The Alliance for Automotive Innovation said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal was unreasonable and requested significant revisions.
The industry group argued the plan would boost average vehicle prices by $3,000 by 2032 because of penalties automakers would face for not being in compliance, adding the figure “exceeds reason and will increase costs to the American consumer with absolutely no environmental or fuel savings benefits.”
NHTSA in July proposed boosting requirements by 2% per year for passenger cars and 4% per year for pickup trucks and SUVs from 2027 through 2032, resulting in a fleet-wide average fuel efficiency of 58 miles (93 km) per gallon.
The American Automotive Policy Council, a group representing the Detroit Three automakers, separately on Monday urged NHTSA to halve its proposed fuel economy increases to 2% annually for trucks, saying the proposal “would disproportionately impact the truck fleet.”
Alternative headline – Automakers whine they must increase gas mileage; will likely wipe out their super lucrative truck/SUV sales
Then: Seat belts are needlessly expensive. Later: look at the new safety feature we added!
Now: These new rules are needlessly expensive. After new model release: look at what great mileage it gets!
I’m tired of this.
“exceeds reason and will increase costs to the American consumer with absolutely no environmental or fuel savings benefits.”
Press X to doubt
Yeah I would love to see how they justify those claims.
From what I understand they are saying that they will not be complying with the regulations and so the cost of the fees for failing to comply will be pushed onto the consumer with no environmental or fuel saving benefits.
Which in comparison, will make EVs more affordable.
It’s almost like the intention of the bill is to price gas vehicles out, and encourage the legacy auto industry to, well, innovate.
It’s almost like the intention of the bill is to price gas vehicles out,
Or possibly stop the auto industry from privatizing the profits of selling gas vehicles and socializing the losses of climate and health concerns to everyone else.
If prices could be increased by 3k, they already would have been increased by 3k. Companies aren’t just waiting around for the government to tell them to increase prices.
Saving humanity from destroying itself exceeds reason!
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (anti-innovation division) said…
Gotta love the newspeak way these lobbying groups name themselves.
The industry group argued the plan would boost average vehicle prices by $3,000 by 2032 because of penalties automakers would face for not being in compliance.
Isn’t the whole idea of penalizing noncompliance to prevent it from becoming business as usual?
They’ll have affordable Chinese EV competitors by then.
So, the idea they’re pushing that they have the option of raising prices is essentially a lie.
Yeah I’m sure price’s won’t go up that high anyway.
The industry group argued the plan would boost average vehicle prices by $3,000 by 2032 because of penalties automakers would face for not being in compliance
So what they are saying is the penalties need to be higher because they are still small enough that the companies think they should eat them rather than improve efficiency.
From my perspective, these don’t even go far enough, but improving efficiency is more important than the survival of the automakers.
Not only are the penalties small enough to eat, but it’s small enough to kick it down to the consumers.
That boost in price is minimal compared to how much they raised prices in the last 2 years.
I’d prefer to keep the numbers the same, but change the rules so that a light truck/suv is only different from a car if it is used as a truck. Use as a truck means that that the value is based on mechanical condition and engine hours only. Cosmetic damage does not count, and an independent mechanical is needed to evaluate mechanical condition. This won’t stop sales of Trucks/SUVs, but it will end leasing and renting - if you lease/rent a truck, fill it with boulders (which will put dents in the bed as they roll around) they cannot charge you damages, and on lease return are required to sell it for the same price as a truck that was used only for driving unloaded (or if discount it, the sales tax is as if it was in mint condition). Or drive it off road and dent the fenders sliding into trees and scratch the paint else where - no extra cost when you return it at the end of the lease/rental. Want to tow, that is normal for a truck so they can’t say anything about you drilling holes for a hitch (so long as they don’t affect the mechanical ability - if the truck comes with standard holes they can say don’t drill, otherwise drilling is required and assumed okay)
Suddenly you could buy a truck as a truck, or a passenger car that looks like a truck. The truck will go for a lower price, but you will have to buy it (possibly under different credit terms as they less want to reposes it given you may do cosmetic damage). The car will be more expensive because they have to pay CAFE fines. Insurance on the truck will be cheaper: they won’t fix hail damage, and if in an accident they will fix the lights but leave all the other dents. (if the other guys fault their insurance will not fix dents). People who actually need a truck for work purposes won’t care, and they are also likely doing things that can’t really be done in a more fuel efficient vehicle. People who just want a car will find cars a better option again.
The CAFE standards really screwed over the compact pickup truck segment. 2dr 6ft bed trucks need to return and eat up the full size’s market share.
8 foot bed please . I need to haul stuff.
We should just stop treating vehicles as luxury items that need to look pretty and instead treat them like the utility that they are. Who cares if the magic box that takes you from point a to point b has a dent? It still functions exactly the same.
Threatening us with unaffordable cars, sounds like its time to make cars less necessary like other developed countries do.
I like that there is a separate, and higher percentage improvement needed for pickup trucks and SUV’s, because Im pretty sure fuel economy standards and the dodging thereof are part of the reason for all the SUV’s and other large vehicles.
No thanks. I agree that cars cause a lot of problems and it would be better if there was a high speed train system and more bike lanes in the U.S., but too much of !fuckcars is people talking about something they know nothing about and blaming Americans for the world’s problems.
I’m not a dragon dude
I recognized that reference!
So they’re saying they could have produced more fuel efficient cars all along, they just didn’t want to.
The 2012 rule was aimed at 5% increase a year. The Trump 2020 time was for 1.5% increase per year. This 2023 assume for 4% per year. Though the above splits passenger cars from trucks/SUVs.
My other numbers from https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/politics/trump-fuel-efficiency-standards/index.html
Something tells me it will just result in more pedestrian deaths 🤔
the people at the NHTSA are scientists and engineers… they didn’t get those jobs by being “unreasonable”, you teenage drama queens…
