Suppliers Call For Increased Gas Tax To Spur Hybrid Sales

[PistonsFan]

Originally Posted by 63GrandSport001

I will challenge that notion..... the biggest price pusher in the automotive market is inflation and not fuel economy........

Nah... I'm talking about future product.

2016-2020 and
2020+

So IIRC, 2016 CAFE is 30 mpg for trucks and 39 mpg for cars. 2020 CAFE could end up looking something like 33 mpg trucks, 45 mpg cars.

CAFE is going to be a huge "price pusher" in the automotive market. Not so much from now to 2016 (AC credits will help OEM's meet the standard). But expect a constant hike in MSRP from 2016 on.

FYI... making a truck fleet (w/ adequate towing capacity) meet >30 mpg requires a LOT of technology. Best I've seen in production is the 2-mode GMT900 at 28 mpg.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by PistonsFan

Nah... I'm talking about future product.

2016-2020 and
2020+

So IIRC, 2016 CAFE is 30 mpg for trucks and 39 mpg for cars. 2020 CAFE could end up looking something like 33 mpg trucks, 45 mpg cars.

CAFE is going to be a huge "price pusher" in the automotive market. Not so much from now to 2016 (AC credits will help OEM's meet the standard). But expect a constant hike in MSRP from 2016 on.

FYI... making a truck fleet (w/ adequate towing capacity) meet >30 mpg requires a LOT of technology. Best I've seen in production is the 2-mode GMT900 at 28 mpg.

Actually its 26MPG for trucks and 42MPG for cars, currently the CAFE for trucks is 24MPG so that would be an easy target to hit (if they are not already hitting 26MPG now). And currently its 27.5MPG for cars, which in 2007 GM was at 30MPG for cars and Toyota was at about 34-35MPG for cars.

Lower volume cars like the Corvette and Camaro won't be an issue, infact the battle grounds will likely be mid sized sedan which are the largest single market in the US. The current Chevy Malibu with the 2.4L I-4 and 6 speed auto gets 26MPG combined EPA (which is probably about 31-32MPG combined CAFE). They may have to get the mid sized segment up to around 34-35MPG CAFE and the rest may be off set by the compacts and sub compacts (Cruze and Spark) and the Chevy Volt which is likely to have a CAFE average of over 100MPG based on the 230MPG city and said to be over 100MPG highway rating of the Volt.

So in reality we may just see price increases in the mid sized segment that is of considerable size.

However once more consumers may end up opting to get something like the Chevy Cruze with the 1.4L turbo and XFE package (44MPG highway est. and probably a 44MPG CAFE rating) over a Chevy Malibu.

What we may see as a result is people wanting more premium features that you generally find in a mid sized sedan to be placed in compacts. Which is a similar situation that you find in Europe so you will likely see upper optioned compacts get near the $26,000 mark but this will be due to features that are in it.

[ByTheLake]

I doubt many politicians would risk the ire of their constituents by supporting such a heavy tax.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by ByTheLake

I doubt many politicians would risk the ire of their constituents by supporting such a heavy tax.

No politicians are worried about their constituents....... they are worried about big oil and the money they get from them and that money being given to someone who will run against them.

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by 63GrandSport001

That is the whole point, by increasing the cost of fuel you will make those fuel efficient vehicles seem like a better deal. Thus people will buy them more often and you will end up with a similar situation as you have in Europe where the best selling cars are compacts and sub compacts. Also in Europe though you have a tax based on engine size as well, this seems to be the most effective way to get people into fuel efficient vehicles.

I am one who does feel that a increase in gas tax to make gas cost something like $8.00 a gallon would put a big hardship on the poor (as if they aren't in a big enough one already). With CAFE even if the vehicle costs $900 more this is a cost that would be spread through out the loan of the vehicle. This a poor person can afford and they will benefit even more from the fuel costs savings of it getting better MPG.

Also with CAFE an automaker can meet standards while producing 1,000BHP vehicles as those 1,000BHP vehicles will be very low production.

If you look at EU pricing of of many of the FUEL FRUGAL vehicles (small to relatively large ... up to almost 2 tons), remove the Value Add Tax and "engine size" excise tax (total 25% for under 2 liters), then adjust for OUR (US) poor exchange rates ... there appears to be cost competitive options already ... even as imports. Both gasoline and diesels.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/SpecsPrices...AndPrices.aspx

Of course DOMESTICALLY BUILT would be FAR BETTER if overhead costs can be mannaged better.

In fact I believe the demand is already here but without product options/choices. The consumer CAN NOT buy what is NOT AVAILABLE as an purchasable option.

The only thing we have here are hybrids and they are limited in passenger capacity, cargo space, and towing. So the US has only 1 choice above 45 mpg (the Prius) that can not satisfy the needs of about 60% of the US market. And many US consumers do not have confidence in VW's long term reliability/durability and post warranty maintenance cost, so that limits their diesel sales.

I believe these 44 to 63 mpg(US) combined average machines would sell on their own! Certainly FAR better than a typical Detroit 32 to 40 mpg combined "incremental evolutionary" FE upgrade.

I strongly agree that "STEPPING" fuel prices/taxes will be most harmful to the "poor" not just in fuel, but food and everything else! Even some of the upper quartile would also complain.

As for CAFE ... it is almost a TOTAL FAILURE ...

BTW speaking of CAFE ... when you folks refer to CAFE values are you using 1976 methodology or 2008 EPA methodology? Or does anyone know the difference?

Personally, I do not care if an OEM develops, builds, and sells that 1,000BHP LOW VOLUME vehicle provided the vehicle is priced to amortize all development and production costs profitably.

As for PistonsFan's comment about "requires a LOT of technology. Best I've seen in production is the 2-mode GMT900 at 28 mpg", I suggest you look at Ford and Fiat's European diesel technology. Try this site

http://www.vca.gov.uk/vandata/vehicles.aspx

The US has been technically asleep for 10 years. It is my guess that by the time the US reaches their 35 mpg "fleet" average in 2016, Europe and most of the rest of the world will be pushing 50~55 mpg(US) combined average.

The one to watch will be Hyundai/Kia about 2013 (because of very strict new S. Korean regulations).

At least that is the way it looks to me.

[PistonsFan]

Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010

As for PistonsFan's comment about "requires a LOT of technology. Best I've seen in production is the 2-mode GMT900 at 28 mpg", I suggest you look at Ford and Fiat's European diesel technology. Try this site

http://www.vca.gov.uk/vandata/vehicles.aspx

Show me a full-size truck in the US that gets better than 28 mpg CAFE.

And your reference to that link is irrelevant. EU vehicles are tested on an easy test cycle (NEDC). And you do realize that UK (imperial) gallons are not the same as US gallons right?

[63GrandSport001]

What is the goal of CAFE and how is CAFE a failure?

[AMERICA 123]

Ah, a great opportunity for a new hybrid component supplier song.

Apologies in advance to all the original artists -

What Does It Take (To Win Your Love)

Jr. Walker & The All Stars
Written by Johnny Bristol, Harvey Fuqua, Vernon Bullock

Released 4/25/69 on the Soul Label where it made the Top 40 on 6/21/69
Highest charted position was #4,stayed on the Top 40 charts for 11 weeks
Album-Home Cookin'

___________

What Does it Take ( To Sell the Batteree ) aka What Does It Take ( Eighta' Gallon Sounds Right To Me )


{35 seconds of sax intro**

What does it take
(What does it take)
To make you buy the batteree
( buy the batteree )

eighta' gallon sounds right to me
( -sounds right to me )
But I'm afraid you'll see
( -afraid you'll see )
through this charade for me
(this charade for me)


so how can I make
(How can I make)
This dream come true for me
(come true for me)

Oh, I just got to know
(got to know)
Oo, babe tax it up and then I'll go

Gonna blow for you

{25 seconds of sax solo**

I tried, I tried, I tried, I tried
In every way I could
To make you see how much you need me
(see how much you need me )
After CFC I thought you understood
(thought you understood)

So you gotta make me see
(make me see)
What does it take to sell this batteree
Gonna blow again for you

{35 seconds of sax outro**

[44 mpg by 2010]

Originally Posted by PistonsFan

Show me a full-size truck in the US that gets better than 28 mpg CAFE.

And your reference to that link is irrelevant. EU vehicles are tested on an easy test cycle (NEDC). And you do realize that UK (imperial) gallons are not the same as US gallons right?

Yes, I know to convert Imperial to US mpg multiply by 5/6.

But would you agree that VCA/NEDC is generally +/- 10% relative to EPA while NHTSA's values seem to be consistently 25% to 33% ABOVE EPA.

I do agree that there are different classes of pickups here in the US ... as well as in Europe.

What do you classify as a full-size truck (pickup)?

The link is relevant to some ... but I also agree it probably will not help those that need to supersize.

[PistonsFan]

Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010

What do you classify as a full-size truck (pickup)?

6001-8500 lb GVW

i.e. Chevy Silverado 1500

And keep in mind that the #1 selling vehicle in the US is a full-size truck (Ford F-series). Very high volume and a very high contribution to the CAFE score.

[MyImpalaSS]

Originally Posted by Suziebob

I'd rather pay $8/gallon all the time and have the energy needs of the country met domestically than pay $4 until some Muslim country gets pissed at our infidel ways and cuts us off, forcing prices above $10/gallon.

We as Americans can't have everything we want. We can't have cheap gas and energy security at the same time. I think the best thing we can do at this point is tax gas a little higher (not THIS much,) and use that massive increase in tax revenue to fund advances in algae based gas.

Maybe then our country will be self sufficient and safe again. But as long as people freak the hell out over any tax increase, and the lowest common denominators of our society continues their hypocritical ways, we won't have that. So enjoy paying high gas prices ANYWAY without getting any long term benefit out of it.

The Rush Limbaugh statement of the day.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by PistonsFan

6001-8500 lb GVW

i.e. Chevy Silverado 1500

And keep in mind that the #1 selling vehicle in the US is a full-size truck (Ford F-series). Very high volume and a very high contribution to the CAFE score.

The F-150 being the best selling vehicle in the US is a function of a lack of choices in that market segment.

While yes the Ford F-150 is the best selling vehicle in America the full size pickup market isn't the biggest market in the US its the 3rd (or 4th).

Yes though it does have a good size impact on Ford's truck CAFE which needs to be 26MPG by 2016.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by PA Dweller

I didn't really think it was 50% of the members but regardless I disagreed with this idea since I started posting here. They do it in Europe and do you see what the majority of them drive? Little underpowered golf carts, I do not want to be forced to drive something the size of a Ford Fiesta with barely 120 HP. If this law goes through I will be forced to drive such a car because anything larger will be out of my reach financially. Right now I have my choice of driving what I want, if I pleased I have the money to go out and buy something with a V8 and afford the gas for it. I don't give a damn if the person driving next to me finds it offensive, if they have anything to say I would give them the one finger salute.

AHH HA!! I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I'm fully in favor of CAFE and even a tougher CAFE standard. They can build what we like it's just that they'll have to make every vehicle more fuel efficient. Frankly though Detroit has poisoned the waters when it comes to CAFE for the last 30 years ( see Lutz's comments ). Thus while most everyone agrees with SuzieBob for the very same reasons he posted half the population wants a stiffer CAFE program and half want a huge increase in the fuel tax. Some want both.

You want a good solution? Find a way to have your cake and eat it too. With the technologies being developed why can't larger vehicles get much improved fuel economy without making sacrifices to power? Who says it can't be done? Direct Injection, AFM, Two Mode Hybrids, BAS, E-Flex, Diesels, etc, etc, etc. Problem solved, no need to enact such a socialist law.

Edit: Did you consider people like myself that live in rural areas? You need to drive to survive up here and such a law would hurt people. Add on top of that all the AWD/4WD vehicles people drive here to get through the snow and we're punished further. FAIL FAIL FAIL

I'm against a stiff increase in the fuel tax except to note that it works and it works right away and it works very well. So set your priorities.

The 'Me-Only's' don't care very much about you, your living in a rural area nor how much you can afford on fuel. Their position is driving is not a right. If you can afford it then you can do it. This is the most basic capitalistic tendency; i.e. 'I've got mine, if you want yours then go get it.'

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by mbukukanyau

Goodbye freedom,

Originally Posted by Aprime

Well no **** they all support gas tax hikes, that could allow them to virtually force-feed all the European stuff in our mouths, have them sell new technology because of a government-influenced situation at a high 'justifiable' price when we don't even want or ask for that technology. Not only that, but most of the companies in question have been hard at work on new fuel-saving innovations and techs for the US market partly because of the last hike we've seen, and seeing as fuel prices are stagnating in the lows because the demand is... What it is, they want to see returns on that spending. Finally, unlike CAFE they're not the one's who are hit if consumers like a certain thing over another.

But I heard you all wanted to be like Canada, eh!

Originally Posted by Aprime

Just like any tax or government measure.

Again I have to remind you that this is not only a supplier issue. That's just what this article is about.

Ford and GM are officially behind this idea. Their CEO's have stated as much officially and publicly. Think about it.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by 63GrandSport001

That is the whole point, by increasing the cost of fuel you will make those fuel efficient vehicles seem like a better deal. Thus people will buy them more often and you will end up with a similar situation as you have in Europe where the best selling cars are compacts and sub compacts. Also in Europe though you have a tax based on engine size as well, this seems to be the most effective way to get people into fuel efficient vehicles.

I am one who does feel that a increase in gas tax to make gas cost something like $8.00 a gallon would put a big hardship on the poor (as if they aren't in a big enough one already). With CAFE even if the vehicle costs $900 more this is a cost that would be spread through out the loan of the vehicle. This a poor person can afford and they will benefit even more from the fuel costs savings of it getting better MPG.

Also with CAFE an automaker can meet standards while producing 1,000BHP vehicles as those 1,000BHP vehicles will be very low production.

I agree with this 100%. My position exactly.