Industry News: President Trump Announces EPA Will Reopen Reivew of 2025 Fuel Economy Rules

[William Maley]

In a not surprising move, President Donald Trump announced today that his administration will reopen a review into the 2025 fuel economy standards set by the EPA before the end of President Barack Obama's term. 

“We’re going to work on the CAFE standards so you can make cars in America again. There is no more beautiful sight than an American-made car,” said Trump at an event in the former Willow Run bomber factory in Ypsilanti, Michigan - soon to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles.

"These standards are costly for automakers and the American people. We will work with our partners at DOT to take a fresh look to determine if this approach is realistic. This thorough review will help ensure that this national program is good for consumers and good for the environment," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

In the closing days of President Obama's second term, the EPA announced that it would keep the strict standards that will require automakers to raise their fleetwide fuel economy average to 54.5 mpg by 2025. Automakers cried foul, saying the upcoming standards are costly and out of touch with the current market (i.e. low gas prices and people gobbling up crossovers, pickups, and SUVs). 

It is expected that the 54.5 mpg average will drop, but no one is sure how much it would drop.

Reaction to this announcement has been mixed. Automakers and lobby groups approve of this move as it allows them to focus on building vehicles people want, instead of being pushed into building vehicles that will not sell.

"The Trump Administration has created an opportunity for decision-makers to reach a thoughtful and coordinated outcome predicated on the best and most current data," said Mitch Bainwol, chief executive of the AutoAlliance, an industry lobby group that represents a number of automakers including Ford and GM.

Other groups are not so pleased with this move.

"Today's announcement of backtracking on vehicle standards for model years 2022-2025 puts at risk tens of billions of dollars of fuel savings for consumers and big reductions in tailpipe emissions," said Therese Langer, transportation program director for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, in a statement.

"Any delay in settling efficiency standards introduces uncertainty that will disrupt manufacturers' product planning. What is certain is that technological stagnation is not a recipe for continuing the remarkable success our domestic manufacturers have achieved in recent years."

Democratic U.S. Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts tells Reuters this move could actually hurt consumers.

"Filling up their cars and trucks is the energy bill Americans pay most often, but President Trump's roll-back of fuel economy emissions standards means families will end up paying more at the pump," said Markey

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Reuters, Roadshow

View full article

[ocnblu]

FINALLY.  This needs to happen quickly so the car companies know what to plan for and spend on.  This will be a boon to the auto companies and consumers who are being autonomously steered toward something they do not want... simply put.

[Drew Dowdell]

What consumers don't want better fuel economy?  Even truck buyers want to squeeze an extra mpg out of their vehicles when they can.

[ocnblu]

Well... what is the take rate for Ecodiesel v. hemi?  There is a tipping point I would say.  Ram is the easiest example.

 

[surreal1272]

6 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Well... what is the take rate for Ecodiesel v. hemi?  There is a tipping point I would say.  Ram is the easiest example.

 

That's because the expdeisel costs more to buy but maybe I'm just using common sense math here lol. 

[Drew Dowdell]

8 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

Well... what is the take rate for Ecodiesel v. hemi?  There is a tipping point I would say.  Ram is the easiest example.

 

EcoDiesel is currently not for sale, when sold is sold in limited quantities, and is never offered at discount or special pricing like the hemi is. GM is selling every diesel Canyonado they can build, even at the substantial price increase over the V6.

 

How about another comparison.... 2.7 EB or 3.5 EB verse 5.0 in an F150? Ford is selling the crap out of the Ecoboost trucks with the promise of better fuel economy (even if I personally find the validity of the claim to be dubious)

[hyperv6]

19 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

What consumers don't want better fuel economy?  Even truck buyers want to squeeze an extra mpg out of their vehicles when they can.

Consumers want to flap their arms and fly too but that is not going to happen. 

Here is the deal. Yes everyone wants more MPG but the reality of technology and physic are creating cars people really don't want or like. 

The demise of the large RWD sedan just increased sales of large trucks and suv models.  If asked or given the choice of more MPG in a Smart car or a vehicle like a truck most buyers would chose the truck or suv. 

Automaker are just to the point where they are struggling to sell cars and larger CUV and Suv models are ruling. Many people want power but you have to temper it with for MPG. They want MPG but to make it lighter cost more money. 

The bottom line is there is no silver bullet here. Electric is still a life style changer or many  to drive and also an even higher priced option. 

This is a situation that needs to be reviewed every year and engineers not politicians need to access just what the market can or can not do. Also some marketing people need to be involved to gauge what people will put up with. 

I do not know anyone who wants dirty air or lower MPG but just how much are they willing to pay and just how much are they willing to give up in vehicle size. 

This needs to be balanced and accessed each year to gain the most MPG we can but not at a risk of jobs and or economic damage to the automakers. Too often the laws like from the last administration had little to no consideration for the Automaker health. They hate Co operations and if they die they are happy. What they forget are the millions that work for them or depend on them to make a living and feed their families. 

This is something both sides need to work on together and not get any far out wacko ideas. Keep it real and advance it yearly but realistically. 

54 MPG just was not obtainable unless more advances are made to make electric cars cheaper and faster to charge. We will get there but there is still so much work to do. 

 

[Drew Dowdell]

The crossover replaced the uncool wagon and minivan... That's all.   People want the ability to haul all the their crap. In 1977, you got a Colony Park. In 1987, you got a Mercury Sable Wagon while the Missus got a Town and Country. In 1997, you got a Mercury Mountaineer and the Mrs got an Windstar. In 2007, you're in a pair of Explorers. In 2017, you're in a crossover explorer and she in an edge.

[G. David Felt]

I can see this getting pushed out but many states have adopted CA carb standard and that will continue to force the auto companies to build auto's with better MPG.

Trump needs to put his own cash where his idiot mouth is. Talks about American Auto's and yet drives a Rolls.

I only own American and I support everywhere I can American business first and then move outside the company for items that are not built here.

If you care about making sure your neighbor has a job by buying American made products first, we would be better off.

Trump and his SPAWN buy foreign, make the crap they pirate from others in China and try to preach his America Great again.

Double Standard Idiot!!!

Back up your words with proof and put your cash into manufacturing and business here rather than say one thing and do another.

[surreal1272]

9 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I can see this getting pushed out but many states have adopted CA carb standard and that will continue to force the auto companies to build auto's with better MPG.

Trump needs to put his own cash where his idiot mouth is. Talks about American Auto's and yet drives a Rolls.

I only own American and I support everywhere I can American business first and then move outside the company for items that are not built here.

If you care about making sure your neighbor has a job by buying American made products first, we would be better off.

Trump and his SPAWN buy foreign, make the crap they pirate from others in China and try to preach his America Great again.

Double Standard Idiot!!!

Back up your words with proof and put your cash into manufacturing and business here rather than say one thing and do another.

What else do you expect from the hypocrite in charge. Do as he says, not how he does. BUY MURICAN!

[riviera74]

About President Trump driving a Rolls-Royce, what do you expect from a billionaire?  People like him are their primary target market.

As for wanting to reduce the mileage standards, I will believe it when an actual BILL is passed and Trump signs it.  CAFE was a bad idea in 1975 and it is a bad idea now.  If Trump and the GOP were smart, they would simply abolish CAFE for good.

[ocnblu]

Would be cool to see vehicles imported from California hit with a yuge tariff some day.  I am so done with them.

6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

EcoDiesel is currently not for sale, when sold is sold in limited quantities, and is never offered at discount or special pricing like the hemi is. GM is selling every diesel Canyonado they can build, even at the substantial price increase over the V6.

 

How about another comparison.... 2.7 EB or 3.5 EB verse 5.0 in an F150? Ford is selling the crap out of the Ecoboost trucks with the promise of better fuel economy (even if I personally find the validity of the claim to be dubious)

Lately I've made it a point to look for Ford trucks WITHOUT an Ecoboost badge.  Those are guys I would more likely befriend than those nincompoops with their Rube Goldberg turbo sixes.

[Drew Dowdell]

4 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Would be cool to see vehicles imported from California hit with a yuge tariff some day.  I am so done with them.

Lately I've made it a point to look for Ford trucks WITHOUT an Ecoboost badge.  Those are guys I would more likely befriend than those nincompoops with their Rube Goldberg turbo sixes.

I also prefer the V8 myself and am still not a fan of the EB 3.5 after a 1000 mile trip in an Expedition EL last week.... however, the point was that people still want better fuel economy even from their trucks and are willing to take a swing with new technology to get it. 

[G. David Felt]

@ocnblu How about rather than being a negative number troll, if you are gonna give a guy a negative down vote for what they post also post a counter argument for why you disagree. 

If not then you are doing what many here do not like and that is trolling just to troll.

I know you are better than that Mr. Blu and I look forward to your counterpoint to my post.

[surreal1272]

5 minutes ago, dfelt said:

@ocnblu How about rather than being a negative number troll, if you are gonna give a guy a negative down vote for what they post also post a counter argument for why you disagree. 

If not then you are doing what many here do not like and that is trolling just to troll.

I know you are better than that Mr. Blu and I look forward to your counterpoint to my post.

It is pretty petty but some people hate facts. My question would be how the hell is he able to give two negative votes at once where everyone else gets one every 24 hours? 

Edited March 16, 2017 by surreal1272

[Robert Hall]

Just now, surreal1272 said:

It is pretty petty but some people hate facts.

That's why they have their "alternative facts".

[surreal1272]

1 minute ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

That's why they have their "alternative facts".

LOL! Very true, or alternate truth if you will!

[Drew Dowdell]

 

Quote

 

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

— Part 1, Chapter VIII. Of the valourous Don Quixote's success in the dreadful and never before imagined Adventure of the Windmills, with other events worthy of happy record.

 

 

 

Trump is tilting at windmills. Just because the EPA standards are relaxed doesn't mean automakers can start putting V8s in everything again.  They still have to build vehicles for a global market. Manufacturers would rather not build multiple variations of the same car. The engines in the meat of the market are going to be the same.  So the same 4-cylinder that powers an ATS in the US is going to power an ATS in Europe and an ATS in China. 

[surreal1272]

And while ocnblu wants to poopoo the Trump stance, he should understand that this whole deal reeks of cronimism and corporate back scratching (on top of the hypocrisy), courtesy of having a man in charge of the EPA who was in the middle of suing said department prior to his appointment and having an OIL TYCOON as our Secretary of State to help broker these new deals. If you don't see the obvious problem there, then there is no helping you.

[riviera74]

I agree that cronyism and hypocrisy is strong in this administration.  That is why Trump's stance seems so weird.  Automation will eventually end employment in building cars one day. 

What Trump NEEDS to do is get Congress to do its job and dump CAFE entirely.  Yes, 4cyl and 6cyl will be the rule because of China and Europe.  Also CARB (which is tougher and worse than CAFE) still exists but California has two good reasons for that: Los Angeles SMOG (which is what inspired CARB in the first place) and high gas prices.  Admittedly, the smog problem is not as severe as it was during the 1970s but I doubt anyone wants to go back to multiple smog advisories throughout the year.  CA gas prices are also much higher than most of the continental United States, despite the fact that a lot of oil is pumped out of CA (not like Texas, but still) mostly because of higher gas taxes.

[67impss]

I really thought that the politics were to stay in that forum. While I understand overlap in auto's and government this thread is rife with it. Let's think of a balanced approach to our thoughts maybe in the model of riviera74 I understand his politics and I see some points that I can agree with instead of just muck raking. I've been around for quite a while seen em come and go miss quite a few but never those flamers. I often wonder how many left so as not to get worked up instead of reading auto news and learning from your friends, and most here I have grown to think of as a friend. I miss the soapbox and 2 cent emojis, too lazy to go to the puter. ;-)

[smk4565]

I don't see much change at all coming to the standards.  Consumers still want better fuel economy.  And large cars don't sell, even midsize cars like Camry and Accord are getting replaced by RAV4's and CRV's that get about the same mileage.  So as people tend to downsize, it helps get the average up.

The other thing to consider is not just CA CARB, but China.  China has displacement taxes and are putting in tougher emissions regulations and all these car makers are global.  GM or Ford or Toyota isn't going to make an engine for the USA, an engine for Europe and an engine for China.  It is cheaper to just make the same 1.5 liter turbo 4 that sips gas and meets emission requirements in all 3 markets.

And lastly when you get more electrification in, then fuel economy soars.  Look at a 90s cell phone battery compared to now.  In 20 years (granted well past 2025) a car like a Tesla Model S might go 800 miles on a single charge and cost $50,000.  Just think of this, in 2005 YouTube and smart phones didn't exist.  In another 10 years time, there may be electrified cars that we can't even think of now.

[regfootball]

22 hours ago, ocnblu said:

FINALLY.  This needs to happen quickly so the car companies know what to plan for and spend on.  This will be a boon to the auto companies and consumers who are being autonomously steered toward something they do not want... simply put.

right, and then something better than a no power 1500 cc engine that requires reprogramming so it doesn't implode, and ends up losing 15% of its advertised mpg. (refer to me for more)

21 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

Consumers want to flap their arms and fly too but that is not going to happen. 

Here is the deal. Yes everyone wants more MPG but the reality of technology and physic are creating cars people really don't want or like. 

The demise of the large RWD sedan just increased sales of large trucks and suv models.  If asked or given the choice of more MPG in a Smart car or a vehicle like a truck most buyers would chose the truck or suv. 

Automaker are just to the point where they are struggling to sell cars and larger CUV and Suv models are ruling. Many people want power but you have to temper it with for MPG. They want MPG but to make it lighter cost more money. 

The bottom line is there is no silver bullet here. Electric is still a life style changer or many  to drive and also an even higher priced option. 

This is a situation that needs to be reviewed every year and engineers not politicians need to access just what the market can or can not do. Also some marketing people need to be involved to gauge what people will put up with. 

I do not know anyone who wants dirty air or lower MPG but just how much are they willing to pay and just how much are they willing to give up in vehicle size. 

This needs to be balanced and accessed each year to gain the most MPG we can but not at a risk of jobs and or economic damage to the automakers. Too often the laws like from the last administration had little to no consideration for the Automaker health. They hate Co operations and if they die they are happy. What they forget are the millions that work for them or depend on them to make a living and feed their families. 

This is something both sides need to work on together and not get any far out wacko ideas. Keep it real and advance it yearly but realistically. 

54 MPG just was not obtainable unless more advances are made to make electric cars cheaper and faster to charge. We will get there but there is still so much work to do. 

 

every day now wishing i would have went for power and not mpg.  there is a middle ground, time to start bringing the optionla higher power motors back and charing less for their options.

[ocnblu]

There is too much latitude given to leftists on this site who want to spout their bs... any possible chance to inject their warped politics into a thread, and it is left unchecked.  Not what I signed up for fifteen or so years ago when I first started posting here.  I am answering a-hole posts with a-hole posts.

[surreal1272]

25 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

There is too much latitude given to leftists on this site who want to spout their bs... any possible chance to inject their warped politics into a thread, and it is left unchecked.  Not what I signed up for fifteen or so years ago when I first started posting here.  I am answering a-hole posts with a-hole posts.

Some people would say the feeling is mutual. I wouldn't know though because I'm not a leftist. 

[Drew Dowdell]

29 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

There is too much latitude given to leftists on this site who want to spout their bs... any possible chance to inject their warped politics into a thread, and it is left unchecked.  Not what I signed up for fifteen or so years ago when I first started posting here.  I am answering a-hole posts with a-hole posts.

There is nothing left or right about pointing out the hypocrisy of a man who tells people to "Buy American" but doesn't buy American himself.  It's not even political.  Romney told people to buy American and he would roll around in Yukon Denalis and DTSes....  McCain had a CTS.... Obama had a 300 and an Escape Hybrid prior to becoming President.  Four Presidential candidates there, across the political spectrum... only one can be called a hypocrite about his automotive purchases against the backdrop of his rhetoric. 

[hyperv6]

Truth is there are two houses of Democratic and Republican Hypocrites in Washington that make Trump look like a Rookie like he is in politics. 

Both are filled with millionaires most made on the backs of the tax payers not private business. Funny how the Democrats or those who claim to be Democrats that have hijacked the party claim to be for the common man yet they have the most millionaires of the two parties. 

It is just a sad deal when you look at the whole mess. 

Today you have the far right, the far left and then the independents that got left behind by those who high jacked each party for their own needs and greed. 

Some call it a swap but to me it is a septic tank and it needs pumped and replace with more moderates in the middle. I expect that will never happen. Too much power and money at stake. 

They want to blame Russia and Putin for everything but we are destroying ourselves. I suspect Putin did nothing but poke a few holes and let the rest of it to unravel on our own. 

 

[Drew Dowdell]

Not what we're taking about here @hyperv6.  

[G. David Felt]

The Emissions thing had me wondering what China Standard is and what they plan to do. Interesting is two posts from 2013 where China asked the US EPA to help them write and implement US Emission standards for China.

2013 stories

http://www.autonews.com/article/20131205/OEM11/131209907/u.s.-to-help-china-crack-down-on-vehicle-emissions

http://www.chinausfocus.com/energy-environment/china-tightens-air-pollution-standards/

2016 Story update is how fast China has implemented the new standards and set 2020 as a required 47 mpg for all auto's.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103585_china-accelerates-tougher-vehicle-emission-standards-starting-sooner

This story quotes Honda, Ford, and others that they will have to sell small displacement Hybrid auto's to meet China's Emission standards.

Just Bing or Google "china auto emission standards" and read the wide variety of stories from around the world covering China's push to EV their auto industry and push MPG even higher. 

Interesting is the number of stories where Ford and GM are stated as working on Global engines to meet the strict standards. They also talk about a global standard would be best so everyone has the same level playing field to build to.

Interesting times we live in. 

[hyperv6]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Not what we're taking about here @hyperv6.  

That what you percieve 

You can sub in a car but the biases are still there. 

What we really were talking about is the EPA and how to help the environment but also not killing the economy while doing it. 

The cars people drive mean little.

The truth is the Rolls is a prop for business. Many business people used high end product to show their success and draw investors. 

Not many investor look positive to Pinto drivers. 

[ocnblu]

The truth is the Rolls is a prop for business

DING DING DING!!!  THAT IS CORRECT!  ROB, TELL MR. V6 WHAT HE'S WON!

[Drew Dowdell]

7 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

That what you percieve 

You can sub in a car but the biases are still there. 

What we really were talking about is the EPA and how to help the environment but also not killing the economy while doing it. 

The cars people drive mean little.

The truth is the Rolls is a prop for business. Many business people used high end product to show their success and draw investors. 

Not many investor look positive to Pinto drivers. 

As I mentioned, any relaxation of CAFE is going to do next to nothing for manufacturers. California is going to get to keep it's waiver and about a dozen other states follow the California standards. You can't even buy California specific cars anymore.... They just build them all to that standard. 

Trump is again, over promising and under delivering.

[regfootball]

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

The truth is the Rolls is a prop for business

DING DING DING!!!  THAT IS CORRECT!  ROB, TELL MR. V6 WHAT HE'S WON!

Because Cadillac can only dream of having 10% the cache of rolls

[ccap41]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:10 PM, surreal1272 said:

That's because the expdeisel costs more to buy but maybe I'm just using common sense math here lol. 

I could be wrong, but, aren't all of the most economical trims in every vehicle priced above the base model? There might be a few hybrids that are priced the same like I think the MKZ and S Class are like that but the 2.7 and 1.0 from Ford cost more, hybrids cost more, diesels cost more.

[ccap41]

14 hours ago, regfootball said:

right, and then something better than a no power 1500 cc engine that requires reprogramming so it doesn't implode, and ends up losing 15% of its advertised mpg. (refer to me for more)

Go on...

[Drew Dowdell]

4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I could be wrong, but, aren't all of the most economical trims in every vehicle priced above the base model? There might be a few hybrids that are priced the same like I think the MKZ and S Class are like that but the 2.7 and 1.0 from Ford cost more, hybrids cost more, diesels cost more.

Usually.  The 2.7 is supposed to be a V8 replacement though, so it's priced accordingly and above a non-EB V6.   But if someone is comparison shopping a non-EB 3.5 and a 2.7 EB, they're most likely looking at power difference rather than fuel economy.  It's when someone is comparison shopping a 5.0 and a 2.7 EB that the fuel economy thing comes into play. 

[riviera74]

While I may not want to see the V8 or the V6 become extinct, there are a lot of factors President Trump cannot account for.  Even if CAFE were to end, that does NOT mean that the rest of the world will end fuel economy standards.  I just saw here in this forum where Volvo (way smaller than GM, I know) went 4cyl only in 2011 and apparently it is going extremely well for them.  While many of us here would love to see 4cyl stay in the compact/subcompact lane, the rest of the world (China especially, not to mention India) would prefer that the 4cyl take the place of the V8 in virtually all vehicles.  That may be sad for us, but we here in this forum (and similar forums elsewhere) do not constitute a large enough base to build an entire car company around.

Did anyone here think that the crossover would essentially replace the SUV nine years ago?  Did anyone here forsee the sedan (especially large sedans) as endangered as they are ten years ago?  Yes, hybrids and diesels cost more.  Then again, that is where we are and crossovers are where the market is headed.

[ccap41]

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Usually.  The 2.7 is supposed to be a V8 replacement though, so it's priced accordingly and above a non-EB V6.   But if someone is comparison shopping a non-EB 3.5 and a 2.7 EB, they're most likely looking at power difference rather than fuel economy.  It's when someone is comparison shopping a 5.0 and a 2.7 EB that the fuel economy thing comes into play. 

My point was that the most efficient engines/combinations are almost always the more costly options as well. To get the 2.7 you have to pay above base prices, same for the 1.0 and same for almost any hybrid and diesel out there. Efficiency is expensive.

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, ccap41 said:

My point was that the most efficient engines/combinations are almost always the more costly options as well. To get the 2.7 you have to pay above base prices, same for the 1.0 and same for almost any hybrid and diesel out there. Efficiency is expensive.

Like I said... usually. the 2.7 in the F-150 is an oddball situation because you're getting V8 power for less than V8 price.  Yes it is more expensive than a base V6, but it isn't really comparable because of the big power differences.  The 2.7T costs less than a V8 and gets better fuel economy. 

 

*side note... apparently you can't get the 5.0 with the new 10-speed transmission, only with the 6-speed. Odd and disappointing... I wonder why that is. 

[G. David Felt]

22 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Like I said... usually. the 2.7 in the F-150 is an oddball situation because you're getting V8 power for less than V8 price.  Yes it is more expensive than a base V6, but it isn't really comparable because of the big power differences.  The 2.7T costs less than a V8 and gets better fuel economy. 

 

*side note... apparently you can't get the 5.0 with the new 10-speed transmission, only with the 6-speed. Odd and disappointing... I wonder why that is. 

Maybe Fords Way to eventually kill off their V8's as they do a global powertrain that focuses on taxing per size. Just a guess but something I have noticed in all my world travels. More companies seem to be focused on the stupid tax on your engine size.

[ccap41]

24 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

*side note... apparently you can't get the 5.0 with the new 10-speed transmission, only with the 6-speed. Odd and disappointing... I wonder why that is. 

Interesting.. Especially considering the Mustang will be getting the 10spd.

I read somewhere the new 10spd is only like an inch longer than the current 6spd, crazy. Was it you that posted something about the size of the 9spd in the FWD applications? That thing was incredibly small!

Enough randomness..lol

[G. David Felt]

Interesting study of the impact of SUV sales in the US!

http://www.cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/Analysis_of_Impact_of_SUVs_in_US.pdf

[G. David Felt]

So here is a couple charts based on the most current solid sales data.

First trucks versus car sales. We all understand that SUV / CUVs fall under the Truck label.

Projected Sales of EV's moving Forward versus ICE, HEV, BEV, PHEV.

[cp-the-nerd]

I think it's absolutely hilarious when people prop up government regulations and try to tout "savings" or "reduced cost" in the same breath. That. Is. Delusional. Civilization prospered LONG before government got involved.

There's a reason you can't buy a halfway decent compact car for under $20k. It's because of two things: over-complicated powertrains and over-engineered safety standards. Both R&D and the technology cost are passed on to the consumer.

Where does a struggling lower/middle class family recoup $5,000 in airbags and fuel economy technology? The 2-3 mpg they *supposedly* gained? Not if they end up spending money out of pocket maintaining the turbocharged GDI engine or 7-10 speed transmission. "But they can buy used," you say. Then how the hell do car manufacturers stay afloat when sales plummet because their new car prices are mandated into the stratosphere with regulations?

There's a solution! Get the government out of the equation as much as possible. Manufacturers will compete in a way that advances fuel economy/safety AND maintains or lowers cost. That's how the free market has worked for centuries of technological advancement without authoritarian, massive government. Environmental impact is a strawman argument when you realize the cost vs reward.

[surreal1272]

10 minutes ago, cp-the-nerd said:

I think it's absolutely hilarious when people prop up government regulations and try to tout "savings" or "reduced cost" in the same breath. That. Is. Delusional. Civilization prospered LONG before government got involved.

There's a reason you can't buy a halfway decent compact car for under $20k. It's because of two things: over-complicated powertrains and over-engineered safety standards. Both R&D and the technology cost are passed on to the consumer.

Where does a struggling lower/middle class family recoup $5,000 in airbags and fuel economy technology? The 2-3 mpg they *supposedly* gained? Not if they end up spending money out of pocket maintaining the turbocharged GDI engine or 7-10 speed transmission. "But they can buy used," you say. Then how the hell do car manufacturers stay afloat when sales plummet because their new car prices are mandated into the stratosphere with regulations?

There's a solution! Get the government out of the equation as much as possible. Manufacturers will compete in a way that advances fuel economy/safety AND maintains or lowers cost. That's how the free market has worked for centuries of technological advancement without authoritarian, massive government. Environmental impact is a strawman argument when you realize the cost vs reward.

And while we are at it, stop giving subsidies to industries like big oil who try to stifle any technological gains. 

[balthazar]

RE : "Projected Sales of EV's moving Forward"…
As EV sales are too low to even chart a trend, I wonder what objective information they used to 'predict' a rise to 30% of the market?

[cp-the-nerd]

18 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

And while we are at it, stop giving subsidies to industries like big oil who try to stifle any technological gains. 

As long as we eliminate the subsidies for ethanol and electric cars, I'm all for it.

Edited March 17, 2017 by cp-the-nerd

[surreal1272]

29 minutes ago, cp-the-nerd said:

As long as we eliminate the subsidies for ethanol and electric cars, I'm all for it.

Agreed but only one of those has had them for a century while bemoaning the other two for the exact same thing. 

[smk4565]

The graphs tell the story.  Cars outsold light trucks in 2012, three years later light trucks outsold cars by 2 million units.  And that gap is still growing.  You'll start to see brands with 5-6 crossovers and 2-3 passenger cars become a common thing.

[G. David Felt]

54 minutes ago, balthazar said:

RE : "Projected Sales of EV's moving Forward"…
As EV sales are too low to even chart a trend, I wonder what objective information they used to 'predict' a rise to 30% of the market?

Good Point, I was trying to find info and all Bloomberg says is that the numbers are based on the last 10 years of sales. Sales being registered auto's in production. So I guess the numbers are based on taking the year over year growth and projecting them out.