Posted on 06/18/2019 6:18:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
Buying a new car is almost always a daunting task, with salespeople trying to sell that extra warranty or undercarriage rustproofing. And, to add insult to the process of buying a new car, federal bureaucrats regularly tack on rules that jack up prices for consumers. In fact, average prices for new cars are nearing $40,000.
But, that staggering high amount may soon fall due to the Trump administration’s ambitious drive to roll back onerous rules. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of freezing, or at least slowing, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars, unshackling vehicles to a ticking time bomb of costly rising standards imposed by President Barack Obama. Many members of Congress aren’t happy with these revisions, and the House energy committee and associated “experts” will be sure to sound the alarm at a June 20 hearing. Congressional convulsions aside, keeping standards from dramatically escalating prices would save Americans billions of dollars at the auto dealership.
Car salespeople have earned their...subpar...reputation by tacking on multiple fees after a price is supposedly agreed upon. Auto shoppers can escape dealing with slick salespeople, but they have no respite from bureaucrats continually raising fuel economy standards each year. In 2012, the Obama administration introduced strict rules requiring a fuel-economy average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 fleetwide. A 2016 Heritage Foundation study found that those rules are as costly as they sound; buyers on average would have to fork over more than $7,000 extra for their vehicle in 2025 than under pre-Obama rules.
Now, the Trump administration is poised to embrace a middle-of-the-road (pun intended) solution by freezing the 2020 mandated standard of 37 miles per gallon and maintaining the freeze through 2026. Alternatively, Trump’s EPA may simply slow the steady upward climb of CAFE standard. Either way, cars and light-duty trucks will no longer have to attain average efficiency of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
Already, the environmental left is crying foul, accusing policymakers of not caring about Mother Earth and the impending apocalypse of global warming. But, by the Obama administration’s own measure of the “social cost of carbon,” CAFE standards are simply too costly to justify environmental benefits. The original rulemakers wanted consumers to pay $1,000 for every avoided ton of carbon dioxide billowed into the atmosphere. This is a perplexingly high amount to ask consumers to pay, considering that Obama’s EPA pegged the cost of a ton of carbon at just $20.
If green zealots had their way, though, consumers would pay increasingly high prices for cars that may not even be more efficient. Fuel economy standards would seem to favor very smaller, less powerful vehicles which require less gasoline. But U.S. requirements take vehicle “footprint” into account (i.e. square footage), allowing laxer fuel economy rules for larger vehicles. This, combined with the large American consumer preference for SUVs and trucks, has contributed to the collapse of the U.S. sedan market. As University of Chicago scholar Koichiro Ito points out, the tightening of fuel economy rules has simply led to vehicles getting larger, shortchanging efficiency at a substantial cost to consumers.
These added expenses don’t stop at the sticker price. Because larger cars are safer for their occupants but more dangerous to pedestrians and occupants of other vehicles, encouraging the adoption of larger cars leads to higher costs even for Americans that choose to walk or drive smaller cars. Ito concludes that these “externalities” cost billions of dollars each year and make the roads less safe for nearly everyone around. In the name of saving the environment, the previous administration spurred consumers to purchase gas-guzzlers with little thought to the consequences. The federal government thrust itself head-first into a complicated auto market, and consumers wound up footing the bill.
If the federal government is truly serious about helping the environment, they’ll end their own destructive environmental tendencies. Publicly owned power plants, hospitals, and water utilities, for instance, are up to 20 percent more likely to have violated federal air and water rules than their private counterparts. Privatizing would lead to cleaner air and less costly operations, saving consumers money instead of sticking them with a $7,000 bill.
Instead of driving car prices higher, policymakers should put the brakes on disastrous regulations bilking American consumers.
Thanks. That’s what I kind of thought. Next time it’s at the dealership I’ll have them check it. It’s still under warranty since I bought it certified when it was a year old.
Okay, so you are citing the $20 or less parts cost of the camera as the reason cars are not dropping in cost?
Even when you find something you aren’t really winning your case.
Regulation is NOT what is driving car prices, its mostly user desired tech. Does regulation have a cost? Sure, but the bulk of what has driven/kept car prices higher is TECH, not that is regulated, but that is desired.
Look at a care today, and then look at a care from 1970. Yes there are mandated safety features (not a bad thing) and the ODB-II system, and pollution controls that have all been mandated.. but the bulk of the stuff you find different in a car today, and a car from 1970 are not these things... AC is now standard, on all but the cheapest models, as is Automatic Transmissions... Entertainment centers, GPS Maps, Integrated Bluetooth, USB Ports, Apple /Android integration, tire sensors, etc etc etc.. Tech features that are being added not by regulation, but because of consumer prices and supply chain cost reductions are why.
Manufacturers figured out long ago, offering a manual or an automatic transmission added more cost to the car and its manufacture than it was worth for the few folks who choose standard, so few models exist with it as an option, they all come with an auto. Etc, etc etc...
Blaming regulation as the primary driver for car prices is foolish and dishonest. Auto manufactuers today are platform integrators, more than anything else.
Don’t believe me on the tech? Open up your users manual... for any car built in the last 5 years.. now look how many pages of it are dedicated to the actual driving and operation of the car.. and how much is dedicated to using the tech that is integrated into it. Generally the actual operation of the vehicle is maybe 1/3 the number of pages as the documentation to use the various integrated tech.
ANd the overwhelming majority of that tech is NOT regulated... The first commercial vehicle with a back up camera was first introduced in the US in a production vehicle in 2002 by Nissan... 17 years later rear view cameras are standard equipment (prior to regulatory requirement) on nearly all but the most base models/packages. Their raw cost including the 7” screen is less than $20 if not $10 for the manufacturer . So arguing its the main thing driving up costs is silly.
The Nissan Versa, which is the cheapest production car, in its base model on the US market had peak sales in 2015, with a bit under 150k in sales. In 2018 it sold just over 75k. That’s all models of the car, not just the base model.... but that shows what I have been telling you, people don’t buy in any large numbers basic vehicles... If a manufacturer makes a bare bones car, they just don’t sell in any numbers... the market has demanded the tech. This is what is driving the bulk of costs these days NOT regulation.
Labor is not a big factor in making cars, even union labor. The rule of thumb is it takes 30 man-hours to make a $30,000 car. You can apply and rate you want to that. Let’s say $50/hr that is $1,500 per car.
Reminds me of a car my dad had. He moved to Florida and was one of the first people in the US to buy a Saturn.
My wife, daughter and my brother met him in NC one weekend. As soon as we got there, my brother and I grabbed the keys and went for a ride. We beat on the car for about an hour.
When we got back, I asked my dad what the POWER switch was for on the console.
He said “I don’t know. I never turned it on”
I replied “I don’t know either. We never turned it off.”
A Kawasaki Mule would be perfect for city driving and they are only $8500, fit two people and space for hauling.
They are unstoppable in up to 8” of snow, ice, or mud.
That’s abut right;
How much of the cost of a car is Labor?
If you use the labor cost figures thrown around over the years ($65-95 an hour, depending on how you account for retirees), than labor costs on your average car are $1600-$2400. The average car costs about $25k (sales weighted average transaction price), so you’re at 10% or less.
Roxor is limited to 42mph but that can be worked around to much faster. Mule is fast enough out of the box. Roxor can be made street legal in most states now, not sure about the Mule. You can spend the money on Roxor upgrade for hard cab, AC and heater. Don’t think you can do that for the Mule. Finally there is more metal around you with the Roxor. I have a ‘97Jeep Wrangler soft top with the half doors, easy to take off the doors but I don’t because I like the little bit of protection they offer.
In any event, they design them to be built the cheapest way and to Hell with the guy who has to repair them.
Many if not most states allow cities to adjust local ordinances for licensing UTVs for street use...
Kits to make your UTV street legal can be found online in the 200$ price range...
Just the thing for pizza and beer runs...
Humor me if you will.... take a 350 Chev. V-8 4V from a 1975 pickup and a 350 V-8 FI from a 2002 pickup. Put the 1975 eng. in the 2002 and the 2002 eng. in the 1975. What would be the approx. fuel mileage of each and why?
Mule can be made street legal but top speed is 25 mph, which is perfect for city driving.’’
You can buy two Kawasaki Mules for what it costs for one Mahindra UTV.
Change the oil once a year and grease it is all the maintained I’ve needed in driving mine every day for 5 years!
ping
25mph is to slow for safety. Need that 40mph for safety.
If you read the article, you would see that the price increases are being driven by government regulations. TVs have no such onerous regulations.
“25mph is to slow for safety. Need that 40mph for safety.”
Wut? Why? How is 40 mph safer?
Even TV's are regulated and taxed....tariff's?
There are no import tariffs to speak of on consumer electronics WHICH IS A BAD THING.
"
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.