Change We Can’t Freakin’ Believe — Obama Declares War On Automobile Enthusiasts
Click for Larger Image
We’re a pretty diverse group here at Speed:Sport:Life, no matter whether you’re talking about race, religion, politics, or sanctioning-body affiliation. In fact, if you were to tally up all of our votes, we probably canceled each other out. If we’d all agreed to stay home, we could have saved a few hours of line-trudging boredom back in November.
But while we’ve refused to “pick a side”, President Obama has just come down firmly on the side of the car-haters. According to the New York Times, our new leader has ordered the EPA to “aggressively review” the application by California to set its own “emissions” standards. In this case, “emissions” means CO2 emissions, which are directly linked to fuel consumption.
The plain English? California’s going to require 35mpg fleet average by 2016. But they won’t be alone. There are thirteen other states — hereby dubbed the “Trotsky Thirteen” in honor of Lenin’s old pal — which would like to follow California’s lead. Together, they account for about half of the American automotive market. One phrase that’s being thrown around is “the involuntary hybridization of America’s automotive fleet”, and that isn’t too far off the mark. A mandatory average of 35mpg will strip American consumers of the freedom to choose vehicles as diverse as the Nissan GT-R and the Ford Flex. Depending on the violence of the penalties applied to nonconformists, this could force Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Jaguar, and several other manufacturers out of the United States. It is also likely to kill enthusiast vehicles such as the Chevrolet Corvette, Ford Mustang, Nissan 370Z, Subaru WRX and STi, and even the Honda S2000 (which doesn’t come close to 35mpg).
Obama’s immediate action on this is supposedly designed to “give the automakers time to tool-up for 2011″. Hello? Has anybody involved with this decision bothered to read the news? Who has the money or ability to retool for this mandate right now? Even Honda and Toyota will be in a pickle; they’ll have to force mandatory hybrid powertrains on their bread-and-butter Accord and Camry consumers, raising the average transaction price on Accords and Camrys into the $30,000 range, right in the middle of the worst economy since Jimmy Carter.
President Carter, some of you will recall, also hated cars and used the full power of the government to regulate, humiliate, and assault the auto industry. President Obama has promised to be different, to bring “hope” and “change” to America. It won’t come from crippling our already strained economy and auto industry in the name of “preventing climate change”. Talk to your representative today. Let him or her know that you don’t support this mandate. Make no mistake: in the world envisioned by Obama and his brain trust, there’s no room for anything faster or more exciting than a Prius. If you disagree, let the man know, and let him know pronto.
Do remember, that’s a CAFE average, not an EPA fuel economy average. An S2000 may well be close to 35 CAFE.
All the auto blogs are jumping on this as a green issue, when I see it as a simple state’s rights issue. The constitution doesn’t give the federal government the right to prevent states from adopting their own automotive standards, but that’s exactly what the EPA did under Bush. I’m sure the interstate commerce clause is pretty sick of getting stretched at this point.
Non-Californians can talk to their reps if they want, but this is strictly a California issue, plus the 13 states that may adopt California regulations. California went ahead and adopted their polution measures in 2005 because they (correctly, IMO) decided it was their right to do so as a state. The EPA overstepped its boundary when it told them they couldn’t do that, and California was right to sue.
Greg,
I’m in favor of state’s rights… but to some degree this kind of stuff was settled in 1865. There’s also a disturbing sentiment that, as long as the state rules are more restrictive, that it’s okay. Why is it okay for Cali to mandate 35 MPG, but not okay for another state to refuse to enforce DOT crash laws? Why can’t Texas import R34 Skylines and sell ‘em? Why can’t South Carolina make “kei” cars legal?
If we’re going to have state’s rights, let’s have them for real. Here in Ohio, I suspect we’re not all that interested in gun control, auto emissions, or wetlands protection. Down in the South, I wonder if perhaps some people wouldn’t like to see the schools re-segregated. Is there anybody would let “states’ rights” go that far?
War? Far from it … So the manufacturers will have to raise their corporate average, not every car, to 35 MPH. GM & Ford can bring over some diesels they’ve been selling in Europe for the past decade, and Chrysler’s new partner Fiat can bring over some of its smaller & diesel cars.
It’s pretty simple: We have GOT TO raise mileage figures and cut down on emissions.
Anybody who has been paying attention has known this to be the case for at least 25 years.
The auto manufacturers have known, or should have known, but instead of thinking ahead, they thought in the short term, and sold SUVs to soccer moms who “needed” them because they’re “safer.”
Any body with a brain could have seen this was coming.
Did the automakers get out in front of the curve? No. They fought it every step of the way.
And rather than doing something about emissions and efficiency when they had the money and more time on their hands, they didn’t.
I’m sorry US auto manufacturers have been poorly managed and short sighted, but they have been.
Cars for enthusiasts can be cleaner and more efficient.
How fun to drive is a Lotus Elise? What kind of mileage does that thing get?
Why hasn’t Detroit made a car like that? Lotus has been rolling them out for more than ten years, and the hydroforming technology used in the chassis is readily licenseable.
Christ, this ain’t rocket science, it automobile engineering.
Quit whining like stuck pigs and get to work making better cars.
The only surprise to me is that such policymongering by the new regime is surprising to anyone. Let’s look on the brightside, though. There are only 3 years and 51 weeks of this national trainwreck left to endure. Unless, that is…oooh that’s too hard to even contemplate…
The Lotus Elise gets 27mpg highway, 20mpg city. The SC is slightly worse.
A few semi-serious answers to your questions:
1) Euro diesels can’t meet California regs, so that’s not an option.
2) An average of 35mpg means that Honda would need to sell 2 45mpg cars for every Accord they sell. This has never happened.
3) Even Euro small cars would struggle to meet these goals… and don’t forget that the United States is not Europe. We have distances, and weather, and conditions which don’t occur in Europe. Hell, the Smart car barely meets these standards. You want to drive a Smart Car in Montana?
4) The Lotus Elise has not been a success in the US because we require that our vehicles have service lives above 10,000 miles. Seriously.
5) How fun to drive is an Elise? Not as fun as a Viper.
I’m sorry, but why have we GOT TO to reduce emissions and raise mileage figures? Is it because there’s only enough oil in ANWR alone to last us fifty years-not to mention what’s already being drilled in Alaska? Is it because of Global Warming (which, apparently, can also be proven by the current Global Cooling)? Hell, I hear Al Gore’s so concerned he may make it so his home only uses 19 times the national average in energy instead of 20.
When better, EQUIVALENT energy sources than fossil fuel become available, we’ll use them. For now-drill, baby, drill.
Unfortunately, “drill baby drill” is, as of January 20 past, “over baby over”. The new regime will hobble our energy situation in every way it can, specializing in “back-dooring” our economy with deceptive and often cleverly concealed legislation that will make energy costs and energy availability skyrocket and nosedive, respectively.
The schizophrenia has only begun, boys and girls.
Jack, you’re conflating several issues in your response to my states’ rights post. Slavery and segegation violate the constitution, and the supreme court has held that states can’t do that (most recently apparent in the Heller SCOTUS decision).
States CAN choose to waive DOT crash test standards — I believe Kansas recently allowed Kei-cars on certain classes of roads. However, Federal Highways are the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, so don’t expect to take your Kei-car onto I-80.
If a state wanted even stricter crash test standards, that would be their right — vehicles that met the stricter standards would be allowed on both state and federal roads, assuming they meet both standards.
In the case of emissions, the EPAs jurisdiction extends well beyond Federal highways to anywhere in the country that air exists. The reason a state can’t pass less strict environmental standards is because the EPA still has jurisdiction over the environment, and cars meeting the less-strict standard would still violate the EPA standards and get the automaker in a heap of fines.
However, creating stricter emissions standards violates no EPA regulation, and it’s really none of the federal government’s business. The constitution is not being violated, and no laws are being broken.
You can complain from a practical level, but then there’s all kinds of products and businesses that have to adhere to 50 different standards, and you don’t want to go down the slippery slope of regulating everything at the federal level.
While I’m for the stated end-goal, I’m against the current methods.
Priority 1 should be fixing the economy. A prosperous society is one that can afford to be ecological. Ask someone to choose between their kids and the environment, and you’re an idiot for even asking.
Automakers would be in a better position to improve their fleets fuel economy and emissions if they weren’t already on the brink of bankruptcy.
The second issue is that regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is fundamentally different than pollution. Pollution (NOx and the like) is primarily local. LA had nearly unbreathable air in the 50s, whereas it’s never been an issue in Montana. Hence, CA smog regulations.
Greenhouse gasses are a global problem, not a local one (like smog). The standard should be an actual, nationwide piece of federal legislation, not a de-facto implementation by CA where there’s enough political will to get the job done. Besides, this is in fact an interstate commerce issue.
Of course, moving to an international standard for emissions (and everything else for that matter) would be the best option, as it would reduce certification costs and allow for for flexible product mixes.
Unfortunately, the way CAFE is structured, it encourages the consumption of larger CUVs or SUVs over full size cars or wagons. CAFE has a “car” category and a “truck” category. While we’d all agree that a car-based wagon fills 90% of SUV buyers’ needs, OEMs are reluctant to make them, as they’d pull down the “car” average. Meanwhile, they can keep making things like the Edge, and call it a “truck”.
You say “in the world envisioned by Obama and his brain trust, there’s no room for anything faster or more exciting than a Prius.”
…but I think you paint too broad a stroke. I’m pretty sure they’re not after low-volume, high-performance models (which represent a very small net effect based on their volume and typical use), they want the “general purpose” transportation to get more efficient/clean. If you’re already driving a Camry or Accord, why not drive a Prius or Civic? As a gearhead, that’s fine by me.
(sorry for the mini-essay)
5) How fun to drive is an Elise? Not as fun as a Viper.
I suppose so Jack, unless you like handling over power… guess that’s what I get for playing around with British cars for 50 years or so.
Anyway, this all comes down to what Dave Despain mentioned on Wind Tunnel 6 months or so ago. He was talking about how race people & car people should deal with oncoming environmental issues.
His thesis, in short, was, ‘If we get behind this, and get on board, then we can have a lot more input and direction in where things go. The more we participate, the more control we can have over the outcome.’
Naturally he got no end of flack from callers much like Markie B & vwlarry.
If the responses car guys give to the problems we face continue to be along the lines of
“Is it because of Global Warming (which, apparently, can also be proven by the current Global Cooling)? Hell, I hear Al Gore’s blahblahbalh.”
or
“The new regime will hobble our energy situation in every way it can, specializing in “back-dooring” our economy with deceptive and often cleverly concealed buzzbuzzbuzz.”
We’ll get run over.
Time to face the harsh realties: Cars are going to have to use less fuel and pollute less.
Either we figure out how to do that, or someone else will figure it out for us.
We can either be part of the solution, or continue to be perceived as part of the problem.
The choice is ours.
TB: Well said.
35mpg by CAFE restrictions (which is not based on Monroney sticker numbers, but some arcane, and much higher, figures) simply isn’t that hard to meet. Mane of the cars listed in this article will match it.
For better or for worse, the fossil fuel era is coming to a crashing halt. It’s going to happen one way or another. We can plug our ears and pretend there isn’t a problem, or we can do something about it, and attempt to steer the public dialogue the right way. I’d love to live in a world where the government didn’t restrict the cars I could build or buy. But as long as we share this country with 300 million other people who either can’t be trusted to buy and build the most efficient cars, or can’t be trusted not to want to browbeat the other group into complying with their vision, we’ve got to deal with it.
Funny thing about the Lotus Elise, it doesn’t have 4 seats. We have these things called “families”, that usually consist of 3+ people, which happens to be more than the capacity for the Elise. Also, the Elise costs $45,000, which is slightly more expensive than any SUV, family sedan, or $10k Kia fuel sipper. Another interesting fact is that the Lotus Elise has gotten a crash testing waiver since its arrival. Yes, thats right, it doesn’t meet federal crash standards. Simply put, its comical to suggest that any automaker should be making Lotus Elises instead of SUVs or family sedans. Need I mention that the construction of that awesome chassis is very expensive? TB, your ideals, sir, are extremely unrealistic.
BTW, the Detroit automakers could have easily pulled out of the SUV market. But then what would have happened? “There would be no more SUVs”, you say. Hardly. The Japanese would easily pick up where Detroit left off, because they are BUSINESSES.
Ryan/Ry_Trapp0, I never said that family sedans should be replaced by Lotus Elises, I merely used them as an example of cars that are easier on the environment and fuel usage, and yet, are still very high performance.
Need to tote your family around? The why on earth do you have an SUV? Sure, if you live on top of a mountain and your house is at the far end of 20 miles of disused logging road I can see it, but if you live in suburbia or in a city, you shouldn’t be driving your family around in an SUV. You should be using a minivan or a sedan. If you don’t have that amount of common sense, then why should I listen to anything you have to say about fixing this problem?
The Lotus Elise is expensive? No kidding. Shot run limited-production sportscars usually are. You are, also, overlooking the economies of scale, as well as overlooking my point: American car companies should have cars like the Elise in their lineups already.
Your condescension seems to be in inverse proportion of your ability to get the basic gist of a statement.
Also, your views, ill-conceived and bluntly expressed as they are, do not alter the basic parameters of the equation:
Cars are going to have to use less fuel and pollute less.
You’re either part of the solution (making sure there are fun, ecologically responsible cars out there) or you’re part of the problem Ryan/Ry_Trapp0.
So what’s it going to be smart guy? How are we going to fix the problem?
Hey, someone can use big words! Sorry, but, no matter how you state it, this is an ignorant decision. Not because its an increase in CAFE, but because it is in a limited time span. I’m not sure if there is anyone here who has a clue about the auto industry(not trying to be condescending, but an automaker can not make adjustments on the spot. No, not even the Japanese). There is a reason that the automakers backed the original CAFE standards(35MPG average by 2020), because they are FEASIBLE. I’m not sure if anyone can grasp how much of a difference 4 years can make. Espcecially when every automaker that sells cars in the US has already made the necessary adjustments to meet the 2020 average, not a 2016 average. Frankly, this wont kill performance cars, this will kill automakers as a whole. “Serves them right for not planning ahead”, you say? No, they planned for the future with the information given. You dont change that information if you dont have to(and we dont have to either).
And the Detroit automakers don’t make Lotus Elise-like cars because there is next to 0 market for them. If they could sell more, wouldn’t Lotus be producing more? I’ve never heard of them selling out. This is just another example of forcing the consumer to like what a certain person/people say is good for them instead of allowing them to choose for themselves.
(forgot to add my finisher)
So, how are we going to fix the problem? By sticking to the original plan.
And that original plan would be what, Ryan/Ry_Trapp0?
If we want to reduce gas consumption (and we do, for a variety of reasons, many of which have to do with keeping money away from the Putins and Chavezs of the world, even if you don’t give a **** about climate change), we have two basic choices. The first is what the president and California are pushing – just cranking up the mileage numbers in the existing regulatory framework. The second is a gas tax.
With a gas tax, people who drive only recreationally will still be able to buy all the fast toys, while those who choose to commute 20k miles a year will buy more fuel efficient cars that fit into their budget.
So do all of you car enthusiasts finally have the cojones to get behind a gas tax?
Wait, are you telling me that we actually have options??? No way! Everyone knows that the only way to solve this problem is by getting rid of those wasteful, useless sports cars and pick up trucks! If people in Europe dont need trucks, then why do we?
Big T, I believe that your completely right, and that a gas tax increase may be the only logical soloution to this problem. I hate the thought of it, but, if we’re seriously going to do something about this, that may just be the best soloution.
(the first chunk is sarcasm, if anyone didn’t catch it. the fake sarcasm tag didn’t work, lol)
what about vehicle footprint limitations? I believe that Big T is correct about the gas tax being the most equitable and reasonable solution…but given the ever increasing milage standards and the public’s lack of interest in small cars a written-in-stone vehicle size standard could allow automakers to plan a product lineup without fear of customer abandonment. The problem as I see it is these companies will be playing chicken with the market’s expectations in downsizing their fleets, so if they all take this step at the same time carmakers will have the cover they need to shrink most of their models. It’s nowhere near as good a solution as the gas tax, but it would lower overall fuel usage, reduce the chances of automaker bankruptcy during the milage standard transitions and probably produce a hell of a lot more affordable, fun cars than are on the US market right now.
What about that quaint old notion called a “free market”? When speculator-driven gas prices hit $4/gallon, demand for the evil, Earth-scorching SUV dropped through the floor and oil demand went down as a result. Let the market work, and quit supporting the ridiculous idea that a former actor and steroid abuser knows the first thing about energy policy.
Second, look at crash photos of Elises and tell me if any responsible person wants to put their family in a similarly designed recycled Pepsi can. News flash: the reason no mass-market car is build using the same methods is not because those knuckledragging cretins in Detroit have never heard of arugula. It’s because no one needs for Ralph Nader to write a sequel. Engineers have their own families and they have souls. Souls which don’t need to be tortured with images of people’s bodies being ripped to shreds when their 1500 pound aluminum minivan gets in the way of a box van with bad brakes. This isn’t China.
Third, no one, including the Japanese need to shrink their models. I just spent a weekend in a Dodge Caliber and am fortunate that I don’t need knee surgery from whacking my right kneecap against the console every time I climbed into the booster chair that passes for a driver’s seat. Note that the Malibu, MKS (and the upcoming new Taurus) and other mid to full sized cars are safe, efficient, quiet and have a consumer-satisfying selection of features.
Fourth, a gas tax is a growth killer. Put money into researching algae-based and genetically engineered biofuels, tidal power generation, or whatever other future magic tech you like, but don’t choke off the economy by driving up energy prices. We don’t need to make our current energy sources more expensive — we need to make other energy sources cheaper and more abundant.
The economics of conservation sound morally appealing, just like the old idea of “preserving bandwidth” back in the early days of the Internet. It’s like listening to your father tell you to finish all of the food on your plate so that children in Africa won’t starve. The reality is, the marketplace rewards abundant production, not frugality, which is how it should be. Develop a battery system that costs less per mile to operate as a liquid fuel with the same range, and the market will do the rest. The magic number, by the way, is right around $10k, meaning that when an electric Malibu with the same range and power as a gasoline variant costs inside of $10k more, the market will quickly lean towards electrics. Develop a biofuel that delivers more BTU per dollar than gasoline, and the market will quickly adopt it through our current infrastructure, without the need for Governor Hans-n-Franz’s expensive and inefficient subsidized hydrogen fueling stations. The answer to any technical problem, as always, is through market-driven research, engineering and product development, and NOT through regulation cooked up by a bunch of people who won popularity and mudslinging contests.
Finally, the idea that somehow more government regulation will give us more affordable, fun cars is wishful thinking at the very worst. Regulations always make cars more expensive and less fun. The marketplace will always produce some cars at the cheapest possible price which meets the minimum regulatory standards of that era. That bottom price moves up each time regulations increase. Add airbags? That increases the minimum price. Increase crash standards? That means more engineering time, more metal, larger cars, higher price. Raise emissions standards? Same thing. More engineering, more R&D, more equipment on the car, higher price. Note that not a one of those things has added any “fun”. There’s a reason why light, tossable little cars died on the market, and it’s not because automakers were stubborn and unwilling to build them. GM, for example, did everything they could to bring a light, affordable, fun car to market in the Solstice/Sky twins, and the market has yawned at a terrific car. When was the last time you saw an Astra on the roads? There’s another excellent little car. Volvo C30? Audi A3? You’d be forgiven for forgetting that those cars even exist.
Anyway, to the point of Jack’s article — this whole process is shady and undemocratic, and Mr. Obama, who has promised to run an open, inclusive and transparent administration is not off to a brilliant start by listening to a bunch of people who are happiest while rocking their Priuses to go see “Che”. The upside is that the easiest way to comply with these laws is to alter product allocation, ie. sending more Camaro LTs to the People’s Republic of Azatlan and more Camaro 2SS’s to what Sarah Palin calls “real America”. If that’s the deal we get, then perhaps all will be right with the world.
I hope you left coasters enjoy your Ecotec Corvettes!
If the worst of the worst comes to pass then if we want fun cars we will just have to learn how to build them ourselves. I’d like to see if I can build a super seven replica or variant which gets 35mpg, is as quick as that viper and would give that elise something to fear on track while remaining just as lethal to crash.
Mark M, i like most of what you have to say.
one point – biofuels, etc: dangerous ground, because we’d find ourselves in a water crisis in short order.
another idea – i’m not sure exactly how much is being invested into battery technology, but i can’t think that it’s enough. i don’t see any of the other popular options being even remotely viable in the long term – they’re either too resource-costly to produce for little or negative net effect (ethanol, biodiesel), or they’d require an entirely new infrastructure to implement (hydrogen). so, back to the point, i just get the gut feel that the status quo is still too easy or profitable for people to care enough to invest enough in full-on electrics (for which battery technology is all we lack).
sure, the gas tax sounds appealing, if only on the grounds that it would drive people to choose more appropriate vehicles for the task(s) they’re most commonly used. america has CHEAP gasoline compared to the rest of the developed world, even at $4/gallon. the product mix is different in those parts of the world because fuel costs force the hand.
we’ll continue to use big, inefficient cars/trucks/SUV’s to commute in as long as the fuel costs allow us… so what is the “right” way to push us in the more ecological/conservatory direction?
as to whoever was talking about being part of the solution rather than part of the problem – i look at it like i look at the firearms issue. people who like to target shoot, hunt, or just collect and tinker with guns are a minority. “car people” are a minority. both “hobbies” WILL get more heavily legislated, so “we” need to do something…
The free market and cheap abundant energy are exactly what got us into this mess. The laws of physics prevent us from developing a biofuel that is cheaper and more attractive than gasoline, especially on a short enough term to replace gasoline supplies which will, eventually, run out completely. There is the fresh water issue, too.
The free market is very good at driving innovation, but it is destined to endlessly increase consumption. That’s what it does. A free market economy can relentlessly expand, both in inputs and outputs, or it can collapse.
I don’t think of the government as a savior, but I see its regulatory power as a necessary evil for a situation that a free market’s only impulse is to exacerbate. Aggressively ramping up CAFE isn’t the best way a government can wield its power to regulate commerce (a power granted it by the US Constitution). It’s a move that is designed for populist appeal. It puts pressure on faceless corporations rather than individuals, like a gas tax would. But it plays into the worst impulses of individuals. If we all had $1.80 gas and 50mpg cars, we’d just drive that much more, because that’s what our budgets allow.
This is Econ 100 – if the idea is to drive down demand, the most effective way to do it is to raise the price. As I see it, the only fault with an aggressive energy tax is who would be collecting it.
…and more importantly, WHAT it would be used for.
i think it’d be great to dump that money directly into R&D for battery technology (or whatever other *viable* long term solutions the smart folks come up with).
new to the site and delighted to see such rational exchange of ideas and opinion.
regarding the situation in california: people are dying. something must be done.
here is the link to quite recent, peer-reviewed and published information on the subject and i urge everyone to read it – followed by my own edited version of its content, for those who might prefer to only review its most salient points.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/03/ED4HVBLRS.DTL
“California currently suffers disproportionately heavier air pollution casualties than other states due to global warming…global warming currently causes greater respiratory and cardiovascular disease in California per person than in other states through its impact on air pollution…”
“The adverse air pollution health impacts due to global warming were determined from research [conducted by Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University] which was published Feb. 12 in the peer-reviewed journal, Geophysical Research Letters.”
“The paper provides evidence that people in California are harmed more than people outside of California due to carbon dioxide’s effect on air pollution…The study found that carbon dioxide increases ozone and particulate matter – unhealthful pollutants in smog – by increasing temperatures and water vapor in the atmosphere…it showed that ozone, in particular, increases the most where it is already high. This does not bode well for California, which has six of the 10 most polluted cities in the United States…for every one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase due to carbon dioxide, the U.S. death rate due to ozone and particle pollution increases by approximately 1,000 per year…more than 300 (or more than 30 percent) occur in California…California has only 12 percent of the U.S. population, the Golden State clearly suffers disproportionately more than other states due to carbon dioxide-induced global warming. Most of these additional deaths are occurring today, as global warming to date has already increased global temperatures by 0.8 degrees Celsius.”
“The science shows that California already suffers more air pollution mortality per capita from carbon dioxide than other states. The problem will grow worse in California than in other states if stricter standards for carbon dioxide emissions are not put in place.”
“[The EPA] needs to take another look at the evidence. A change in policy will not only benefit the health of our citizens. It will also restore our country’s faith that policy decisions on complex issues will be based on rigorous scientific inquiry.”
Phil, I think that California could create a similar local result by putting a $2/gallon gas tax into effect, and it wouldn’t inadvertently prevent freedom of choice in 49 other states.
Now, if it’s a situation where California feels the entire [b]world[/b] needs to cut down on CO2 emissions for their sakes… they’d be better-off spending some money or effort to reduce CO2 in the developing world. China and India are out-”polluting” us now by some major factor and the gap will only get worse. It’s like Britain’s crucifixion of the motorist with regards to CO2… hello! It’s a country the size of Ohio!
The Bible tells us to pluck the log out of our own eye before mentioning the mote in the other fellow’s, but in this case we might want to pluck the pollution log out of China before we work on the speck in our own.
How hard is it really going to be for cars to achieve a 35MPG CAFE average? (this isn’t a rhetorical question, I actually would like to hear some informed responses). Does it really mean the end of sportscars (which I would hate)? Or will it just mean the end of 260hp Camrys and Accords (which I couldn’t care less about)? Pretty much every car these days is grossly overpowered (and this is coming from a guy that drives a Corvette, so I do love power) so I would assume scaling back hp to reasonable levels in the mass market cars would leave some room for the sportscars to exist
thetopdog:
While a redistribution like that may make logical sense, the problem is that just about every car company out there probably sells 35 V6-powered family sedans for every single sports car that leaves the dealership. Slacking your bread-and-butter sales for the sake of preserving a horsepower-heavy lineup doesn’t really make for good business these days, especially considering how volatile petroleum prices are.
word up, Jack.
i had the same feeling while vacationing in Indonesia for 2 weeks in 2007. it slays me that we keep getting tighter and tighter, while developing nations like that don’t give a rip and are doing who knows how much worse damage.
Jumping in a little late here, but I’d like to add my two cents on this whole Elise thing.
“How fun to drive is a Lotus Elise? What kind of mileage does that thing get?
Why hasn’t Detroit made a car like that? ”
You do realize that the CAFE numbers for the Elise are only 4 mpg higher than for the Corvette right? Corvette is 25 mpg by that rating, while the Elise is 29 mpg. Don’t forget that the CAFE standards use the old, pre-1985 unadjusted fuel economy ratings. Even my Z4 is 28 mpg by that standard.
Not an Anti-Car Politician, Just a Politician. Obama drove a Hemi powered RWD Chrysler 300C before he traded it for a hybrid Escape in preparation to run for President.
This is an easy choice for him; he gets to give the California 13 what they want without alienating anyone but a small, very auto industry aware and paranoid about development cost amortization contingency in other states.
This isn’t going to have a large effect on the car lineups that are offered in other states. Cars in the California states simply will not have options that cars in other states do. The optional V6 or V8 will not be available in California. And, as you mentioned, many cars in California will have to come with the hybrid powertrain that is now optional.
But in the other 37 states the V6 or V8 engine option will still be available, and hybridization will not be required.
In the long term the question will be: Does it make sense to develop this car or engine based only on the demand from the 37 states that do not follow California’s emission standards? In most cases the answer will still be yes.
I don’t expect the higher California CO2 emission standards to last long. When Californians see people in Nevada paying $25K for a V6 Malibu while they just paid $30K for a I4 hybrid Malibu they will be writing their state representatives.
There is no Constitutional question that the Federal Government has the right to preempt California from setting CO2 standards, the question is should it. I don’t think it really matter that much; as I said, I doubt this will have much effect on the market in other 37 states. Let California live an learn.
However, any discussion of CAFE-like policies brings up the relative brilliance of a gas tax. If the revenue is used properly it funds roads based on who uses them the most.
Also, instead of discouraging new car sales because the new cars suck, like CAFE, a gas tax encourages new car sales because the old cars are too inefficient.
Wouldn’t this rule only apply to vehicles with over 60,000 yearly sold units?
Great news! Since Lamorghini, Porsche and Bentley are subsidiaries of VW (or effectively own them as in Porsches) they will be OK. And VW owns Skoda and SEAT which should equate to a 35 mpg average if they make some smaller cars. Ferrari under FIAT will probably be OK as well.
Wow, the people on this site have some interesting priorities. While I am certainly a big fan of nice cars, I definitely place a greater priority on my livelihood, and the greater livelihood of the world we live in. What would be the point in having such nice cars if the world descends into chaos and anarchy over conflicts of resources and inhabitable territory? Global warming is real, and should we fail to do anything about it as a country, our children will not be impressed by our taste in automobiles, but rather they will be spiteful of our will-full ignorance of the potential problems that will manifest themselves in their life times.
And if you think I’m channeling Chicken Little, then I think you should go read a book.
[...] bookmarks tagged jaguar Change We Can’t Freakin’ Believe ̵… saved by 4 others geekofsteal bookmarked on 01/27/09 | [...]