New Economy and Emissions Standards, 1973 all over again? Options

[KeithO]

The supposed standards about to be enacted might make performance cars more difficult to get for a while. I am wondering if we aren't looking at new-car performance similar to what we saw from 1973 through around 1987...

This is just more motivation for me to maintain my f-body.

Do you guys think that we will be able to achieve this? Regardless, how slow do you think new cars will get before performance returns?

[trackbird]

The Corvette can do it, or get really close (not sure if it will do it under test conditions). GM just needs to only build Corvettes. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[CMC#5]

I have no idea why in a country with as many intelligent people as this one we cant get over the fact that forcing companies to make products people don't want is not the right way. You want people to use less gas? Make gas more expensive! Announce that gas will be taxed as necessary in order to cost $5/gal. You'll see people lining up to buy Fiestas and Priuses. CAFE is the about the dumbest law on the books.

[trackbird]

Yea, but if you tax fuel to $5 a gallon, you'll cause a revolt and I don't think anyone understands how ugly it could get. Also, that runs up the prices for trucking and will cause the prices of goods to rise (as it has recently). So, I'm not sure that taxing fuel is the solution either.

Just quit mucking about with the free market... That's how I feel about it.

[mitchntx]

Al works in the petroleum industry ... of course he wants $5 a gallon gas.

After this past summer of it, he's sporting a new pusher motorhome at the track.

Jus' a-nudder zample of da man keepin' me down.

[00 SS]

Well let's take a broader look at this. Right after the inauguration the ammo tax bill was inntroduced. It has been all but killed in congress, but ammo sales are still "brisk" to say the least. Now they come out with this wildly expensive proposal to raise MPG standards and lower emmissions standards. Could this be the administrations way of trying to stimuilate the auto market by threatening to kill the cars people actually want in the near future? Basically saying, "if you want anything but an econobox, get it now before we tax them out of existance."

I'm not sure this is the intent of the proposal, but it will likely have this effect. Probably not to the same extent as ammo due to the vast difference in cost. But those on the fence about a new car, may be pushed in to the dealer a bit sooner than they had originally intended. If you add in the "Cash for Clunkers" crap they are discussing, it seems even more likely.

[00 Trans Ram]

stupid - but I don't much care.There is no car I want more than my G8GT. When it wears out, I'll probably buy an old muscle car and update it with current parts. In other words, no new cars for me.

[StanIROCZ]

The good thing about this is that cars are going to have to be completely re-designed in order to meet this, which means that a lot of good engineers will be needed.

The bad thing about this is people won't be able to afford these cars, so less will be sold, and automakers will continue to be broke.

[nape]

As a middle leaning Democrat, I think I need to run for office so I can go smack around the crazy, liberal wackos running the show right now. These standards are insane.

If I was a domestic car maker, I'd kill off half-ton pickups and SUVs right now to even have a shot at this. If you want a "truck" buy a real truck. Yeah, it won't ride as nice, but do you really need a 4x4 Tahoe to take the kids to McDonalds?

[prockbp]

39 mpg for cars by 2016.... What is the problem with that? You can absolutely still have badass performance vehicles that get that mileage.... The difference? Size.

The thing I like about this is that it forces vehicles to become smaller and lighter... That will help prepare us for real electric vehicles which will have to be much smaller than the average vehicle on the road today....

Don't take me the wrong way though... I'm sick of more-and-more-and-more law... but this law, it doesn't tell me what to do with my life. The intent of this law is to improve our environmental conditions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/18...eage-standards/

Priuses and Fiestas are not the answer.. those cars blow chunks.. I had a f'ing 1986 Honda that got 50mpg... And my point here is that we took a wrong turn somewhere when 40mpg became more efficient than 50mpg.

This post has been edited by prockbp: May 21 2009, 12:36 AM

[CMC#5]

I only used the Prius and Fiesta as examples of US spec vehicles capable of getting 39mpg. Getting mpg in the 40s, 50s, or 60s is not a problem. You can buy a 65mpg Ford Fiesta right now just about anywhere other than the US. The problem is the fact that the vast majority of people in the US wouldnt buy a car with 0-60 time in the mid teens. Consequently, when the Fiesta goes on sale in the US it wont get anywhere near 65mph, rather more like high 30s.

The bottom line is people buy what they want that they can afford. When fuel prices spiked up last year there was a fundamental shift in this country's desires. Suddenly people wanted fuel efficient cars. SUV sales tanked. The effect was immediate, and only collapsed because fuel dropped to under $2 fairly quickly.

The greenies and the government clearly want to reduce energy consumption and improve emissions. Forcing manufacturers to build products people don't want is a backwards way of achieving that. Bump the cost of not being efficient and you'll get the results without the drama.

Taxing fuel doesnt help the oil companies since it will drive demand (and therefore total sales) down.

[Todd]

39 mpg for cars by 2016.... What is the problem with that? You can absolutely still have badass performance vehicles that get that mileage.... The difference? Size.

The thing I like about this is that it forces vehicles to become smaller and lighter... That will help prepare us for real electric vehicles which will have to be much smaller than the average vehicle on the road today....

Don't take me the wrong way though... I'm sick of more-and-more-and-more law... but this law, it doesn't tell me what to do with my life. The intent of this law is to improve our environmental conditions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/18...eage-standards/

Priuses and Fiestas are not the answer.. those cars blow chunks.. I had a f'ing 1986 Honda that got 50mpg... And my point here is that we took a wrong turn somwhere when 40mpg became more efficient than 50mpg.

the problem we are facing is that people want fuel economy but the refuse to sacrifice their 18 cup holders, and power butt vibrators. I'm betting that 86 Honda was pretty basic and you'd die a horrible death if hit by one of todays vehicles. I'm not saying its right...hell...I ride my motorcycle to work every day, no side impact protection there. I agree with making changes to protect the environment. I think the big change should be to make most of the cars in high density areas not run on fossil fuels except big delivery vehicles. The rest of the country still needs fossil fuel cars...ie a hybrid/electric isn't really saving much if you are cruising down the highway at 70 mph.

[trackbird]

I think you'd be farther ahead to implement a yearly gas guzzler tax. I'm not suggesting that I'm in favor of this, but raising fuel taxes will kill the trucking industry (maybe Andy J will drop in here with more on this). But taxing the "idiots" (like me) who drive a 12 mpg 1 ton to work in downtown everyday would have an effect. Now, I need my truck to tow, and my post divorce budget won't really support a second vehicle for commuting and the insurance to go with it (that cuts into the already slim racing budget), so I drive my truck. But, if they taxed us based on use...

12,000 miles a year @ 12 mpg is 1,000 gallons of gas. The difference between $2.50 a gallon and $5.00 a gallon is $2.50 (duh). That's $2,500. A $2,500 tax would surely reduce the chances of me driving a 1 ton truck daily. However, to do it properly, you need to GPS the actual mileage of the vehicles (like CA has proposed) and tax you on your actual use. Or, do a once a year mileage inspection where you drop by and they log the mileage against the odometer reading from last year. WV state inspection already logs the mileage on the car at each inspection. It would be easy (in that state, and probably many others) to just log it and bill accordingly. If you tow 50k a year, bring your visa card. If you only tow to local events (50 miles or so) a few times a year, you probably won't really notice the tax. Exempt the trucking industry and businesses (Joe's lawncare will likely go under if they have to pay that on their fleet, and it will hurt utilities pretty bad as well). At that point, I'll just register my truck to frrax and make racing a business (as will many others)...

With all that said, I think it makes far more sense than taxing fuel to $5.00. And, I'd be PISSED if they were to implement it. But if you want to force a fundamental change in the way people use their vehicles, that would surely do it. And, it would do it with far less harm to the cost of goods and services than a straight fuel tax.

That was easy, what other world problems should we fix while we're here? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[00 Trans Ram]

I don't get it. The overall environmental impact of a Prius is worse than that of an F150. Batteries are made in Japan, from materials that are mined in Canada, and then refined in Europe, before the whole car is shipped to the US. And we want to do this because of environmental concerns?If they can make cars as big as my G8, with the same performance, but gets 60mpg, then I'll buy it. But, I don't want the govt telling car companies what to build. that's the market's job.

[KeithO]

I guess I have a unique perspective. I think this whole thing is crap and want the gov't to leave my cars alone. No more CAFE stuff. No fuel tax. No nothing.

Let the market decide what happens. There is a growing trend for people to be more sensitive to the environment, regardless of the hard science that supports/refutes their decisions. If people are willing to buy based on this then the manufacturers will take notice. Let the market drive it and get the gov't out of it equation.

Like I said, I think I am unique.

[00 SS]

Keith, I wouldn't call that opinion unique. I strongly agree with you. The way I see it, the government has a few basic jobs granted by the constitiution. The primary job of the government is protect this country from outside agressors. Regulating the auto industry, the economy, the environment, health care, etc. are way outside what they are supposed to do. If we could only cut the govenment to 25% or less of what they are now and get them out of the everday lives of the American people, we would all be far better off.

[bubba353z]

I'm not suggesting that I'm in favor of this, but raising fuel taxes will kill the trucking industry

Really the major effect will be on the owner operators, who don't get a 100% pass-through on the fuel surcharges that the carrier charges. Back when diesel was $4.50+ per gallon, surcharges were running us 40%+ above the base rate on a shipment. The less than honorable brokers were skimming some/most of that extra charge and not passing it along to the people that were actually buying the fuel.

Ultimately we'll pay for it in higher cost of goods - however they decide to collect the $.

[sgarnett]

I'm becoming ever more convinced that "free market" is a euphemism for "swarm of locusts". That doesn't mean I'm in favor of socialism, but I think the free market is desperately in need of some good dampers - economic/political Konis, so to speak.

Currently, everyone is desperately hoping that someone else will do the right or necessary thing so we don't have to, almost regardless of the topic.

Economically, many companies are embracing the "beatings will continue until morale improves" idea. They keep laying off employees and outsourcing more and more work while they wonder why spending is declining. On a personal level, we all know that unless spending picks up, we may lose our jobs, so we have to bump up the saving and cut spending. We (here at Frrax) really need everyone else to drive efficient cars so we don't have to. And so on.

Personally, I think it might be a pretty good thing if it became so expensive to ship that semi-local production became viable again.

Yeah, perhaps I am bitter as I wait to find out if I'm going to be another free market speed bump. There's more layoffs coming after this round, too. They started before the current downturn, and they'll continue afterward, enabled by the continuous stream of Filipino replacements (oops, I mean trainees) that keep rotating through.

Even beyond that though, the free market has an extremely short-term view, and will gleefully sacrifice the future to boost today. Like I said, I'm not advocating communism/socialism/whatever, or price controls and etc, but the free market can't be left entirely to its own mischief either. There's just far too much collateral damage.

[mitchntx]

Taxing fuel doesnt help the oil companies since it will drive demand (and therefore total sales) down.

Oil companies and government ... I confuse you 2 all the time. Sorry.

[CMC#5]

No worries Mitch, I know you're easily confused (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I'm all for a completely free market too, but with two conditions:
1) Everyone in the game plays by the same rules. Why is it cheaper to manufacture something overseas? They don't play with the same environmental, health, and safety rules we do.
2) Boundaries are in place that temper the free market's drive for lower price with the more important interests of mankind's quality of life such as breathable air and safe work conditions

I think without boundaries we will always move towards bigger and more powerful cars. The easiest boundary is fuel cost.

I do agree that artificially raising fuel prices would negatively impact shipping companies, but they would just raise rates. In the end the consumer bears the brunt. I think this would also positively shift us towards local manufacturing, more efficient over the road trucks and trains, more efficient distribution networks, etc. In sum, a good thing.

Meanwhile you'd still be able to go buy that 600hp supercar. You might not be able to drive it much...but with the CAFE you wont even be able to buy it because the OEMs wont be able to make them.