Nissan Announces Voluntary Service Campaign For...

CAFE expected to change vehicle distribution and composition

 
5 621 views August 13, 2008

CAFE expected to change vehicle distribution and composition

CAFE expected to change vehicle distribution and composition

Enlarge Photo
The impending Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations are set to have a major impact on the types of vehicles both sold and produced in the United States, as carmakers resort to changing the composition of their lineups to meet the tough new standards. The stringent guidelines set by the CAFE standards and the short amount of time given to achieve them means it’s unlikely manufacturers will be able to meet the demands without a dramatic shift in distribution.

This means that traditional gas-guzzling SUVs and pickups will continue to dwindle as hybrid vehicles and compact cars continue to thrive. It could also mean customers will be faced with much higher vehicle prices as carmakers have already revealed that any costs of the new regulations will most likely be passed on to consumers.

The new regulations will require vehicle fleets to average at least 35mpg (6.7L/100km) by 2020, but increases in the standard are set to take place every year from 2011. Between 2011 and 2015, the CAFE standards will rise by 4.5% each year, and by 2020 deadline the required fuel economy standard will be 40% higher than it is today.

Already the results of CAFE standards and other government regulations can be seen in the vehicle distribution shift in North America, reports Automotive News. The Detroit 3 are dialing back their SUV and pickup truck production, while increasing the number of smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles they sell. Another category that will become crucial is the zero-emissions vehicle segment, as these models will help carmakers reduce their fleet-wide emissions levels significantly.

On top of this, industry materials experts are predicting the composition of vehicles to change drastically in the lead up to 2020. Representatives of the American Chemistry Council estimate that the amount of plastic in vehicles could double by 2020 in order to make cars lighter and more fuel efficient. Plastics currently make up 8 to 12% of vehicle content by weight.



Posted in:
 
Contribute
Send us a tip Comment Contact the editor
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
Comments (5)

  1. By Laz Posted: 8/13/2008 9:16am PDT

    Is this a justification for a $40k Chevy Volt?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. By Michael D. Posted: 8/13/2008 9:34am PDT

    I think this whole thing is pointless bureaucratic and downright stupid. It chips away at all that good and desirable! It essentially sets everything backwards - I, like many others, to not want to see the malaise period of the 70s & 80s all over again! Personally, I want a real vehilce I can be proud of, not a little, dumpy, humble, putt-putt econobox that can't get out of it's own way.

    Don't get me wrong, econoboxes, have their place and function - alongside and along with of the "real" cars & trucks, but not to take their place. To quote GM;s Bob Lutz: "Forcing consumers into smaller vehicles is like giving them smaller clothes and saying, 'here, go on a diet'", and "It won't sit to well with luxury car buyers if they can't purchase nothing larger than an Aveo".

    I just don't want to see all the progress disappear, all that is desirable disappear and the loss of a freedom that we have and love.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. By Chris Posted: 8/13/2008 11:53am PDT

    michael.. you have to realize that the car enthusiast is a dying breed for the most part, and currently we make up a very small portion of the market. if everyone starts making bubbly underpowered mid and small sedans, thats what most of the market will buy. some brands will still offer hopped up versions of their cars, some companies will still offer large RWD sedans and pick ups. the problem is, the operating cost will deter most, the technology cost to make these vehicles fuel efficient will make them cost prohibitive for many more, and the idea of GM designing an entire vehicle from scratch just so that maybe 5,000 people a year will buy a RWD sports car just means that the engineering costs will be higher and higher per vehicle.

    it's the reason why trucks and SUV's have been so damned cheap in the USA. so many of them were made, and sold, that ford could invest several billion dollars into the platform every time they needed to redesign it, then sell the units at firesale prices for several years and still make a huge profit off the vehicle.

    people are just going to have to get used to the idea of small and midsized cars that don't get huge power boosts from one generation to the next, but fuel econ boosts. if you want more power, you're going to have to pay for more advanced tech (which costs more) or a bigger engine (in a market that no longer invests into large engines, making the development costs that much higher, and meaning the sticker price is going to go up BIG TIME, not to mention operating costs). you want a large RWD sedan? you want a chrysler 300 in 2030? expect to pay big sanctions... companies will offer these products but they aren't going to offer them at cost.. they'll have to factor in low production numbers, high engineering costs, and the economic penalties that such vehicles will incur. thats the world you will soon live in.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. By Michael D. Posted: 8/13/2008 1:13pm PDT

    Chris,
    It make the future sound bleak, dark and backward. I want to see all move forward!
    Also, I never liked four-cylinder powerplants in any shape of form (outside of an econobox or a tuned four in a smaller sportscar) for they are lumpier, buzzier, thrashier, and I feel that being that they have to work much harder to meet the same demands and loads where greater cylinder counts handle with more ease and confidence - and as a result, there really isn't any significant MPG gain, but it's public perception that the smaller, lesser cylinder-count engines are more economical.

    Also, typical people's reactions...
    Large and luxury sedan, coupe, sport & GT and higher end SUVs & crossovers: Ooooooh! Woah! Cool! Awesome! Nice!!! Sweet!

    An economy car or mini or subcompact vehicle: Oh that's cute.

    An ordinary, mainstream or vanilla sedan (appliance vehicle perhaps): Hmmph, nice.

    Also, RWD has more cachet than front drive. Front-drive bias all-wheel-drive gets some respect, than plain front-drive, however.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. By peste Posted: 8/14/2008 12:19pm PDT

    This is all going to be moot when battery and electric motor technology evolves to the point where you'll be able to put it in the smallest subcompact all the way up to the largest truck and SUV and get ICE equivalent range.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Research New Cars

Go!


More from High Gear Media

 
 
MotorAuthority
  • Follow Us
  • Twiiter
  • Facebook
 
 
© 2011 MotorAuthority. All Rights Reserved. MotorAuthority is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.
 

Use the form below to send us a tip, give us feedback, or just say hello.

(max 750 characters)