I imagine there will be a tax on vehicles that cannot achieve that 55 mpg goal and I also imagine that the tax is the real reason for the rule.
I imagine there will be a tax on vehicles that cannot achieve that 55 mpg goal and I also imagine that the tax is the real reason for the rule.
jharry3 said:I imagine there will be a tax on vehicles that cannot achieve that 55 mpg goal and I also imagine that the tax is the real reason for the rule.
Not exactly, there will be penalties on manufacturers who don't meet the average and the cost of those penalties could be passed on to consumers. Whether a manufacturer chooses to electrify enough of their offerings to meet the average is up to them.
GameboyRMH said:jharry3 said:I imagine there will be a tax on vehicles that cannot achieve that 55 mpg goal and I also imagine that the tax is the real reason for the rule.
Not exactly, there will be penalties on manufacturers who don't meet the average and the cost of those penalties could be passed on to consumers. Whether a manufacturer chooses to electrify enough of their offerings to meet the average is up to them.
"Penalty" = tax. Consumers will pay. The government will get the "penalty" money and Congress gets to claim they didn't raise taxes.
They also trade credits with companies that exceed the goal. Tesla does a really good trade in these credits.
This is the old 2025 target for light trucks by footprint. The smallest F150 has a footprint of 63sq ft. which you can see brings the target down substantially and it only gets easier from there as footprint increases. The EV F150, hybrid, and flex fuel variants will offset a tremendous number of regular F150s, not to mention ford's other offerings which get excellent economy (Mach E, Maverick Hybrid, etc). The Maverick hybrid is already right on target for these values, 4 model years ahead of schedule.
Everything gameboy has mentioned regarding penalties already exists and has existed for a long, long time. All they are doing now is reinstating & adjusting the target (recall the 50mpg target was set in 2012)
In reply to jharry3 :
There's a limit to how much that cost gets passed to consumers vs. impacting profits, though. If it really starts impacting sales, then you have to suck it up.
On a different note- it's not as if this is a shock to the system- most OEM's kind of ignored the roll back of the requirements, and just kept working toward them. Which is why I think it's far more possible than most people think.
Apexcarver said:They also trade credits with companies that exceed the goal. Tesla does a really good trade in these credits.
That, and the production improvements is one reason why this should not be sold as an MPG thing. It's a system wide CO2 thing. Better to not confuse people.
It's hard to not get too political, but factually, the prior administration tried to gut and march it back from that administration before it. This administration is going back to the prior goals.
Vehicle electrification is the ultimate fix for oems and they know it. There are other countries setting a sunset for internal combustion vehicles already. This is how you induce the market shift necessary to meet environmental goals. In 10 years, easily half of new vehicles sold will likely be electric.
As mentioned it's hard not to be political.
My thought is this is a political stunt in an effort to apply pressure on manufacturers. They know full well this won't happen by 2026.
What will very likely happen is the political landscape is going to change and this ruling will get rolled back before it get's enforced.
Isn't this pretty much the standard march of CAFE and all of its caveats and loopholes, as there pretty much have always been? It seems pretty steady and expected to me.
tuna55 said:Isn't this pretty much the standard march of CAFE and all of its caveats and loopholes, as there pretty much have always been? It seems pretty steady and expected to me.
This. Not entirely steady because they'd been rolled back just before, but totally expected.
what is the average we have in 2021 ?
If you throw in the silly number they use for EVs and some companies say they will only have EVs in a few years.....maybe you can get to that number.....
I am genuinely surprised that we're still struggling to understand CAFE. It's an annoying metric full of loopholes and mess, but it's not new. The "rollback" wasn't really reflected in real life (yet), so this is a pretty steady climb, as it has been for quite a while.
For clarity, the target from 2012 was fleet average of 54mpg by 2026.
The last White House relaxed that target to 40mpg by 2026.
The new regulation is 55mpg by 2026.
Car companies have been on this path for almost a decade now. Not all vehicles will contribute equally to the calculation. It can likely be done with wide spread hybridization, and PHEVs.
Chrysler has more or less ignored electrification on any large scale, and even they've committed to every Jeep model offering a PHEV or fully electric option within the next couple of years. Nobody is making massive changes in their product development because of this new regulation. All of this was already in the works.
The EPA thinks that the new regulation will need about 17% of new vehicles to be electrified in some way by 2026, and the White Houses target is 50% of new vehicles to have some level of electrification by 2030.
As long as consumers want to drive big, fast, heavy and feature-laden vehicles, I'm not sure how manufacturers can really make something like this happen and stay in business.
To invert the question-does anybody with industry knowledge or 3rd party data think that this is an impossible number?
If so, why?
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:As long as consumers want to drive big, fast, heavy and feature-laden vehicles, I'm not sure how manufacturers can really make something like this happen and stay in business.
Nobody told that to Rivian, Tesla (Model X / Cybertruck), Jaguar (E-pace), Ford (Fat 'Stang) or GM (new Hummer).
In reply to STM317 :
I am okay with Chrysler not electrifying. At this point, with their "quick money generation machine" management thanks to being passed around from owner to owner, they're doing an accelerating slide into irrelevance like Nissan.
Everyone else is innovating, Chrysler and Nissan are throwing gadgets and incentives on the same old crap. It is like they didn't learn anything from the 1970s.
Tom1200 said:As mentioned it's hard not to be political.
My thought is this is a political stunt in an effort to apply pressure on manufacturers. They know full well this won't happen by 2026.
What will very likely happen is the political landscape is going to change and this ruling will get rolled back before it get's enforced.
If it does, most of the OEM's will largely still follow the rule because of the massive investment that they all have done. The US auto industry does not live in a vacuum- this is very much a world wide industry. If OEM flat out go back and stop doing the work to make this happen, they jeopardize their markets in other parts of the world. Seems like a bad idea.
Again, for the most part, OEM's have been keeping up with the original mandate.
The landscape may change, sure. It could get "easier" and it could get even tougher- who knows. Car companies want stability, and they have mostly decided that this aggressive path is the way to go.
CrustyRedXpress said:To invert the question-does anybody with industry knowledge or 3rd party data think that this is an impossible number?
If so, why?
Given how rules are made, with negotiations between the OEM's and regulators, I'm siding with it being possible. (remember, it's not actually a 55mpg fleet average, it's the entire system changing to become as if everything staying the same in making cars- then the cars get 55mpg. This is addressing making, using, and disposing of cars)
The world market point brings an interesting perspective. A lot of European cities are EV only or going to be. WRC is going to a hybrid format for 2022 in part to keep with the times, and in part so the cars can transit through city centers in EV mode. They may have to do all transits in EV mode, by inference from press releases I have seen. They may need to use special stages to charge the batteries so they can transit to the next one, which makes EV assist on stage kind of an interesting battery budget problem: can go faster with more boost but risk not finishing the event.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:ShawnG said:If people learned that they don't need air conditioning, heated seats or crash protection, I bet we could get even better than that with modern technology.
2022 model, 58mpg, 0-60 in 4.2sec, 13sec quarter mile, and under $6k NEW:
And as a side benefit think of all the new organ donors.
GameboyRMH said:Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:As long as consumers want to drive big, fast, heavy and feature-laden vehicles, I'm not sure how manufacturers can really make something like this happen and stay in business.
Nobody told that to Rivian, Tesla (Model X / Cybertruck), Jaguar (E-pace), Ford (Fat 'Stang) or GM (new Hummer).
Because the manufacturers will be forced by the government and the consumers by the manufacturers. People won't be able to a Ford Mustang if the government doesn't allow them to be made anymore.
I'm ok with the 55mpg requirement if we can drop all the safety nannies, crash protection, and bring back underpowered fwd E36 M3boxes.
For that to happen cars are going to need to be a lot lighter and hybrid-ized. I don't see how else they can make that much of a leap then. Cars are either going to become very expensive or disposable.
You'll need to log in to post.
