Automakers had until July 1st to plead their case to the NHTSA overlords before the government agency set off to finalize the 2011-2015 CAFE standards. After hearing comments from Detroit automakers, Toyota, Daimler, and others, it seems that the new standards are going to have a sweeping effect on both consumers and auto industry employees. The Auto Alliance states that the cuts would hasten the exit of 82,000 jobs, cost $29 billion for consumers, and raise the cost of your favorite truck by $4,000 or more. The added cost of vehicles will also cut annual production by up to 850k units industry-wide.Complaints from automakers are in stark contrast to claims from NHTSA, which says the added fuel economy will result in 9,000 more jobs. The two sides do agree that the new standards will cost a lot of money, as NHTSA estimates that the new rules could cost $47 billion by 2015, though automakers estimate it will cost even more. While the Alliance wants some slack in the new rules, Congress wants to see even tougher regulations. The wise guys and gals on the hill say the proposal doesn't reflect $4-per-gallon gasoline, and automakers feel the regulation doesn't reflect common sense. Since the new rules begin to take effect in late 2010, automakers contend that the product cycle is already baked in, and changing at this stage in the game would be like moving an Egyptian pyramid with Two Guys and a Truck.
Whether automakers can meet these stringent deadlines on time or not, the industry is being turned on end. With gas approaching $5 a gallon, automakers don't need the government to tell them that they need more efficient vehicles. Cash-carrying customers are doing that just fine, thank you.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Spy: Chevy Volt caught on set of Transformers 2
Spy Shot: Production interior of Chevy Volt (maybe)
Rumormill: Lexus LF-A... Stillborn?
Ford reveals 2010 Mustang badge
REPORT: Chrysler may sell Dodge Viper rather than kill it
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Nissan Murano
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Dodge Journey R/T
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Jeep Compass Sport 4x2
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Porsche Carrera S
First Drive: 2009 Honda Fit Sport
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Vintage @ Jul 1st 2008 3:45PM
There has to be a point, somewhere, where standards are 'good enough' in terms of safety. They constantly raise the bar, which results in heavier, fuel sucking, less nimble vehicles.
nataku83 @ Jul 1st 2008 4:11PM
The '07 / '08 Yaris with SAB is rated extremely well for safety, and comes in at around 2300 lbs. The '07 / '08 Fit is also rated extremely well for safety and weighs more like 2400 lbs. I think you can design a car to be safe without making it extremely heavy. I think more of the weight in modern cars comes from extremely rigid frames, drivetrains designed to deal with higher loads and power output and all of the sound deadening material.
jv2k @ Jul 1st 2008 5:06PM
The problem with that nataku83, is that you just described two very small cars.
Aprime @ Jul 1st 2008 3:46PM
"cost $29 billion for consumers"
I'm willing to say that staying hooked up to oil for transportation would cost us more, way more.
Now, if only they'd give the same kind of emissions standards to recreation vehicles (not RVs, but ATVs and the likes), generators and lawn mowers, an ICE on this stuff pollutes for like 10 cars, and don't tell me you can't see it or smell it.
TORR @ Jul 1st 2008 3:55PM
Recreational vehicles are just that, recreational. Meaning they dont get used as often as cars do. But that doesnt matter as they also have been targeted for clean up in the last few years. Yamaha snowmobiles are ALL 4 stroke versus two stroke nowadays. Doesnt mean that two strokes cant be cleaned up either as Bombardier has clean two stroke motors. But I dont really understand what the fuss is about considering most people only ride about a thousand miles a year. Why cant we concentrate on the things that produce the most harm instead of nitpicking at small specialty groups? Such as where we get our electricity from?
nataku83 @ Jul 1st 2008 4:20PM
Let's see, I ride a motorcycle to work whenever its not raining (its actually equipped with primitive emissions controls, even though 27 years old), and mow my lawn about once every 2 weeks (my lot is about 8000 sqft). Between the two of these vehicles I use up about 25 gallons of gas a year, or one fill-up in a truck or SUV. Is it really worth worrying about how much smog, CO or NOx my alternative vehicles are putting out?
carguy @ Jul 1st 2008 3:49PM
Then how come that Honda, a maker of efficient cars, has rising sales and no plans for staff reductions? Maybe the headline should read "lack a vision and bad management will cost domestic automakers 82,000 jobs"?
Vintage @ Jul 1st 2008 3:52PM
Bhahaha. Nicely put! :D
lorenzo @ Jul 1st 2008 3:53PM
Amen! EXACTLY!
Aprime @ Jul 1st 2008 3:55PM
Toyota's part of the alliance, along with a few other foreign brands, as far as I know.
The Other Bob @ Jul 1st 2008 4:16PM
There is not a car-maker on earth that has reached these standards and won't likely anytime soon.
Pete @ Jul 1st 2008 4:14PM
Last I checked Honda didn't produce big Vans and trucks that certain key industries need. You wouldn't be able to get your Comcast hooked up if it wasn't for a GMC or Chevrolet.
These regulations are very ill-conceived with not enough pressure being put on Big oil to make changes...
Vincenzo @ Jul 1st 2008 4:10PM
Because Honda doesn't complain. It does the opposite: asks for more stringent CAFE standards.
http://corporate.honda.com/GovRelations_DCTM/Testimony/1_30_2007_Honda_Written_Testimony.Technology_for_Senate_Energy.1-30-07.pdf
Statement of John German, Manager Environmental and Energy Analysis Product Regulatory Office
American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. Senate, January 30, 2007
"Recommendations
As Honda has previously announced, we believe it is time for the Federal government to take action to improve vehicle economy.
One example would be to increase the CAFE standards. The NHTSA already has the authority
to regulate vehicle efficiency and Honda has called upon the agency to increase the stringency of
the fuel economy requirements and has supported efforts to reform the passenger car standards.
At the same time, Congress should develop a program of broad, performance-based incentives to
stimulate demand in the marketplace to purchase vehicles that meet the new requirements.
The other effective action the government can take is research into improved energy storage.
The success of electric drive technologies, including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fuel cells,
depends on our ability to build less expensive, lighter and more robust energy storage devices.
empowah @ Jul 1st 2008 4:11PM
For the record, Honda's views are consistent with the Alliance, and they oppose allowing individual states, like California, to set their own CO2 (i.e., fuel economy) regulations.
No manufacturer wants a large percentage of their vehicle fleet barred from sale in the nation's largest market and most affluent region, especially when there's still a huge demand for such vehicles.
Stéphane Dumas @ Jul 1st 2008 4:22PM
I could said as a joke then Honda lobby and bribes to the bureaucrats for more higher CAFE standards, lol. My guess they wants to prove then they are more "holier" then the others. (Beware of "Smug alert")
to quote "TORR" they aren't in the truck business...yet minus the Ridgeline but once they'll ear the song of the sirens, they could change their minds. And then they have in their closets some plans for their upcoming and rumored V10.
And here the list who are officialy in the alliance besides the D3, VW is even a member http://www.autoalliance.org/
KT @ Jul 1st 2008 4:38PM
It's the ill-informed like you that make me sick.
"The alliance represents General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler LLC, Toyota Motor Corp., BMW AG, Mazda Motor Corp., Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche AG and Volkswagen AG."
Notice it's not just domestics that are represented by the Alliance.
AutoBlog, can you begin requiring posters pass a general knowledge test before allowing posts? Please?
Also, Honda is not a full line manufacturer. So, again, you show your level of knowledge, or lack of.
Alistair @ Jul 2nd 2008 12:13AM
How do they get cable in Europe without GM and 3.5 liter V8 trucks
Hmm using smaller fuel efficient vans.
Good thinking. We should do that here.
Gstill @ Jul 1st 2008 3:51PM
"and raise the cost of your favorite truck by $4,000 or more"
But with Dodge/Ford/GM/Toyota throwing $5000+ on the hood, that shouldn't matter quite so much.
Brian @ Jul 1st 2008 3:58PM
The government has no buisness in interfering with what automakers produce. Other than setting certain safety standards. Its the consumers responsibilty to purchase fuel efficient cars. If I want want a big gas guzzling SUV or a muscle car, well thats my choice and my problem. Thanks U.S. for ruining consumer choice. This hurts every single automaker in the U.S. market, Japan, Germany, and the D3.
Disgruntled Goat @ Jul 1st 2008 4:08PM
Why do so many people think that burning gas only affects them? The more gas you burn the more I have to pay for what's left. The more gas you burn the more I have to pay in taxes to invade countries to get it. The more gas you burn the dirtier the air is that my kids have to breathe.
Sorry, it's not just your problem. Your choice to wantonly burn gasoline affect us all.