referring to. Hint: It wasn't McCain and it wasn't Sarah Palin!!!) And yes, his sticker's in the back window of my Charger! I can post a pic if you want!

The bigger shift going on in my opinion, besides Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards, is the government's push for electric vehicles.

Yes, a total transition is still a long way off. They're as squeamish about building new nuclear plants and geothermal plants and coal-fired power plants as they are about letting people drill for oil off the California and Florida coasts. But hell, the amount of energy being consumed by computers, servers, and data centers alone is probably going to push them to have to do at least something soon about domestic energy supplies, at least if the economy ever recovers. And I'm sorry, domestic drilling would never provide enough oil to fuel the gas mileage of the 1950s-1970s in perpetuity. Oil is not that renewable of a resource. It's basic geology. Yes, it's out there. But they're already going to some pretty extraordinary lengths to find the stuff. No "Jed Clampett shot at a rabbit and struck it rich" going on anymore! The same goes for coal... They're literally blasting mountains for coal across the Ohio River in West Virginia, the "Mountain State." It's a joke around here - (flickering lights in house on and off) how do you make West Virginia flat as a pancake? Keep paying your AEP bill!

Me and my boss were talking about the switch to electric cars a few days ago. Robert Heinlein predicted it more than 30 years ago. Replace a tank of fuel with a battery pack that has a similar life of 300-400 miles, maybe more if you plug it into your house overnight for charging. Simply stop at the fill station for a new one whenever you need a new one, per your charge gauge. The fill station pulls it, puts it back on their charger, and then gives it to someone else who stops for a refill when its ready to go. You want to make a load of money, invent that battery pack!!! Don't think there aren't people trying.

And really, except for the fuel medium, how would it be any different from what we do today with gasoline? Of course, we'll be lucky if our electric vehicles aren't equipped with top-speed governors and a more formidable version of On Star - thanks GM - tracking our every move across this great land and ready to disable the vehicle in an instant's notice for traffic stops, political questioning, papers, biometric scans, rectal searches, etc... Of course the technology will likely be designed to serve us in some way... "On Star, my butt itches - can you activate seat to scratch it? ...No, On Star, the other cheek... Sorry!"

And better fuel efficiency and lower demand won't lower the price of gas for the "bottom of the food chain consumer" like some are hoping. (Myself included.) China will be plenty happy to keep burning fuel, coal with no consideration for the environment. And all that smog will drift across the ocean just like it's already doing today, melting our beloved polar ice caps and killing off Canada's beloved polar bears as the "Ghosts of the Jurassic" take over our atmosphere and reintroduce 90 degree weather to the Arctic Circle.

Less of a voting block makes it easier for Congress to someone. Look at what they're doing to cigarettes. They're making state and federal governments reliant on the revenue from something that fewer and fewer people are doing. Smokers are now a minority the government no longer minds screwing. (I quit smoking about a year ago and laugh at $5.50 packs of cigarettes. Who in their right mind can afford to smoke a pack of those a day? You can't unless your career is more lucrative than mine. I can barely afford to go fishing this weekend and still put aside some money in my savings account after paying for living expenses and my weekly $80-$100 in local, state, and federal taxes. I pay as much in taxes as I do to meet my living expenses. Thanks Uncle Sam.) Hell, they're are already talking about a new 75 cent per gallon federal tax on gasoline. And when you factor in all the off the books deficit spending for wars in the Middle East over the last eight years alone it probably should be more than that!

But yes, the Challengers, Chargers, Vipers, Corvettes, etc. are probably all going away - eventually - with CAFE standards. It's sad. They are good, exciting, spirited cars. But they were never anything more than a niche market in this day and age of people who want Chrysler Town and Country minivans and the Hyundai Sonata Car. I'd be surprised if the performance vehicles weren't going away simply due to Car-Czar-directed changes at the new Government Motors. Yes, the performance vehicles were a niche market in this world of disposable crap cars. And guess who your federal government doesn't mind trampling on... Let's all just go buy health insurance instead!!! It'd be better for us. And in my opinion we as a nation and a species on Earth are far more screwed than anyone, anyone out there has openly recognized. And that's probably the way it's always been, CAFE standards or not.

[Brock Samson]

 Like what was just written by tricky...  "Hello, Onstar?".. 
curious though waht word was left out of the first sentence, second to last paragraph though... 
"Tax"?..
Alot of great - yet troubleing points raised here... 

[tricky lugnuts]

Sorry - it was supposed to say "Tax." Though I guess "Screw Over" would be a good substitute too!

[68charger383]

Overtly long political rant. (Apologies in advance!)
But yes, the Challengers, Chargers, Vipers, Corvettes, etc. are probably all going away - eventually - with CAFE standards. It's sad.

You never know, I thought CAFE standards meant that the average MPG from all cars they produce must equal 35 MPG. So if they sell enough Prius' then they can build a few supras. In addition, as long as people are willing to buy the muscle cars, they will still make them. Look at Ford with the mustang which never stopped being produced.

I think the issue will be this:

An issue of the cars available: If Chevy can get 300 HP and 29 MPGs out of a 6cyl, then maybe that is the future for these cars. Only need to sell one car that gets 41 MPG for every 6 cyl Camaro you sell to = 35 MPG avg.

An issue of money since the sub 35 MPG muscle cars will cost the buyer a large premium.

An issue of oil prices increasing to costs similar to Europe, about $7/Gal., so a car with a lower MPG in a sense pays a sin tax since it cost more to drive the car.  

[Ghoste]

Well you are right, it is the average but the problem is that it only works in the enthusiasts favor if lots of people buy migh mileage cars to offset that bear killing, world destroying, ozone depleting, foreign oil supporting Challenger you want.

[694spdRT]

Well you are right, it is the average but the problem is that it only works in the enthusiasts favor if lots of people buy migh mileage cars to offset that bear killing, world destroying, ozone depleting, foreign oil supporting Challenger you want.

My mom bought a PT Cruiser and grandma just bought a new Caliber so I guess that leaves me with a Challenger then. 

[Sublime69]

Ok, let me understand something:

I hear alot of people on here saying: Well if they sell one car at 29 mpg all they need to sell is one at 41mpg.... and so on.

The point is this, if I'm correct here, they key word is Sell not Offer.

So what it sounds like, to me anyway, is even if the auto manuf's OFFER high MPG cars, if they aren't being bought in large enough ratio's to offset the cars we like, low MPG cars, they're still in trouble of CAFE regulation in meeting the mandated 35 mpg fleet average. Is this correct? Because I thought it was the average of the fleet that's offered. If you have a fleet of 10 different models, take each car individually, add up the mpg and divide by 10. Do I not know how to do math or is congress adding an X factor?

[PocketThunder]

Overtly long political rant. (Apologies in advance!)

A Brave New World, folks. That's where we're headed... Only not so free, and not really so brave. Americans had a chance for a "free market," "local determination" president last election cycle. Guess what? He got about 10% of the Republican primary vote in a few libertarian leaning states. (Here's hoping you at least know who I'm referring to. Hint: It wasn't McCain and it wasn't Sarah Palin!!!) And yes, his sticker's in the back window of my Charger! I can post a pic if you want!

Amen brother!  R.P. 2012!   

[Mike DC]

I hear alot of people on here saying: Well if they sell one car at 29 mpg all they need to sell is one at 41mpg.... and so on.

The point is this, if I'm correct here, they key word is Sell not Offer.

So what it sounds like, to me anyway, is even if the auto manuf's OFFER high MPG cars, if they aren't being bought in large enough ratio's to offset the cars we like, low MPG cars, they're still in trouble of CAFE regulation in meeting the mandated 35 mpg fleet average. Is this correct? Because I thought it was the average of the fleet that's offered. If you have a fleet of 10 different models, take each car individually, add up the mpg and divide by 10. Do I not know how to do math or is congress adding an X factor? scratchchin

The factories don't make cars that they don't sell.  It's only a question of how much money they lose on a given model. 

   

[Sublime69]

You're right, they make cars they think are marketable and end up selling a given quantity of them over a year's time.

But, that doesn't answer the question. My question is do they figure mpg average's by a fleet (combined mpg for all models available divided by total number of models available) or do they do it by the ratio of cars they sell for each model?

Because what it sounds like is they can come up with some high mpg cars, but if the don't sell enough of them they don't meet the CAFE 35 mpg requirement. It's based on selling a specific ratio of high mpg cars to low mpg cars. You can figure selling 1 29 mpg camaro to 1 41 mpg car all you want, but in reality if it's 2 29 mpg camaro's to 1 41 mpg car you aren't going to achieve the 35 mpg average from the way I understand they're figuring fleet average. Am I the only one seeing a problem with this?

[Ghoste]

You know, I have always assumed it was based on what was shipped but I really don't know.  Anyone?

[694spdRT]

Here it is according to CAFE on the site: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

It is broken up into different categories for cars and trucks, it appears that credits can be earned and transferred from one year to the next, and that it is based on production. If the manufacturer can't sell them that is apparently their (or the taxpayers) problem.  

"How is a manufacturer's CAFE determined for a given model year?"

A manufacturer's CAFE is the fleet wide average fuel economy. Separate CAFE calculations are made for up to three potential fleets: domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars and light trucks. The averaging method used is referred to as a "harmonic mean". The regulatory language describes the calculation as: "the number of passenger automobiles manufactured by the manufacturer in a model year; divided by the sum of the fractions obtained by dividing the number of passenger automobiles of each model manufactured by the manufacturer in that model year by the fuel economy measured for that model." The numerical example below illustrates the process. Assume that a hypothetical manufacturer produces four light truck models in 2004, where MPG means miles per gallon and GVWR means gross vehicle weight rating measured in lbs:

Model MPG GVWR Production Volume
Vehicle A 22 3000  130,000
Vehicle B 20 3500  120,000
Vehicle C 16  4000  100,000
Vehicle D 10  8900  40,000

Because the Vehicle D exceeds 8,500 GVWR, it is excluded from the calculation. Therefore, the manufacturer's light truck CAFE is calculated as:

Total Production/(#Vehicle A/Fuel Economy + #Vehicle B/Fuel Economy + #Vehicle C/Fuel Economy)=Average Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy

350,000/(130,000/22 + 120,000/20 + 100,000/16) = 19.27mpg

[Sublime69]

I'm not disagreeing with the info you showed us, but that's complete BS congress wants to do it that way

It's the manufacturer's fault if they don't sell?

This is how I figured "fleet" fuel economy in my own terms:

Lets make it simple, Chrysler sells 5 different models:

1) Ram @ 20 mpg
2) Charger @ 25 mpg
3) Challenger @25 mpg
4) Caliber @ 35 mpg
5) Some Hybrid @ 70 mpg

Therefore, the average fleet fuel economy would be:

20(Ram)+25(Charger)+25(Challenger)+35(Caliber)+70(Some Hybrid) divided by the total number of model choices(5 vehicles total)

=> 175 combined mpg / 5 models = 35 mpg FLEET AVERAGE.

What the hell is wrong with congress when they figure fleet average based off sales that haven't been made yet? Counting chickens before they hatch huh? Leave the sales part up to the consumer congress, the way I see it Chrysler did their part in this scenerio.

[Ghoste]

Because the whole idea is to force the mfg's to only offer cars that meet EPA approval.   Think of it as the backdoor way to get you into a People's Kar.

[Brock Samson]

 FYI: A lot of interesting info in the latest Car & Driver Magazine... they test four upcomming plug ins including a feature on the Tesla like Dodge lotus derived sports car and my Fav. the Fisker Karma... over 960 Lbs of torque at the rear wheels... 

  http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q3/henrik_fisker_the_man_behind_the_2010_fisker_karma-feature

i also saw something recently about G.M. offering their Cars Via E-Bay...

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=152428

[Arthu®]

A quick and simple answer to the question will 35mpg kill the auto industry would be no it won't kill it. Will it let the auto industry continue in its current form (which is grossly inefficient), than the answer would be again no. The cafe standards are just part of the reason and an incentive to the auto industry to change their current ways. The auto industry is a weird industry because the actual use of the products they sell have been heavily subsidized for years. Many people (especially in the US) perceive it as a right to have cheap fuel and whenever government imposes a tax on it they will scream as loud as they can. However even research dating back to 1998 show that the real cost of a gallon of gasoline could be up to about $15 USD. All this subsidizing has made the auto industry lazy in developing and updating their product line, why would they, even though the cost of fuel was going up tremendously most of the costs were absorbed by governments so that they consumer that actually buys the product could not give a rats ass about how much fuel the car would consume or how much energy it costs to produce. The fact is that we have to change our ways, fossil fuels are not a renewable energy source and will keep increasing in cost (and thereby put a larger burden on both government and both directly and indirectly on the consumer) as long as the demand stays the same or keeps increasing. Is the 35mpg ruling a good tool to get a grasp on the situation and force the auto industry to new ways, yes it is.

Personally I am very big fan of the market, as one of your presidents once said: "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem" and he is partly correct. Sadly a true open market is too aggressive for most people to survive, therefore we have governments regulating them. In this case because the government has intervened in the market for decades with large subsidies the customer has lost touch with the actual world and now governments pay huge amounts of money while there is no change in the foreseeable future that the customer will change it ways, therefore it has decided to force the producers of cars to change their ways. We all know that the governments around the world are in huge debts over the economic crisis, with the buyouts and the money they were forced to pump into their economies. This money has to come from somewhere so expect for the next few decades to pay more tax and prepare to have to pay more for goods that are now heavily subsidized. This should have been done much earlier and in a more gradual way than it will be done now, people should have been held more accountable for their own consumption.

Sadly the western world as we know it has become a true McDonalds style economy. It's fat, it's slow and all it does is consume. Where at the end of the Soviet Union they only seemed to produce to produce the western economies now seem to consume just for the mere fact of consuming.

The coming decade will be one of change, that you are not happy with the president you have just elected is a bummer, but honestly I still believe that he was the lesser of the two evils. Things have to change and they have to change fast, the U.S. needs to become less dependent on China, I just read an article that for the first time since 1993 people in the U.S. are actually saving more and this is good, this will make the U.S. less dependent on foreign investment (even though it will take more than a couple of months of saving). It won't be good for the economic development though, as saved money is not spend it will hurt the economic development in the short term future.

Do not fear the future though, in my opinion the U.S. still has the biggest chance in being the biggest economy in the coming decades. Whether you like it or not though there  needs to be a change in attitude and with your new president that has the biggest chance of succeeding. The U.S. has been known for its enormous flexibility and seemingly endless optimism, these are your powers and those are two things that are very important in an economy. You guys just need to loose some weight that's basically it. Look at it like this the U.S. is now the biggest fattest person on earth and has now just noticed its decline in health. Now it's up to you guys to loose weight and get back into fighting shape.

So my answer is no, it won't kill the auto industry.

Arthur

[694spdRT]

I'm not disagreeing with the info you showed us, but that's complete BS congress wants to do it that way

It's the manufacturer's fault if they don't sell?

This is how I figured "fleet" fuel economy in my own terms:

Lets make it simple, Chrysler sells 5 different models:

1) Ram @ 20 mpg
2) Charger @ 25 mpg
3) Challenger @25 mpg
4) Caliber @ 35 mpg
5) Some Hybrid @ 70 mpg

Therefore, the average fleet fuel economy would be:

20(Ram)+25(Charger)+25(Challenger)+35(Caliber)+70(Some Hybrid) divided by the total number of model choices(5 vehicles total)

=> 175 combined mpg / 5 models = 35 mpg FLEET AVERAGE.

What the hell is wrong with congress when they figure fleet average based off sales that haven't been made yet? Counting chickens before they hatch huh? Leave the sales part up to the consumer congress, the way I see it Chrysler did their part in this scenerio.

CAFE has been around for a long time so this is nothing new but they are raising the requirements now which is what the thread is about. They will never just use the average like you mentioned and ignore production run of each model. They are looking at the entire fleet for fuel economy. In your senario they could make one hybrid and 1,000,000 SUV's or 1,000,000 hybrids and one SUV and the average would be the same. The law it is broken up into different categories for cars and trucks but I don't know if it the average is based off an initial estimate provided by the manufacturer prior to the years production run or if it is calculated at the end of each model year production run. If the manufacturer goes over they can pay a penalty or bank it against the nexts years production run. From reading the info it seems some manufacturers just pay the penalty instead of trying to meet the requirements.

From what I read with the law it is up to the manufacturer to sell what they produce. If they make to many vehicles it really is not the fault of the government for including them in the fleet average.

[Sublime69]

I'm not disagreeing with the info you showed us, but that's complete BS congress wants to do it that way

It's the manufacturer's fault if they don't sell?

This is how I figured "fleet" fuel economy in my own terms:

Lets make it simple, Chrysler sells 5 different models:

1) Ram @ 20 mpg
2) Charger @ 25 mpg
3) Challenger @25 mpg
4) Caliber @ 35 mpg
5) Some Hybrid @ 70 mpg

Therefore, the average fleet fuel economy would be:

20(Ram)+25(Charger)+25(Challenger)+35(Caliber)+70(Some Hybrid) divided by the total number of model choices(5 vehicles total)

=> 175 combined mpg / 5 models = 35 mpg FLEET AVERAGE.

What the hell is wrong with congress when they figure fleet average based off sales that haven't been made yet? Counting chickens before they hatch huh? Leave the sales part up to the consumer congress, the way I see it Chrysler did their part in this scenerio.

CAFE has been around for a long time so this is nothing new but they are raising the requirements now which is what the thread is about. They will never just use the average like you mentioned and ignore production run of each model. They are looking at the entire fleet for fuel economy. In your senario they could make one hybrid and 1,000,000 SUV's or 1,000,000 hybrids and one SUV and the average would be the same. The law it is broken up into different categories for cars and trucks but I don't know if it the average is based off an initial estimate provided by the manufacturer prior to the years production run or if it is calculated at the end of each model year production run. If the manufacturer goes over they can pay a penalty or bank it against the nexts years production run. From reading the info it seems some manufacturers just pay the penalty instead of trying to meet the requirements.

From what I read with the law it is up to the manufacturer to sell what they produce. If they make to many vehicles it really is not the fault of the government for including them in the fleet average.

Ok, but why should they produce these cars BEFORE they have a demand for them and then be punished for not selling them?

The scenario of 1 hybrid to 100000000 other cars isn't going to happen. People will buy what they want as this is still a free country. If the people so choose to only buy 1 hybrid out of 250 million people, then obviously we don't need CAFE's regulations and we can manage our own free selves.

[68charger383]

Ok, but why should they produce these cars BEFORE they have a demand for them and then be punished for not selling them?

The scenario of 1 hybrid to 100000000 other cars isn't going to happen. People will buy what they want as this is still a free country. If the people so choose to only buy 1 hybrid out of 250 million people, then obviously we don't need CAFE's regulations and we can manage our own free selves.

The companies will produce what sells. If the SUVs sell and drag down the CAFE avg below the 35 MPG mark, then the cost for the CAFE penalty will be built into the price of the SUV and passed to the consumer. Honestly, if they produced a prius type car for $15K everyone would probably buy one. Who wouldn't want a car that gets 50 MPG, especially if gas goes up to $3 +. The newer hybrid/electric models also look more stylish. Doesn't mean you can't own a second car like a challenger or viper for fun on the weekends.

I wouldn't worry, if you looked at production numbers, most companies sell more of the eco boxes then the higher ends cars, so as far as the CAFE rating goes, it won't be a problem. Most people actually consider cars as a means to "A" to "B" and want to buy those high MPG cars.

[694spdRT]

I'm not disagreeing with the info you showed us, but that's complete BS congress wants to do it that way

It's the manufacturer's fault if they don't sell?

This is how I figured "fleet" fuel economy in my own terms:

Lets make it simple, Chrysler sells 5 different models:

1) Ram @ 20 mpg
2) Charger @ 25 mpg
3) Challenger @25 mpg
4) Caliber @ 35 mpg
5) Some Hybrid @ 70 mpg

Therefore, the average fleet fuel economy would be:

20(Ram)+25(Charger)+25(Challenger)+35(Caliber)+70(Some Hybrid) divided by the total number of model choices(5 vehicles total)

=> 175 combined mpg / 5 models = 35 mpg FLEET AVERAGE.

What the hell is wrong with congress when they figure fleet average based off sales that haven't been made yet? Counting chickens before they hatch huh? Leave the sales part up to the consumer congress, the way I see it Chrysler did their part in this scenerio.

CAFE has been around for a long time so this is nothing new but they are raising the requirements now which is what the thread is about. They will never just use the average like you mentioned and ignore production run of each model. They are looking at the entire fleet for fuel economy. In your senario they could make one hybrid and 1,000,000 SUV's or 1,000,000 hybrids and one SUV and the average would be the same. The law it is broken up into different categories for cars and trucks but I don't know if it the average is based off an initial estimate provided by the manufacturer prior to the years production run or if it is calculated at the end of each model year production run. If the manufacturer goes over they can pay a penalty or bank it against the nexts years production run. From reading the info it seems some manufacturers just pay the penalty instead of trying to meet the requirements.

From what I read with the law it is up to the manufacturer to sell what they produce. If they make to many vehicles it really is not the fault of the government for including them in the fleet average.

Ok, but why should they produce these cars BEFORE they have a demand for them and then be punished for not selling them?

The scenario of 1 hybrid to 100000000 other cars isn't going to happen. People will buy what they want as this is still a free country. If the people so choose to only buy 1 hybrid out of 250 million people, then obviously we don't need CAFE's regulations and we can manage our own free selves.

I thought you wanted to know how CAFE was figured not the politics behind it. The public demand for types of cars has a lot to do with the price of fuel too. Last year at $4-5 per gallon people were constantly talking about it because it hurt a lot more at the pumps. I figure that if the government really wants to get us out of bigger cars and into econo boxes add on a fuel or carbon tax and "most" will have non choice but fall in line. It probably will happen sooner or later.

[Arthu®]

Ok, but why should they produce these cars BEFORE they have a demand for them and then be punished for not selling them?

Because the direct incentive for more fuel efficient cars is kept artificially low by the government and is therefore not directly noticeable to the consumer. Now the government has to force the products on the consumer and they do that through the producers.

Arthur

[Mike DC]

Exactly. 


It's like the movement to fight junkfood intake.  You can call it nanny-ism, or you can call it an attempt to cope with the multi-billion-dollar heathcare costs that underpriced corn is causing.  Chronic widespread bad health costs everyone money.  A badly functioning society, insurance premiums, etc.