July1
It seems BMW is not the only manufacturer that is not happy about the proposed CAFE standards and saying something about it. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing nearly 80 percent of the new vehicle market in the U.S., including Chrysler, GM, Ford, Toyota, BMW and five other automakers, told the NHTSA its plans are too expensive for automakers who are under economic stress.
The CAFE regulations, which will become final by year’s end, thus far call for a manufacturers’ passenger car fuel economy average to increase by 4.5 percent every year between 2011 and 2015. In 2015, cars would need to average 35.7mpg and trucks 28.6mpg, which represents an approximate 25 percent improvement from current levels. The curveball lies in the fact different-sized vehicles would need to meet individual consumption goals, hence BMW’s issue, as its trucks would have to average 31.7mpg.
Today, July 1, is the deadline the NHTSA set to receive feedback on its proposal, and the Alliance is making itself heard. It said the NHTSA proposal underestimates the costs involved in complying with its standards and overestimates their social benefits, as per an Automotive News report.
Why are they stressing about 2015?? At that time, gas is probably $20 per gal and only the rich can drive a car. We, the poor, probably can only afford an bicycle or a skateboard to ride to work.
They’re posturing as always. Necessity is the mother of invention. Set the standards and they will meet them. If they can’t, they deserve to fail.
Who the hell is the government to tell the car companies what to build? The market should tell the car companies what to build by what is in demand. Why doesn’t the government crack down on big oil? Oh, I forgot, they have their hands in oil’s pockets.
I think BMW done the right thing about this matter. Hopefully we gonna drill our own oil like in the coast of Cali & Florida and Alaska. Then OPEC will have no choice but lower the price Just like back in the 90’s when the OPEC raise a barel oil from $10 to $40 then we decided to drill our own oil then inclusion OPEC lower the price to $8 a barel of oil. The only way to make it happen is that if the Republican in charge.
“Why are they stressing about 2015?? At that time, gas is probably $20 per gal and only the rich can drive a car. We, the poor, probably can only afford an bicycle or a skateboard to ride to work”
There it is in black and white! I’m already peddling around town!!
^^^^
Republican in charge?? So who is running the office now?? oh wait, MR. NO Clue Commander in Chief, save your political view somewhere else.
If no one lit a fire under the ass of car companies every so often we’d probably still be riding around in 2 and 3 ton monsters that block the sun. Oh… wait, we still are.
These same idiots soberly advised us that seat belts were too costly and infeasible and that air bags would kill us all. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming across the finish line every time. Their moronic, obsolete slate of product offerings right now proves that left to their own devices, the automakers will always opt to do the stupid thing.
If only the USA People would vote out the tree-huggers.
Wow, of all people, the only one so far who’s posted something remotely coherent is Get Real.
Never mind, just read drchiem’s.
They deserve to fail? So, let’s say that for sake of argument, the CAFE standards are unrealistic, and would result in cars that are too expensive to build, too underpowered to sell, and too fragile to be safe—which there is surely at least some truth to. Because of unrealistic government intervention, an industry deserves to die?
How, exactly, would this benefit anyone? The auto makers and their shareholders obviously lose. The droves of laid off employees lose. Car buyers, which presumably includes LLN’s readership, lose because the only cars available are expensive and underpowered.
If, on the other hand, the requirements are not unrealistic, and they can be met and still result in a safe car that people want to buy, then those who don’t improve their mileage will lose sales, and that is justified. But it’s justified (or “deserved,” if you prefer) not because of some government mandate, but because of the market.
Businesses failing because of government over-regulation isn’t deserved, and it benefits no one.
It’s about time they spoke up.
Actually, I’m glad to see Toyota is in the mix. At first, I thought, “Well, of course all the typical gas guzzler makers are going to complain,” but seeing who is complaining along with BMW is quite nice. However, HRR is right in saying that the market should dictate, and not the government.
I’m not in auto sales, but I am in a marketing profession. And I will tell you all one thing, as much as you may disagree, the market for cars is not being run properly because the makers are targeting the wrong people. They are targeting men, and the buyers are women. Disagree all you want, it is the truth. We men may buy the car, but I find in my research that women are the ones that choose the car. In the words of Jeff Foxworthy, “If she ain’t happy, you ain’t happy.”
The reason F150s sold so well is because women like them. Same with Explorers, and most SUVs. Even Hummers. Toyota Corolla is a great example of a woman’s car, and they sell like crazy. Women generally don’t look at things like displacement, torque, horsepower, handling and braking performance. They look at outside looks, classiness, interior design, practicality, reliability, so on and so forth. And that’s where the marketing problem arises.
If you watch Nissan, Toyota and Honda car spots, you see comments about elegance, great interior shots, MPG, warranty, and things like that. If you watch a GM or Ford truck spot, you will see “more power than any other truck in its class,” and mentions of available 6.0L V8 and V10 and stuff like that. Where the makers and marketers have gone wrong is that they assume the men control the dollars. Sure, we’d love to all drive trucks, but buying a nice truck without my wife’s permission would probably be cause for divorce these days, and I am not getting her permission, especially with the current price of gas. In fact, when Chrysler asked me to include their horsepower rating for the Sebring in a promotional piece I was putting together, I told them point blank, “175 HP is nothing for a man, and a woman isn’t going to care, so let’s leave it off.” They sold quite a few in town from that promotion.
Basically, what I’m getting at is that the makers probably could make the cars and trucks that get the mileage that is being required by sacrificing power significantly. A woman isn’t going to care if her car goes 0 - 60 in 3.5 seconds (it might spill her coffee). But she will care if it gets 38 MPG. We’re going to have a bunch of slow cars all over the place (sucks for us), but I really think the makers can pull it off.
Yes, there are some (maybe even a lot of) women that do care about performance, but there are more that don’t. So marketers go after the larger piece of the pie, which is the right thing to do. If the makers did actually slow the cars down in lieu of fuel mileage, they would be able to sell their vehicles just fine.
I wrote all that to say that the “too underpowered to sell” argument doesn’t hold much water. I talk a lot. Sorry.
Don’t apologise, beatusmongous. Yours is an interesting perspective. Speaking of which it’s too bad there aren’t more members of the fairer sex who contribute to our forum. Perhaps that in itself speaks volumes as to why men are the most obvious target for marketers. For better or worse, they know what we think.
Had these monkeys been forced to adapt to regular CAFE increases since the stall nearly 20 years ago, things wouldn’t be so dire. Small incremental increases every two years would have been a responsible route to take.
What’s funny is that oil at $130 is where it’s supposed to be when accounting for inflation … it’s been lagging too far behind for too long.
Now the situation is unbearable … a sudden, traumatic shock that hurts everyone to varying degrees (but most who are not wealthy, which is a majority of the population) and sacrifices must be made. Had some legislation been in effect for the last two decades, maybe horsepower wars wouldn’t be a priority and we’d have had advancements where mpg would have been higher to help cushion this blow.
But the freedom lovers have to temporarily win only to have the rug pulled out from under them when reality sets in … much like the unregulated financial market of derivatives which has and will destroy many innocent people … a totally unregulated and free market is BAD. Control is necessary.
Buyers are demanding better gas mileage so the manufacturers will sell more if they increase mileage.
I’m not sure why the car makers want to to put up resistance towards increasing mpg.
Toyota should just close the Tundra plants and build a hybrid battery manufacturing facility in it’s place. That will raise their CAFE very quickly and let them sell more of the vehicles that are actually in demand.
The people who need a big pickup can still go buy a Ford or GM truck.
they should all just pull out of the market for a year and see how we like it
@A4
If only they could afford to do that. I have a suspicion that several makers will pull out by 2015, and others will simply budget for the fines that will come with not meeting CAFE. Those that budget for the fines will simply pass those costs along to customers in the price tag. Either way, customers lose. GM may be able to build the Volt, but if they have to sell it at $40,000 and the government doesn’t offer buyers some incentive to buy a $25,000 car for $40,000, then GM is in a lot of trouble. Yes, they will sell as many Volts as they can build based on limited supplies of batteries, but GM will be selling them at a loss and they will not be able to sell enough of them to make a significant gain towards that CAFE number.
The Government has no business telling car manufacturers what type of mileage their cars should get. There are better ways to do that, such as taxes based on consumption (gas guzzler tax). Simply increase those, and people will buy those cars not taxed as heavily. Yet those that can afford to, and want to, buy a gas guzzler can still choose to do so.
Higher gas prices are another way to get car manufacturers to build more fuel efficient vehicles - because people will actually consider MPG if gas is $5, $6 or more a gallon.
^^^ I still don’t believe the government has ANY buisiness telling car companies or consumers what to build or drive. The gas guzzler tax is BS plain and simple. I want to kick the $H!T out of whoever is responsible for that tax. If someone can afford to drive a gas guzzler, that government has no right to automatically impose a tax on that. What does the tax go towards anyway? Greedy gov’t officials pockets, that’s what. Th economy should dictate what cars people choose to drive, and that market should dictate what manufacturer’s build based on consumer demand, that simple.
In free market economy there is a notion of “common good”. State does regulate a lot of aspects of our existence: speed limit, weapons possession rights, emergency procedures, food standards, air travel etc. I believe that basic regulation of consumption is better then mandated way we exercise currently, but regulations on acceptable levels of pollutions and energy consumptions are needed. In Europe it is done simpler: there is huge tax on gasoline which affects only those who drive and in England there is separate road tax on pollution your vehicle produces. I think it would be fairer method to regulate consumption and pollution.
i always will probably drive a larger vehicle like my current ‘07 Silverado Classic. But i know that means I will pay more at the pump and also have to change my driving habits. I have increased my actual mpg to 18.25 overall from 16.75 by changing my avg speed to 75 from 85 on the hwy and starting off slower and braking slower. Who knows, if I actually drove the speed limit, maybe i’d get up to 20 mpg! lol.
my point is that for those who like me who need or want to drive full size trucks, suv’s and vans, we will. and we will just have to pay the higher price in the cars cost and gas pricing. The way I see the market from my sales side is that those who are buying the larger vehicles now are those who truelly need them for towing, family size, or who want them because they are used to the security they feel from driving them.
but as hrr put it, let the market dictate. the goverment will take credit for more fuel efficient vehicles in the next term, whoever it is, but the price of gas and the consumers are really the ones driving the automakers to more fuel efficient vehicles. and thats the way it should be, imho.
The fact is, you can only squeeze so much out of a gallon of gas, vs. the weight of the vehicle.
All the ridiculous safety “features” that the GOVERNMENT REQUIRES automakers to put in cars make it difficult to meet mileage standards the GOVERNEMT will REQUIRE. A classic example of one hand not knowing what the other is doing and bureaucrats, politicians, tree huggers, and other totally clueless right wing christian consumer-reports-reading idiots that think they know better than those with actual engineering degrees and experience.
I don’t know if I’m the only one that finds BMW’s comments hilarious in light of their current commercials. ” High gas prices are nothing new to us” “We have the most luxury cars that get over 28MPG” I guess cafe standards are to total blindside to them. If their cars are so fuel efficient why are they complaining?
Impulsive, government control over markets is never necessary. Successful government regulations always result in making everyone equally more ****ed. But that’s all you care about, isn’t it? “Fairness”?
Instead of all the government subsidies going to big oil, how about government subsidies for carbon-fiber? Give out some free carbon fiber to any manufacturer with plants IN America.
‘Bryce’, it has been proven time and time again that regulation is necessary in all facets of life … absolute freedom can result in chaos. Rules are necessary, period. Stop deluding yourself.
In addition, I’m for PROGRESS and ADAPTING … not laissez-faire attitudes. I’m for controlled growth without excessive peaks and troughs which hurt many suddenly. Excess leads to serious corrections. Had manufacturers been required to gradually increase fuel efficiency, things wouldn’t be so shocking right now.
My posts are disappearing again.
howsmydriving: well f*cking said! I’m getting extremely tired of hearing the same damn thing over and over again. “We can’t meet this standard”, “Too strict”, “Not possible”, “Unfeasible”, “Unrealistic” etc. Guess what, f*ckers?!? Evolve or die!
Come now, ‘Bryce’, is that all you can offer? Disappearing posts? Maybe your argument is empty, full of ether, and only “seems” to have disappeared.