Saving Detroit: Keep the $50 billion, rewrite CAFE instead

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by MrCritical

......The Dodge Challenger V-8 weighs well over 4000lbs, more than it did 38 YEARS AGO. What's wrong with this picture?

Wrong? The '70 Dodge Challenger was an overweight pig! If that exact car, with the exact level of capabilities and options were built using today's average materials and manufacturing methods, it would probably weigh 2000 lbs! Of course, such an awful car could never compete (or even legally be sold) in today's marketplace.

Today's total body structures, which are TREMENDOUSLY stronger, weigh LESS than the comparable body from '70. Today, steel plants don't even make that old low strength steel. High strength steel allows you to make the metal thinner with no sacrifice in strenth. That saves weight. Aluminum usage in automobiles is tremendously higher than back then.

Toaday's automakers have made tremendous strides in lightening vehicles. They don't weigh less because of the extra mass from safety and emissions requirements that didn't exist back then. Plus a really big dose of extra creature comforts which just weren't "necessary" back in '70. They ARE neccessary now because the buyers demand them.

[stick076]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

Wrong? The '70 Dodge Challenger was an overweight pig! If that exact car, with the exact level of capabilities and options were built using today's average materials and manufacturing methods, it would probably weigh 2000 lbs! Of course, such an awful car could never compete (or even legally be sold) in today's marketplace.

Today's total body structures, which are TREMENDOUSLY stronger, weigh LESS than the comparable body from '70. Today, steel plants don't even make that old low strength steel. High strength steel allows you to make the metal thinner with no sacrifice in strenth. That saves weight. Aluminum usage in automobiles is tremendously higher than back then.

Toaday's automakers have made tremendous strides in lightening vehicles. They don't weigh less because of the extra mass from safety and emissions requirements that didn't exist back then. Plus a really big dose of extra creature comforts which just weren't "necessary" back in '70. They ARE neccessary now because the buyers demand them.

Nonsense. Automakers are now purposely adding weight to make sure newer vehicles use more gas. They want all vehicles to use as much gas as possible because we know that they are in bed with Big Oil.

Light is not cheap.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

So far CAFE has done NOTHING to limit your/our choices. The past version of CAFE didn't stop the Big 3 from making trucks and SUVs. The new version of CAFE 35 doesn't take effect for twelve years!!! It too will have little or no effect. By that time all vehicle makers will have a fleet averaging > 35 mpg..... or the buying public will have sent them to bankruptcy court.

What? Of course it has. When CAFE rules were first enacted, the bigger cars started disappearing. If the automakers had continued making the big cars, that the people still wanted, alongside the new, less capable, smaller offerings, the automakers wouldn't be selling enough small cars, and would have suffered tremendous fines. So they had to eliminate the bigger vehicles (eliminate the CHOICE), forcing buyers into the new smaller cars.

But there was another negative too! With their old, big, robust, capable cars gone, the buyers turned to trucks. They lacked the comforts and options that cars had, but trucks had CAPABILITIES! They could carry people. They could carry cargo. They could tow. These were things that people used to do with their cars.

The automakers didn't much like this idea, since trucks were nothing like what we think of today as trucks. They were generally not big profitmakers, and were sold primarily for actual work purposes. But once the "car people" started becoming a big part of that market, comforts were added, refinements. People would actually WANT their offerings, and profitability started coming.

So, not only did CAFE limit your choices, it is the main thing that CAUSED the reliance on the truck market by the US automakers.

and if CAFE "will have little or no effect", why would anybody want it?

The automakers don't have a choice in what sells. The BUYERS do! And if some arbitrary government mandate requires sales of certain types of vehicles, the automakers don't control sales, they control what they build. But if the market says they DON'T want those vehicles....bankruptcy looms.

Thay is why ALL automakers are against CAFE. Because they can't even plan to build what there buying pubic wants to buy!

If gas prices are high (they are) people will buy for fuel efficiency. The automakers will build to suit. If they don't, they go out of business. What the buyers WANT is where the profit is.

If gas prices go back down, people won't care as much about fuel efficency, and automakers will build to suit....Oops! they can't! The CAFE rules mean that, once again, they would have to limit our choices. To vehicles we don't want.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by mjd1001

If that is the case, then CAFE needs to be edited/rewritten drastically, the solution is not to cancel it.

I may take a lot of heat on this board for saying this...but at times, certain people NEED someone to save them from themself (and to save the rest of us from them). I personally know many people who, if it were not for laws and government regulation, would be throwing litter out the windows when they drive, driving around trucks that get 8 mpg with 450hp, spewing polution becasue they would take off emmisions control on it...etc. Government regulation and 'guidance' is needed...the trick is to not over-regulate individuals/industries...and when something gets to the point where it IS over regulated...to tear up the existing regulations and start over with newer, simpler ones that make sense for current times.

While I would agree that fuel economy is a worthy national goal, the basic premise of CAFE is senseless. You want more fuel efficient vehicles? Encourage their production, by encouraging their sales! The government could offer incentives to buyers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, instead of penalizing a company for building what their customers demand.

Regulations can be positive (awarding for "good" behavior), or regulations can be negative (penalizing for "bad" behavior). CAFE is definitely on the negative side here, and it is even penalizing the wrong people.

[2002 Caddy]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

While I would agree that fuel economy is a worthy national goal, the basic premise of CAFE is senseless. You want more fuel efficient vehicles? Encourage their production, by encouraging their sales! The government could offer incentives to buyers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, instead of penalizing a company for building what their customers demand.

Think about that for a second... rebates... incentives... COST money.. Where is that money going to come from? That's right you and me... TAXES!

If you really want what you are suggesting... incentives and more taxes... A more direct way to get an efficient national fleet, raise the gas tax... Are you really suggesting that?

Take another look at CAFE, it accomplishes the same thing, with minimal cost to tax payers.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by TimR

Why? Nobody else here does!! Point being, and I guess I need to spell it out...is that every thing that somebody does affects other people, good intentions or bad so when you say buying an suv affects other people,well of course it does but does that give you the right to make the choice for them?? No. Having kids affects other people too (it was an example, don't get bent out of shape but more kids means more water used, more pollution driving them around, more mouths to feed on a taxed food system, etc, etc), so does smoking pot, or running naked down the street, buying a house you can't afford (and the 700 BILLION dollar bailout that is in the works now to save the greedy) or is way too big, wasting energy posting on this forum, throwing rocks at houses etc, etc.

I had thought the price of fuel and drop in SUV/Truck sales was a good case for the market actually working, also thought the haters were done with the topic but apparently not.

No matter what you do it affects other people so your entire argument is basically pointless (ie, buying a 6000 pound suv for personal use is affecting others).

I actually agree with you on most points, but you can't tell me what to drive (and yes I do use my truck much more than most people probably do).

I'm not precisely familiar with the Canadian Constitution but in the US Constitution there is a specific provision that does allow the Federal Govt to make decisions based on the better good of society. It can even go as far as barring certain vehicles from the road if the need is determined to be there. It can even go so far as barring whole groups of citizens from driving if the need was there.

BTW, you couldn't get by with a base Saturn Vue?...you don't really NEED the redline version do you?....do you know how that affects other people when you are speeding and causing problems on the road??
(see? Assuming things is a dangerous path to travel...)

In order to make sure that the buying population still had choices the President didn't take the most drastic step of banning the production and sale of vehicles with less than 20 mpg. He kept options open by mandating only that one could choose to buy/drive a large vehicle as long as the entire fleet of vehicles ( from all manufacturers ) attained a weighted average of 35 mpg ( NHTSA ) or ~ 27.5 mpg ( EPA ).

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by SnowFox

Rid the US of all cars that are over 10 years old? I guess it doesent matter that some people cant afford new cars? Would you dispatch some repomen to take any car 10 years or older? I guess if a car is 9 years old then a year later they seize it. So are you against electric cars since they may use batteries? If so this is exactly why its so hard to get any solutions, because your never satisfied, be satisified that it IS progress.

Also, you might want to go back and learn to use correct grammar. Its biodegradable not "biodgreatable".




To be honest, I wonder if some people wouldnt be complaining if it ran on air and had zero emissions. It seems to me some people are just anti-truck. (Not targetting you BTW just saying)



Yeah, I cant wait for new vehicles, especially electric. My only concern is not everyone can afford a new vehicle, which is why I think there should be a way to upgrade existing vehicles (atleast for the time being). That and I dont really like the style of some of the new vehicles, but I assume as technology progresses you can have cars that look better, or maybe alternative versions of existing cars (I think they look fine, they just need technology).



Whos to say they cant make SUVs viable if new technology came along? Just perception?

By SUVs I specifically meant BOF SUVs, Tahoe Expedition, 4Runner.

The vehicle makers themselves seem to have chosen the route not to pursue BOF SUVs in favor of the lighter unibody Crossovers. Weight is the great killer of fuel economy. Drop the weight..increase the fuel economy.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by 2002 Caddy

Think about that for a second... rebates... incentives... COST money.. Where is that money going to come from? That's right you and me... TAXES!

If you really want what you are suggesting... incentives and more taxes... A more direct way to get an efficient national fleet, raise the gas tax... Are you really suggesting that?

Take another look at CAFE, it accomplishes the same thing, with minimal cost to tax payers.

If the buyers truly want (at least) what the CAFE regs would cause, then they would buy accordingly, meaning the automakers would build accordingly (to stay in business) and CAFE would be meaningless. Just a waste of government resources. We'll call this the "best case".

But what if the buyers' desires don't somehow, magically line up with whatever arbitrary number CAFE decides on? If the buyers don't have a government incentive to get them to buy a product they otherwise wouldn't want, then the automakers would have to provide the incentive (rebates, cheaper loans, etc) to get it to happen. This is EXACTLY what happened with the first CAFE round.

Costs are costs. Demanding the automakers do it doesn't make it free. The automakers will pass on the the costs (of course, they would have to) to the buyers. And since you are demanding that they build something, while not offering any reason for the consumer to buy, it's just wasted money, which does NOT result in the desired goal.

Government incentives (taxes, whatever) would apply to the problem DIRECTLY, instead of the indirect (and inefficent) way of going after the automakers.

There is just no way that CAFE could come out cheaper.

Of course it is always easier, politically, to make the "other guy" pay the extra costs, but that cost is still coming back around to you.

[Caleb02]

Originally Posted by SnowFox

Rid the US of all cars that are over 10 years old? I guess it doesent matter that some people cant afford new cars? Would you dispatch some repomen to take any car 10 years or older? I guess if a car is 9 years old then a year later they seize it. So are you against electric cars since they may use batteries? If so this is exactly why its so hard to get any solutions, because your never satisfied, be satisified that it IS progress.

Also, you might want to go back and learn to use correct grammar. Its biodegradable not "biodgreatable".


To be honest, I wonder if some people wouldnt be complaining if it ran on air and had zero emissions. It seems to me some people are just anti-truck. (Not targetting you BTW just saying)



Yeah, I cant wait for new vehicles, especially electric. My only concern is not everyone can afford a new vehicle, which is why I think there should be a way to upgrade existing vehicles (atleast for the time being). That and I dont really like the style of some of the new vehicles, but I assume as technology progresses you can have cars that look better, or maybe alternative versions of existing cars (I think they look fine, they just need technology).



Whos to say they cant make SUVs viable if new technology came along? Just perception?

think of your car being taken off the road as a jobs package americans, candians and mexican workers in their countries. This would guarantee some sort of jobs since their will be a certain things that need to get recycled, repackaged, and what not. Also i think we should limit the size of the engines as do we really need v8 with 600hp? when a 40hp 1 cylinder will do the job.

Also we should leave the horse power to the professionals like KITT 3000 since it can drive itself and have turbo boost! cars of tomorrow

The suggestion of running on air is just great, as a matter of fact the Tata Nano runs on air, however their was massive protests about it as people thought it would use up all the earths air....

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

What? Of course it has. When CAFE rules were first enacted, the bigger cars started disappearing. If the automakers had continued making the big cars, that the people still wanted, alongside the new, less capable, smaller offerings, the automakers wouldn't be selling enough small cars, and would have suffered tremendous fines. So they had to eliminate the bigger vehicles (eliminate the CHOICE), forcing buyers into the new smaller cars.

Chicker or egg? The big cars started disappearing after CAFE and after the first oil shock in the 70's. Consumers began snapping up the smaller lighter vehicles like the Taurus, Accord and Camry. I disagree that CAFE killed the large cars. I do agree that CAFE acted as a floor to ensure that the big cars did not come back.

But there was another negative too! With their old, big, robust, capable cars gone, the buyers turned to trucks. They lacked the comforts and options that cars had, but trucks had CAPABILITIES! They could carry people. They could carry cargo. They could tow. These were things that people used to do with their cars.

Agreed. The first version of CAFE didn't foresee the creativity of the vehicle makers in turning trucks into everyday family vehicles. The SUV Loophole allowed the vehicle makers and the buying public to indulge itself in the 90s and this decade with fuel being cheaper than water. the first version of CAFE could actually be seen as a catalyst for giving the public MORE choices. Whereas pre-CAFE the biggest vehicles were 7 person station wagons after CAFE there were 7 & 8 passenger SUVs that could also tow big toys and gear. In addition there was born the 8 passenger minivan 'truck'. More choices than before.

The automakers didn't much like this idea, since trucks were nothing like what we think of today as trucks. They were generally not big profitmakers, and were sold primarily for actual work purposes. But once the "car people" started becoming a big part of that market, comforts were added, refinements. People would actually WANT their offerings, and profitability started coming.

So, not only did CAFE limit your choices, it is the main thing that CAUSED the reliance on the truck market by the US automakers.

Absolutely disagree on the first statement and definitely agree on the second. See SUVs and minivans above.

and if CAFE "will have little or no effect", why would anybody want it?

When the law was proposed 18 months ago then passed in December neither the lawmakers nor the vehicle makers really understood fully the changes that were in process ( I did but no one was listening ). It wasn't until May that Ford and GM and then Toyota all said 'Holy ****' the buying public is really serious about dumping their BOFs.

The automakers don't have a choice in what sells. The BUYERS do! And if some arbitrary government mandate requires sales of certain types of vehicles, the automakers don't control sales, they control what they build. But if the market says they DON'T want those vehicles....bankruptcy looms.

CAFE doesn't mandate any such thing. It allows all types of vehicles to be sold...as long as the national fleet averages 35 NHTSA or 27.5 EPA. Beyond that vehicle makers are free to build whatever they want to build and sell. If a vehicle maker is dumb enough to concentrate on BOFs and the public shuns them then they should go out of business.

Thay is why ALL automakers are against CAFE. Because they can't even plan to build what there buying pubic wants to buy!

All the automakers are NOT against CAFE. Honda hasn't said one word on the subject. Nor Hyundai. Ford and GM ( not the idiot Lutz ) have said that attaining the required level in 2020 will be easy.

If gas prices are high (they are) people will buy for fuel efficiency. The automakers will build to suit. If they don't, they go out of business. What the buyers WANT is where the profit is.

If gas prices go back down, people won't care as much about fuel efficency, and automakers will build to suit....Oops! they can't! The CAFE rules mean that, once again, they would have to limit our choices. To vehicles we don't want.

If the 90's return.......

If one is running a multi-billion dollar corporation on the basis of hoping for a return to the past that business is doomed.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

If the buyers truly want (at least) what the CAFE regs would cause, then they would buy accordingly, meaning the automakers would build accordingly (to stay in business) and CAFE would be meaningless. Just a waste of government resources. We'll call this the "best case".

But what if the buyers' desires don't somehow, magically line up with whatever arbitrary number CAFE decides on? If the buyers don't have a government incentive to get them to buy a product they otherwise wouldn't want, then the automakers would have to provide the incentive (rebates, cheaper loans, etc) to get it to happen. This is EXACTLY what happened with the first CAFE round.

Costs are costs. Demanding the automakers do it doesn't make it free. The automakers will pass on the the costs (of course, they would have to) to the buyers. And since you are demanding that they build something, while not offering any reason for the consumer to buy, it's just wasted money, which does NOT result in the desired goal.

Government incentives (taxes, whatever) would apply to the problem DIRECTLY, instead of the indirect (and inefficent) way of going after the automakers.

There is just no way that CAFE could come out cheaper.

Of course it is always easier, politically, to make the "other guy" pay the extra costs, but that cost is still coming back around to you.

There is a bigger issue and greater risks to the country than simply what 'options' we might be able to indulge ourselves with. That's the key issue that caused the President to propose the higher levels.

The issues are more dangerous and more serious to the country than simply a matter of production choices and buying preferences. This is why the President felt it necessary to move early rather than later.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

There is a bigger issue and greater risks to the country than simply what 'options' we might be able to indulge ourselves with.

The issues are more dangerous and more serious to the country than simply a matter of production choices and buying preferences.

Correct - and important.

Hooser Ron posted this chart in another thread.

Phase 3, while easily understandable, is completely unsat.

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

Here is another chart I came across. It shows engines have been getting more efficient (horsepower divided by displacement) since 1976. National average fuel economy has been increasing since 2004.

[AMERICA 123]

In the exact same issue of the online nonsubscriber edition of the WSJ where this threads nonsensical starter article is contained , there was also this.

Not perfect, but better - by far.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122125023848529351.html

* EYES ON THE ROAD
* SEPTEMBER 15, 2008

What the U.S. Should Do
To Reduce Oil Consumption
'Drive Less, Drive Smaller' Isn't Likely
To Be A Rallying Cry for Politicians

By JOSEPH B. WHITE

Congress is cranking up another battle over you and your car.

Washington's frenzy to do something about energy was intense even before Hurricane Ike's direct hit on Texas oil refineries pushed gasoline back up over $4 a gallon this weekend. There will be stirring slogans – "Drill, Baby! Drill!" There will be headache-inducing arguments over the merits of tax credits for windmills, biofuels, natural gas and solar power. There will be bipartisan calls for action to free ourselves from foreign oil.

Here are some lines you are unlikely to hear from political leaders as they debate whether to allow drilling in coastal waters:

Our "energy crisis" is mainly about cars.

Americans drive too much.

Gasoline in the U.S. is still too cheap.

If our government was serious about cutting OPEC loose it would curb the subsidies for gasoline consumption, which start with federal funding for

highways and extend to the U.S. Navy.

**************************

The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates both have applause lines about oil.

Wisely, they keep them vague.

Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama calls on America to reduce consumption by the equivalent of our current imports from the Middle East and Venezuela.

Republican nominee Sen. John McCain calls for achieving "strategic independence" from foreign oil by 2025.

*************************


But America could install windmills from the New York island to the redwood forests and we would still depend on OPEC unless we change what

we drive and how we drive.

The Persian Gulf countries alone provide about 12% of our current oil consumption.

The biggest single use of the oil consumed from whatever source is fueling our cars and trucks.

Since 1981, the last time the U.S. economy's dependence on foreign oil was a hot issue, the number of cars and trucks registered for the road has

increased by about 75% to 248.7 million vehicles, according to data compiled by Ward's Automotive Report.

The number of miles Americans drive has almost doubled since 1981.

That's why gasoline consumption has increased by about 40% since Ronald Reagan became president, despite a more than 60% increase

in the average fuel efficiency of new cars and light trucks.

Copyright ©2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[2002 Caddy]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

If the buyers truly want (at least) what the CAFE regs would cause, then they would buy accordingly, meaning the automakers would build accordingly (to stay in business) and CAFE would be meaningless. Just a waste of government resources. We'll call this the "best case".

Look around... the "best case" started in about 1988 when MOST American buyers start to leave larger less efficient American brands ALL ON THEIR OWN.
Have you noticed GM's market share these days... Take the BOF trucks and SUV's out of the mix... and a bad situation is now devastating.

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

But what if the buyers' desires don't somehow, magically line up with whatever arbitrary number CAFE decides on? If the buyers don't have a government incentive to get them to buy a product they otherwise wouldn't want, then the automakers would have to provide the incentive (rebates, cheaper loans, etc) to get it to happen. This is EXACTLY what happened with the first CAFE round.

Not where I live... the public were (as usual) a head of the political curve... they were already flocking to small cars... Chrysler almost died... GM struggled with 2.5 Iron Duke 2.4 Quad 4 and 2.8L motors that were rushed into production...

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

Costs are costs. Demanding the automakers do it doesn't make it free. The automakers will pass on the the costs (of course, they would have to) to the buyers. And since you are demanding that they build something, while not offering any reason for the consumer to buy, it's just wasted money, which does NOT result in the desired goal.

Government incentives (taxes, whatever) would apply to the problem DIRECTLY, instead of the indirect (and inefficient) way of going after the automakers.

There is just no way that CAFE could come out cheaper.

I don't know if CAFE was cheaper... The alternative to CAFE... NO GM N/A, NO FORD and NO Chrysler... is VERY costly in my POV

You should re-read Phishphood's post above... where his comments are in Red... he is 100% correct on every point.

One last thought... Look at auto manufactures who are "leading" on CAFE and you will find a who-who's of auto makers who are HEALTHY and PROFITABLE... Look at auto manufactures who tried to find loop holes in CAFE and you will find a list of auto makers looking for government bailouts and loan guarantees.

[CaptainDan]

[quote=PhishPhood;1517550]Chicker or egg? The big cars started disappearing after CAFE and after the first oil shock in the 70's. Consumers began snapping up the smaller lighter vehicles like the Taurus, Accord and Camry. I disagree that CAFE killed the large cars. I do agree that CAFE acted as a floor to ensure that the big cars did not come back.

At the very LEAST, we would have to say that the oil shock was causing the same thing that CAFE was supposed to do. So, if that's the case, CAFE had no point.

...The first version of CAFE didn't foresee the creativity of the vehicle makers in turning trucks into everyday family vehicles. The SUV Loophole allowed the vehicle makers and the buying public to indulge itself in the 90s and this decade with fuel being cheaper than water. the first version of CAFE could actually be seen as a catalyst for giving the public MORE choices. Whereas pre-CAFE the biggest vehicles were 7 person station wagons after CAFE there were 7 & 8 passenger SUVs that could also tow big toys and gear. In addition there was born the 8 passenger minivan 'truck'. More choices than before.

That "creativity" started from the buyers. While it may have been a "loophole", it was NOT an accidental loophole. The trucks had (have) a very important purpose to serve. If you made trucks "incapable", or more expensive, as the cars were, what exactly are you expecting people to drive? Particularly those who actually NEED the capability that a truck provides.

So, not only did CAFE limit your choices, it is the main thing that CAUSED the reliance on the truck market by the US automakers, by driving car buyers to them, and then putting a "floor" under the market to prevent them ever moving back.

When the law was proposed 18 months ago then passed in December neither the lawmakers nor the vehicle makers really understood fully the changes that were in process ( I did but no one was listening ). It wasn't until May that Ford and GM and then Toyota all said 'Holy ****' the buying public is really serious about dumping their BOFs.

If you really understand fully the changes that are in process, well congratulations, you're the only one who has claimed this level of clairvoyance.

CAFE doesn't mandate any such thing. It allows all types of vehicles to be sold...as long as the national fleet averages 35 NHTSA or 27.5 EPA. Beyond that vehicle makers are free to build whatever they want to build and sell. If a vehicle maker is dumb enough to concentrate on BOFs and the public shuns them then they should go out of business.

CAFE didn't specifically eliminate any particular choice, but it most certainly did CHANGE the range of choices. And those changes weren't dictated by the reality of the oil situation, or the reality of the market desires. So if you wanted a nice (capable) family car, that could do most of the things you wanted a car for in the first place......well.....we have trucks....So, yes, you lose YOUR choice, and gain the government's completely arbitrary choice.

All the automakers are NOT against CAFE. Honda hasn't said one word on the subject. Nor Hyundai. Ford and GM ( not the idiot Lutz ) have said that attaining the required level in 2020 will be easy.

Yes, I agree that UNDER THE CURRENT SITUATION, the CAFE target will be no challenge at all. But if that "best case" situation happens, then CAFE is just a waste of resources. If energy (oil, ethanol, solar, kitten saliva, whatever) becomes cheap, that "floor" will, once again, be detrimental. And too late. Because the choices will already be gone (just like in the '70s), and it would take years, and more uncertainty, before any such choice might (if ever) be returned.

QUOTE]

While I would agree that better fuel economy is a worthy overall national goal, the basic premise of CAFE is senseless. You want more fuel efficient vehicles? Encourage their production, by encouraging their sales! The government could offer incentives to buyers to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, instead of penalizing a company for building what their customers demand. This potential tax cost would be cheaper than any CAFE setup, because it more efficiently goes DIRECTLY after the problem, instead of doing it by forcing automakers to figure out how to INDIRECTLY solve the problem (and pass the costs on to you).