President George Bush may look to Congress for authority to alter the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE)
requirements for passenger cars, as part of the White House's latest bid to gain some political traction on the issue
of rapidly spiraling energy costs. An arcane attribute of existing CAFE regulations has already allowed Bush to
increase CAFE standards for light trucks and to implement a multi-tier standard that takes vehicle size into account.
However, apparently making similar changes to the existing 27.5 MPG requirement for cars may require new legislation.
It's likely that any changes to the CAFE standard would take at least two years to take effect, since manufacturers would be given a minimum of 18 months to adapt their line-ups. Of course, since the required consumption bogey would likely be established by vehicle size, it's yet unclear whether this would result in a meaningful increase in the average fuel economy of passenger cars, as a manufacturer could simply produce larger vehicles if consumer demand doesn't drive an increase in efficiency.
[Source: MSNBC.com]
Saleen makes new value-oriented Racecraft brand official
Officially Official: 2009 BMW 7 Series
Officially Official: 2009 Ford Focus RS
I want my FPV: Super sedans hit the desert in new TV spot
Happy Independence Day from Autoblog
Track Test: 2008 Roush 427R Trak Pak Mustang
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Porsche Cayman S
First Drive: 2009 Chevrolet Traverse
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mazda MX-5 Miata Retractable Hard Top
In The Autoblog Garage: BMW 128i Convertible
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jordan @ Apr 28th 2006 4:41PM
i believe that i'm split on this issue...while i'm all for better fuel economy, i don't believe that government should have the authority to tell auto manufacturers how to do their job. the market should be consumer-driven: ie, if consumers want more fuel efficient cars, they can buy them. there are plenty of choices on the market for autos that get 30-40mpg, and there are a few diesels that approach 50. oh, what's that, your favorite car only comes in a 20mpg v6 when you want your v6 to be at 35mpg? tough, it's not worth the auto maker's money to invest in that just yet. but if enough of you want it, you will let your voice be heard, and the auto makers will have to comply if they want to stay competitive.
america is supposed to be people-driven, not government-controlled. how much longer before the rest of society sees it and unifies itself to meet its goals?
Eric L. @ Apr 28th 2006 4:41PM
CAFE numbers are meaningless since they do not reflect real world MPG results anyways. Until the EPA figures out a way to test *every* model year vehicle and report accurate numbers under real world conditions (not some simulated dyno test), any move to amend CAFE is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
Dave G. @ Apr 28th 2006 4:48PM
Wow, all of a sudden Bush wants better fuel economy standards.We should have forced the auto makers to improve mileage every year for the last twenty years.Look at all the monster passenger vehicles on the road today, it's a joke. You can't even buy a fuel effecient VW diesel in five states in the US because of all the insane EPA regulations we have to live by.We get the government we deserve, incapable of making the TOUGH decesions that need to be made.
iQuack @ Apr 28th 2006 4:55PM
It's unfortunate that when the markets do their job and cause a bit of pain in the process, Congress wants to "do something" that makes matters worse.
When gas prices are adjusted for both inflation and vehicle efficiency, gasoline is as affordable now as it's always been.
Motorists who bought trucks and their derivatives (SUVs) to replace their cars took a risk that rising fuel prices could hurt them. The fact that half or more of the vehicles on the roads here are trucks, vans, or SUVs is proof that fuel has been too cheap over the last dozen or more years. Those folks will either pay the price, drive less, or eventually replace their guzzlers with sippers.
There is no need to force more grief on car makers--especially GM and Ford which are losing money as it is. Congress should do important things like make Bush's tax relief for dividends and capital gains permanent. That'll keep the economy growing--a better idea than strangling the domestic auto industry.
Ryan S. @ Apr 28th 2006 5:26PM
#1
"if consumers want more fuel efficient cars, they can buy them."
They do, ERGO, Bush wanting to increase standards.
I love how we can subsidize big oil, but cannot regulate it, nice little one way street. All in the name of "the future".
Every American president has failed us on OIL, there is no reason Brazil is oil free and the USA is not. Man the USA looks pretty 3rd world in that respect, hell China will have millions of cars by the time we should have already been off oil.
Keith @ Apr 28th 2006 5:37PM
You might be interested to know that gas in Vancouver is $1.175 CAD per litre. That works out to $3.99 per U.S. gallon.
There is no shortage of drivers buying gas, but the gas station owners are complaining.
You see, people are purchasing $5 and $10 at a time , hoping the price will drop tomorrow. -keith
jordan @ Apr 28th 2006 5:51PM
#5 - Yes, consumers are buying them, but consumers are also buying many gas-guzzling SUV's, too, and a great deal of them aren't out necessity. I don't think Bush trying to enforce higher standards will help the consumer. If he gets the power to raise the standards, I don't see why car manufacturers won't raise prices and then say "the government is making us spend more money on R&D, so we have to raise prices to make a profit still."
Ryan S. @ Apr 28th 2006 6:02PM
" I don't see why car manufacturers won't raise prices and then say "the government is making us spend more money on R&D, so we have to raise prices to make a profit still."
-Well we live in a the days where an friggen entry level MAZDA tops out near 30k (Mazda 3). We as the consumer should completley understand paying extra for that. The point is something HAS to be done, period.
jordan @ Apr 28th 2006 7:10PM
Agreed.
Swanny @ Apr 28th 2006 8:51PM
The Mazda 3 does not cost anywhere near 30k.
Campisi @ Apr 28th 2006 9:10PM
All I know is that government intervention in any open market system is rarely beneficial.
Dan @ Apr 28th 2006 9:27PM
To use an automative analogy, the problem is whiplash. People make short term decisions. Then, when the consequences (pain) of that decision hits, rather than saying "oh, its the market", they yell at their representative to FIX it, as if the market is broken. We can't have it both ways.
The role of government is to do for the market that which the market cannot do for itself (yes, sacrilege, its not all seeing, all knowing). In this case, gas prices go up and down every 5 years, not long enough to push the market to where people are protected from the pain of high gas prices. Without regulation to sustain the intention to do what high gas prices will do given enough time, we will stop doing what we need in time for the next gas crises.
But so goes the political pendulum between left and right. The right is currently in vogue and is supposed to be champion of free market. This is, champions sound better when they're fixing today's problems.
Jake @ Apr 29th 2006 2:38AM
Personally I think the mileage standards should be increased drastically. Then Gas should be taxed heavily
once these vehicles are available.
There is global warming. Something much more serious than expensive gas. Which at $3.00 is dirt cheap considering the ill effects of using it.
The gas tax increase could then be used to help dig us out of the insane hole Bush has put us in. Thank god
our Goverment isn't finaced by a Credit Card company. If it was we would have 25% interest and double payments. Late fees? Don't ask.
We would all be in soup lines.
Anyways we would be conserving the resources that we have while helping preserve our childrens future.
I am talking about 5 or 6 dollars a gallon.
It is going to be tough, just like a drug user breaking
free. But if we don't do it now, we will be dealing with the middle east in another twenty years.
It is time that the electric companies step up and
show there true power. Ultimately they are the ones in
charge of the future.
Later.
Jake.
Gundar @ Apr 29th 2006 2:40AM
Bush is an idiot, and his failed policies reflect that.
Sanjay @ Apr 29th 2006 2:44AM
What the rest of the world fails to understand is why do Americans need to buy so many farm vehicles? All these SUV's and pickup's drive like crap and for some bizarre reason people buy them but at least they're expressing their freedom....
If cars actually sold as a decent percentage in the US then that would address the problem more than any other initiative.
iQuack @ Apr 29th 2006 3:05AM
Of course, Jake (a couple of comments above) is correct.
History shows that we can tax our way to prosperity and that Al Gore is absolutely right about global warming being a certainty.
And yes, there should be strict mileage standards placed on cars so that auto manufacturers will build only what government functionaries want them to build, not what car buyers would like to buy.
It's always best for the government to make decisions for us--we're not smart enough to do that ourselves.
And we shouldn't spend our own money either; rather, we should be heavily taxed because the government can spend our money more intelligently than we can.
All of the above would make for a better world and if you really believe this crap, I have a bridge to sell you.
Andy @ Apr 29th 2006 4:04AM
Last quarter Exxon Mobil the leading Big oil company in the US reported a profit that was enough to drive the average American vehicle 10,000 miles. This profit accumulated every second as reported on (www.cnn.com). That means 600,000 miles per minute. Given 60 minutes in an hour multiply 600,000 miles by 60 and get 36,000,000 miles take this number and multiply it by 24 for the hours in a day. Most calculators can't handle the result of 36 million multiplied by 24 for a days worth of miles. "Exxon Mobil, the country's largest oil firm, reported annual earnings last year of $36.1 billion, or $1,146 a second, a record for any U.S. corporation"
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/26/news/economy/oil_profits/index.htm
There is also a graph on this website showing net annual earnings from 2002 to 2005:
2002: 11.5 billion dollars
2003: 21.5 billion dollars
2004: 25.3 billion dollars
2005: 36.1 billion dollars
Does anyone else notice a correlation between this and republican ties to big business and the current administration? If Exxon Mobil had taken an hours worth of their profit and sent a check to the people of New Orleans, Mississippi and other coastal areas devastated by the last hurricane before the big storm they would have at least had a fighting chance to buy quite a few methods of transportation out of the area and to safety. After reading these statistics how can anyone think the government shouldn't put a cap on profits by big oil companies like what is done with cable tv services now. Perhaps the best way to get a check from the big oil companies in the hands of the people that need it the most is to not let companies like Exxon take money out of greed from the people like those of New Orleans who actually needed it the most. Perhaps some of this money wouldn’t be taken out of college students hands for gas when they can use it for books and classes.
Howard Kerr @ Apr 29th 2006 5:52AM
I think car buyers (and truck and SUV buyers) in this country want to "have their cake, and eat it too". They want to drive the biggest vehicle they can buy, and they want the fuel for it to be the lowest priced. I keep saying, that Americans need to realize that gas will probably never get any cheaper than it is now, and make vehicle purchases with that in mind, yet V8 powered vehicles still sell in large numbers because people think they get good-enough gas mileage when gas is "reasonably priced".
Bush is just jumping on a "bandwagon", something he does with regularity when his administration is bogged down and/or in trouble.
Less than a year ago an "energy bill" was passed that contained tax relief for the major oil companies. After several successive quarters of record-breaking profits, Bush STILL thinks these guys needed a tax break.
Richard Warren @ Apr 29th 2006 7:15AM
"In an attempt to look forceful and powerful, I'll wrinkle my brow and point at them. That"ll make them assume I can think and am concerned.
God, can't I leave, get back on AF One and secretly have some blow and a drink, then call my oil buddies and have them send my royalty check, these folks are actually asking me questions I have no idea about, if they catch on to that, they'll know I don't know much about anything"
"OK brain, kick in, that'sssssss it, point some more"
Ryan @ Apr 29th 2006 1:17PM
"10. The Mazda 3 does not cost anywhere near 30k."
I call bullshit, go to http://www.mazda3.com and check every available option box with the highest trim level available, numbers (especially on mazdas website to boot) don't lie. I paid 22k for mine and it was not even close to fully loaded.