Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: No savings at 62 mpg (New CAFE Standards Adds $10,000 To Price, 260,000 Jobs lost)
CNET ^ | 6/13/11

Posted on 06/18/2011 8:34:55 AM PDT by Libloather

Study: No savings at 62 mpg
by Automotive News
June 13, 2011 10:17 AM PDT

Raising federal fuel economy standards to as high as 56 mpg in the 2025 model year would yield fuel savings to consumers that more than offset higher vehicle prices, a new study found.

But lifting corporate average fuel economy to 62 mpg would result in vehicle price increases that exceed fuel savings over a five-year period, according to the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research.

The report highlights room for compromise on the Obama administration's preliminary proposal to raise CAFE to between 47 mpg and 62 mpg from the 2017 to 2025 model years.

Environmental groups have pushed for 62 mpg, while automakers have called for more study.

Current rules require a 35.5 mpg CAFE by the 2016 model year.

The center in Ann Arbor, Mich., is partially financed by the auto industry but this study was internally funded, [Center for Automotive Research] President Jay Baron said.

The June 11 report revises an earlier study in response to criticism by an environmental group, the International Council on Clean Transportation.

Among the latest findings:

•Technology changes would drive up the average cost of a new vehicle by between $3,810 and $11,390, depending on CAFE targets, from 2008 to 2025.
•Fuel savings would range from $5,917 to $8,339, depending on CAFE requirements, over the first five years of a 2025 car.
•Under 47 mpg, 51 mpg and 56 mpg targets, fuel savings would exceed the increased cost of a new vehicle.

(Excerpt) Read more at reviews.cnet.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cafe; cars; jobs; study
Great News: New CAFE Standards To Add $10,000 To Price Of Vehicle, More Than The $3,000 Initially Estimated

Obama's Green Auto Decrees to Cost 260,000 Jobs

1 posted on 06/18/2011 8:35:04 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

You’ll be able to see through the rice paper bodies of the new vehicles and be waist deep in the carnage on our highways.

Hell, why not specify 500 MPG?

Idiot politicians.


2 posted on 06/18/2011 8:38:13 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (We live two lives, the life we learn and the life we live with after that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Why don’t they just raise it to 200,000 MPG, that way you would never have to pay for gas unless you own the car for over decade?

And don’t trouble me with physics......


3 posted on 06/18/2011 8:39:10 AM PDT by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

These people are insane.


4 posted on 06/18/2011 8:40:25 AM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The lesson we should have learned about CAFE is that you can’t expect to increase the conservation of a commodity by making it cheaper to use.


5 posted on 06/18/2011 8:44:00 AM PDT by wayoverontheright (The Democratic Party is trying to end "the private sector as we know it".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
New cars are already way beyond what I would be willing to pay for a car. Even the smaller no frills models are now in the $16,000 range. Who wants to be stuck with big car payments for four or five years? I only go for late model used, and knock off 5 or 6 thousand.
6 posted on 06/18/2011 8:44:39 AM PDT by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett66

Ford Nucleon

7 posted on 06/18/2011 8:44:39 AM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Have there been any studies that indicate such vehicles would even last 5 years, or that consumers would keep such a vehicle for 5 years? They would be pretty darned light and flimsy, wouldn’t they?

If there are no studies like that, then why match the cost to 5 years of savings? Two years seems more practical. One year seems more realistic, as volatile as fuel costs are.


8 posted on 06/18/2011 8:44:42 AM PDT by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog; Libloather

The greatest shortcomings of marxism and fascism is that they fail to take into account human nature. Driving will become a luxury reserved for the ruling class.


9 posted on 06/18/2011 8:44:52 AM PDT by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Also, I would think that for a vehicle to reach 62 MPG, batteries would be involved. Does the analysis include at least one cycle of replacing the batteries?


10 posted on 06/18/2011 8:46:26 AM PDT by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
When no one can survive a crash at 55 mph, then no one will be speeding anyone. Fuel economy.

For even better fuel economy, there's the horse and buggy, but then you have a whole different class of activists to worry about.

11 posted on 06/18/2011 8:47:10 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
To obtain 62 MPG all cars will come equipped with the Fred Flintstone option.

These people are insane

12 posted on 06/18/2011 8:47:17 AM PDT by Popman (Obama. First Marxist to turn a five year Marxist plan into a 4 year administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

While gas mileage would be nice, repair costs would be rather annoying on the Ford nucleon.


13 posted on 06/18/2011 8:49:28 AM PDT by fini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

If you rear-end my Ford Nucleon, you’re gonna be in serious trouble. Hope your air bags are radiation proof :)


14 posted on 06/18/2011 9:07:28 AM PDT by upchuck (Think you know hardship? Ha! Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Study: No savings at 62 mpg (New CAFE Standards Adds $10,000 To Price, 260,000 Jobs lost)

There seems to be a great deal of Magical Thinking

And a lack of understanding of Newtonian Physics.


15 posted on 06/18/2011 9:26:30 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Europe, Japan and South Korea use more imported oil than we do, DO NOT HAVE “Cafe” standards, and manage to sell cars that average more miles per gallon than the U.S. market.

OMG fuel prices alone can actually induce the desire for and purchase of automobiles that, on average, get more miles per gallon!!!!!!!

Can the Cafe standards, can all the fuel subsidies, tax breaks and the like for fuel, and let the intersection of energy markets with automobile markets work - which it will.

Get the politicians economic micromanaging out - totally out.


16 posted on 06/18/2011 9:33:34 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

There will never be “savings” of any kind from a high mpg vehicle, even if the mpg was to be 200mpg or 1000mpg.

If those kind of vehicles were to be manufactured, then the consumption of gasoline would go down. But, if the consumption were to go down, government at all levels would find themselves losing tax revenue. So, the government solution to decreased consumption would be to raise the taxes on whatever consumption remains. But, that’s not all. Government is already thinking of ways to charge the consumer on miles driven. So, it will be a double whammy, with higher gas prices and miles driven charges.

Big Government, and government intervention, is never about saving people money. Government always makes things more complicated and more costly.


17 posted on 06/18/2011 9:37:29 AM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavyCanDo
You will not be able to buy any car soon. And that is the point.
18 posted on 06/18/2011 9:47:25 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

How many of the presidential candidates have called for the complete repeal of the CAFE standards? Heck, how many elected officials have called for their complete repeal?


19 posted on 06/18/2011 9:51:39 AM PDT by LiveFree99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
You’ll be able to see through the rice paper bodies of the new vehicles and be waist deep in the carnage on our highways.

But a national speed limit of 5-10 mph would solve that problem and be certain, there's a democrat somewhere in congress stupid enough to propose just that.

20 posted on 06/18/2011 10:04:23 AM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LiveFree99

Answer: None.

No surprise.


21 posted on 06/18/2011 10:04:38 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Gee, we can’t let the market decide these kinds of things, can we?


22 posted on 06/18/2011 10:38:28 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Let me build a car from scrath with my own design and reasonable safety measure (also of my own design) and I could easily design you a 50 MPG car that could move 4 people.

Add in the tons of weight and ant- pollution nonsense and you get what we got now.


23 posted on 06/18/2011 10:38:53 AM PDT by Mr. K (CAPSLOCK! -Unleash the fury! [Palin/Bachman 2012- unbeatable ticket])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

We just ordered 48cc gas motors for our bikes. They get between 100-150 MPG. Even with my husband and I both riding at the same time, Lord willing, the family gasoline expense will plummet.

We picked up a couple of pull behind child trailers we will use to carry groceries.

Very anxious to get these into operation. It is an exciting prospect to be riding again, especially as we are both in our late 60’s.


24 posted on 06/18/2011 10:48:48 AM PDT by Tomato lover (Prov 29:2 - look it up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

>> “Let me build a car from scrath with my own design and reasonable safety measure (also of my own design) and I could easily design you a 50 MPG car that could move 4 people.” <<

.
The VW Rabbit diesel was doing better than that in 1977.


25 posted on 06/18/2011 10:51:47 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
We are very close to the theoretical efficiency of the Rankine cycle engine. In order to achieve 50mpg, we will indeed have to make car bodies out of rice paper. Reducing weight will be the only way to improve mileage.

It is my understanding that new cars no longer come with spare tires in order to save weight. Idiot politicians!! Why don't they just repeal the laws of physics?

26 posted on 06/18/2011 11:00:20 AM PDT by anoldafvet (19 months until we're rid of "The Boy Blunder".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anoldafvet
Some new cars are coming with run-flat tires and no spare.
27 posted on 06/18/2011 11:14:06 AM PDT by Fresh Wind ('People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook.' Richard M. Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I already get 62 mpg on my thirty year old Kawasaki GPz550, and it still blows away most new cars.

Only problem is my wife answering questions I didn’t ask, like “But if we both rode our bikes we’d only be collectively getting 31 mpg.”

Sheesh!

I just answered that by pretending I didn’t hear her. That’s a trick I learned from her, and often use it on liberals.


28 posted on 06/18/2011 11:18:22 AM PDT by saint (God forgive us, we're killing babies made in His image.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tomato lover

“We picked up a couple of pull behind child trailers we will use to carry groceries.”

I use one (a pull-behind child trailer) with my bicycle for trips to local supermarkets - 2 of them are each just 3 miles one way, and one is only 1.5 miles one way. Since using the bike and knowing the mileage, I’m thinking that my miles-per-gallon for those trips must have been pretty lousy even in my best vehicle. At least now I get plenty of exercise.


29 posted on 06/20/2011 11:22:10 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson