Automakers are already on the attack against President Barack Obama's proposed 56 mpg corporate average fuel economy standards by 2025. The Detroit Free Press is reporting that automakers have launched a radio ad campaign against the proposed targets in seven states, including Michigan. The ads say that requiring the auto industry to meet the steep fuel economy increases will cause higher vehicle prices, fewer vehicle options and, worst of all, job losses. Advocates of the 56 mpg standard claim just the opposite, saying that any increases in vehicle price will be offset by fuel savings over time.

Meanwhile, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says that it hopes to start discussions on "the importance of the consumer" with these ads. The White House maintains that it hopes to work with all interested parties on setting up fair fuel economy standards for the future. The President has already mentioned the possibility of separate standards for large SUVs and pickup trucks.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 62 Comments
      marcosc
      • 4 Years Ago
      No problem Mr. President. We're on it..
      Anthony Eckstorm
      • 4 Years Ago
      This is why i am going electric. Cop out bullshit!
      • 4 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      chasegarcia
      • 4 Years Ago
      I welcome higher fuel standards. Bring it on!
      Basil Exposition
      • 4 Years Ago
      I'm with 'em. Let the market and the price of fuel drive the efficiency of the vehicles sold. And if you just can't wait for that, tax the fuel to push the process along (and reduce our national debt at the same time).
        Swede
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Basil Exposition
        Are you sure you're american? Because you just mentioned taxes without turning into a taxiban. They're like the taliban, only instead of Allah their holy cow is taxes. You know, the kind of person who turns into a extremist when faced with sensible suggestions like yours to use tax increases to dig oneself out of an enormous pit of debt.
        bscmth
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Basil Exposition
        Simple and well said erik!
        sucknut
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Basil Exposition
        about the budget.......
        MachDelta
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Basil Exposition
        Two words: Fuel Subsidies.
      Jass
      • 4 Years Ago
      Autoblog, whats your agenda? You pull out the big scary 56mpg number....without noting that the CAFE number and the EPA number and completely different. 56mpg actually means 40mpg sticker number. As in, they already sell multiple cars that meet that standard TODAY, never mind 15 years from now.
      SMK
      • 4 Years Ago
      How about a standard power to weight ratio? If you go over you have to pay a fee/tax. You don't need a 350+ hp V8 in a sedan. Most cars and smal SUVs just need a 4cyl anyway. You can slap a turbo and power most larger cars and SUVs.
        jayhawkjeeper
        • 4 Years Ago
        @SMK
        Do you mean a standard DISPLACEMENT to weight ratio? Otherwise your turbo comment makes little sense. I don't agree with either by the way. People should be able to buy what they want.
      Rotation
      • 4 Years Ago
      'The ads say that requiring the auto industry to meet the steep fuel economy increases will cause higher vehicle prices, fewer vehicle options and, worst of all, job losses. Advocates of the 56 mpg standard claim just the opposite, saying that any increases in vehicle price will be offset by fuel savings over time.' These two statements are not contradictory. Both say there will be higher vehicle prices. The companies who actually sell cars just see this as a bigger issue than the fuel economy advocates. Let's face it, if a car costs $5K more and it takes 8 years to get that $5K back on fuel savings, you're going to keep your cars longer. And that means you'll buy fewer cars, which means fewer sales for car companies. It's greener, but it's also harsh if you sell cars.
        gork
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Rotation
        CAFE standards hardly make any impact on sales volume; the biggest impact always has been the state of the economy. The largest one-year increase in CAFE, (+8.6% combined / +8.3% cars) 1982-1983 resulted in an 18% increase YOY sales.(1,2) 1. CAFE standards, 1978-2010: http://goo.gl/hjgy7 2. Ward's Automotive US Vehicle Sales: http://goo.gl/4ynvE
      lne937s
      • 4 Years Ago
      All the people saying 56 mpg is impossible need to remember that CAFE mileage is not the same as EPA fuel economy. Under the CAFE standard, the Prius gets 71 mpg. Once you account for credits tacked on for things like flex fuel and air conditioning refrigerants, the estimated real proposed 2025 CAFE unadjusted fuel economy is in the mid to high 40's. 2011 "Domestic" cars average 32.3 mpg and "Imports" average 34.7 mpg, exceeding the current CAFE standard. With the truck exemption, including credits that reduce the mileage number they have to hit, the new regulations are asking for a little more than a 10 mpg EPA average fuel economy increase over 13 years. A few electric vehicles like the LEAF (rated at 142 mpg for CAFE purposes) can also make a major impact on an automaker's average fuel economy. If an automaker can not meet the fuel economy standard, they are penalized (currently $58 per vehicle mpg under the limit) but can still make cars-- a number of luxury automakers have consistently opted to just pay the penalty. The proposed increase in the CAFE standard is not an engineering impossibility, just a question of whether or not we want to make the commitment. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2011_Summary_Report.pdf http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35359
        Evan McMiller
        • 4 Years Ago
        @lne937s
        I meant to reply to your reply to IBx27 but apparently I can't so I'll do it here. The whole new, "externalities/internalities" school of economics is so wrong I don't even know where to start. It's also very dangerous. It's basically a new container for Keynesian thought, where there needs to be government intervention, the invisible hand isn't enough. Fact is, if society determines that somehow using more gas, hell, even the same amount we do now, is somehow bad, supply and demand will dictate that a new alternative will be found. And that has indeed happened. Look at Fisker and Tesla. Those weren't government mandates. And neither was hybrid technology. And they have been successful because the people who genuinely believe that using gas is somehow harming us (I think they're wrong but that's irrelevant here) get to buy what they want and they're happy. We get to buy the normal cars that make us happy, and it works. You're saying that some body of people, somewhere, has to decide that it's harmful, and how harmful it is, and therefore dial in the incentives and taxes accordingly. But that makes no sense. Why should the government be pushing supply and demand like that. The market dictates what is healthy for it and what should happen. It's not complicated. You need to realize as well that just raising costs to "push" society how you want it will destroy our economy. No bones about it. If you want to buy a hybrid or electric car or even just a more fuel efficient car because you think you must, go for it. But the rest of us shouldn't have to cover the cost. If we don't want to, we shouldn't have to. Simple supply and demand.
          lne937s
          • 4 Years Ago
          @Evan McMiller
          Remember that the automobile is a government-enabled technology, beyond all the bailouts. Without government roads, you are not getting very far. The government determined that the positive externalities of personal mobility outweighed the cost, which is why you have cars running on public roads, burning government-protected fuel. Without government enabling the automobile, our economy would be in pretty bad shape. The overly simplistic "everybody acting in their own self interest is in the best interest of everyone- leave government out of it" perspective, doesn't grasp economic realities. More-primitive-than-Herbert-Hoover economics may have some kind of ideologically dogmatic fundamentalist appeal, but it is bad policy that doesn't work in the real world. The government has a responsibiluity to the people to ensure that public infrastructure is working in the best interest of the public. Using market incentives is a smart way to do that without outright laws or mandates forcing people to do it.
          BrandonDrums
          • 4 Years Ago
          @Evan McMiller
          I guess you never watched "A Beautiful Mind". To create a sustainable economic environment, individuals need to do what's best for themselves AND the group. If you don't believe in having a group of representatives act to protect the rights of an individual and a group, then essentially you don't believe in law, law enforcement, public facilitation of infrastructure (roads, schools, fire dept, military, etc.) Further to everyone's point here, "everyone acting in their own self-interest is in the best interest of everyone - leave gvt. out of it..." is a very very self-contradicting statement. Remember that we are all individuals that have our own thoughts and ideas about how society should function. We all organize in some shape or form with like-minded individuals to influence policy within our own homes, our neighborhoods, towns states and nations essentially creating our own governmental forces. Government is inevitable and in good situations as in America, they are a fair extension of the collective individual no matter how much you might disagree with it and how much gets screwed up in the process. No government is perfect but it's far more productive to have it in place rather than have an absence of a well balanced and publicly minded system of governance. That being said, CAFE laws are poor at best and incentivize auto manufacturers to offer 12 variations on a fuel efficient vehicle rather than innovate throughout the entire line. What needs to happen to create a more fuel-efficient future is to tax gas itself. Sounds evil? Yes. But long-term, $4+ gas will protect the resource for future consumption, discourage wastefulness of current supply and increase the relative value of fuel efficient/hybrid/alternative vehicles to consumers. Most other regulations outside of pollution control is bureaucracy that gets in the way of innovation.
          IBx27
          • 4 Years Ago
          @Evan McMiller
          I think you're agreeing with me, I guess I wasn't clear enough. I say keep the government out of the free market because competition and demand for fuel efficient cars will give rise to better mileage.
        Hector Djibaou
        • 4 Years Ago
        @lne937s
        I honestly dont get the big fuss. Automakers are trying to make as much $$$ as possible so they are complaining about this kind of stuff. You are very likely to find a car that cost around 20K maybe 5-7 years ago costing well over 25K nowadays. It's not even because of all this supposedly new tech or inflation, no it definately isn't because of just those things. This is why I love what Hyundai is doing right now, but eventually they will start doing the same sh*t Audi/Lexus/BMW/Mercedes and just about every other auto maker does. Jack up the prices! So although I am not totaly for the 56MPG thing, I can see where the federal govertment is coming from. They are looking at more than just cars, they are looking at how we will fuel then, the impact on the enviroment etc...etc... If you ask me, its not impossible to get this done by 2025. Shoot take my car for example, 2010 Subaru WRX with stage 1 performance stuff (i.e. intake, upgrade top mount and etc...). The WRX is rated at 18 or 19 city/22 highway, so someone please explain why I can get 28-30 highway if I simply touch a couple of buttons. Simple solution for some of these automakers with cars like the wrx that are turbocharger...find an aftermarket company like Cobb to help you develop fuel maps which will still allow you to sell your cars and give the buyer the option of enthusiast performance or fuel saving performance! Just saying, this sh*t is not so hard to get done!
      Jonathan Arena
      • 4 Years Ago
      Why not simply tax gas at a higher rate?
        Polly Prissy Pants
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Jonathan Arena
        Because the only tax Americans will vote for is a hidden one.
          Jonathan Arena
          • 4 Years Ago
          @Polly Prissy Pants
          Well everyone knows that taxes kill jobs. If GE didn't have to pay so much in taxes, they could hire tons more people....
        Jonathan Arena
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Jonathan Arena
        Or how about the manufacturers reallocate some of the money they are putting into these advertizements to R&D...
      Timothy Tibbetts
      • 4 Years Ago
      All the EPA changes over the past 20 years are what contributes to this horrible gas mileage but with a cleaner environment (afaik). We have lighter materials today, more efficient small engines and your average crossover still gets 18 MPG. So called fuel efficient cars like a Toyota Corolla get 26\34. To demand 56 mpg is silly. I could see them asking automakers to start at 20 mpg (set the bar low) and maybe add 1 mpg average a year. You think cars are expensive now? Wait until this gets implemented. Amazing how people complain about the cost of cars but think they will get 56 mpg in the next 12 years and it won't double prices. Of course all they need to do is makes more cars. Take the Volt and make 5 models for each branch of GM so they can continue to make affordable cars. A loophole will show up :)
        cashsixeight
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Timothy Tibbetts
        BS. Small cars from the late 80s early 90s got great mileage, with OLD technology, and poor safety. Imagine a late 80s honda with today's powerplants, aero improvments, and airbags. 65 mpg easy.
          Basil Exposition
          • 4 Years Ago
          @cashsixeight
          It'd take a bit more than just airbags to make up the safety differential between a modern Honda and an 80's Honda.
      • 4 Years Ago
      [blocked]
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X