2013 Mercedes-Benz G Class

CAFE regulations expected to cripple niche carmakers

 
9 1,387 views Apr 29, 2008

CAFE regulations expected to cripple niche carmakers

CAFE regulations expected to cripple niche carmakers

Enlarge Photo
As the fallout from last week’s CAFE announcement continues, worrying details about the new standards and how they appear harsher for some carmakers than others are starting to appear. The 2015 interim target of 31.6MPG fleet average for new cars and trucks is based on a complicated formula that takes into account all manner of inputs including a calculation of a vehicle’s footprint – the area bounded by the wheels – and power levels.

It’s been revealed that under the new rules the relative increase is highest for the smallest vehicles. Each automaker is assigned its own separate fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks, based on the number of vehicles of each footprint size that it sells, reports AutoWeek.

It means a carmaker like Porsche, which builds a range of small yet powerful cars, would have to average 41.3mpg in 2015. Toyota, on the other hand, which has a mix of low powered sedans and SUV models, would need to average about 7mpg less.

It’s not just Porsche that will suffer. Low volume players, with less diverse product offerings, like Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and BMW as well as Mitsubishi, Subaru and Suzuki, will face tougher standards under the proposal.

Porsche and a number of other carmakers lobbied hard to be exempt from the new bill but were refused. Their option now would be to either change their lineups or buy up credits and or fines from some of the larger carmakers whose fleet-average fuel-economy levels fall under the new minimum.



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
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (9)

  1. By chris Posted: 4/29/2008 7:41am PDT

    ok, now we can start the whole "unconstitutional" argument. i'm not familiar with the american constitution but that's gotta blow out at least 5 points in the constitution.

    one law for all makers.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. By Renton Posted: 4/29/2008 8:15am PDT

    This is retarded. It allows the big manufacturers to keep the status quo and forces the manufacturers of small cars to raise the standards.

    The small cars were already doing the right thing. You know its bad when Honda is a victim of this crap.

    Sliding scales are as wrong as affirmative action.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. By MyWheelsOnWalls.com Posted: 4/29/2008 9:10am PDT

    Dont worry Chris as America runs on lobbyists and politicians need the money lobbyists have. They also need my vote just as the ones on the the left need votes from tree huggers.

    The sliding scale will fall to the way side and someone will use what common sense is left. Why you ask? Jobs, people need jobs and if such a law puts companies out of business their attitude will change and change quickly.

    I love America....
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. By Sinner Posted: 4/29/2008 9:20am PDT

    CAFE is wrong. Let customers choose with their wallets and not the government for us.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. By Roy Posted: 4/29/2008 12:51pm PDT

    CAFE is an artificial construct that is designed to benefit American car manufacturers, and that's exactly what it is doing. The alternative is to copy the Europeans and add taxes to fuel (forget 4$ a gallon; how about 12 - 15?). The justification for these higher charges is that they account for the total cost of the fuel: the roads required for cars to run, the hospitals required for all the injuries that result from crashes, and now the clean-up required for all the pollution that is generated.

    And it seems to be a better solution than the new CAFE regulations are shaping up to be.

    In Europe, the cars are generally much smaller, use much less gasoline but people still have the option of buying enormous gas hogs (Porsche Cayenne, anyone?) if they want to. But can you really see Americans paying the true cost of gasoline? Can you see them ever thinking that the Honda Fit (Jazz) is an acceptable car for a family of four?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. By chris Posted: 4/29/2008 2:04pm PDT

    MWOW; jobs wont be affected by this. that is the point. the law comes down harder on the smaller brands, most of which are on foreign soil. the big companies, dont have to worry as much. now mind you, a 10% increase from ford is going to do a whole lot more than a 50% increase at porsche.. but it doesnt matter. the whole thing is unfair. it should be all dependant on two variables. the weight of your car, and the efficiency of the engine. EFFICIENCY. not mileage. porsche makes great engines. highly EFFICIENT. makes a lot of power for the gasoline that goes into it. THATS the point here. no one is ready to see it.

    sinner; i strong disagree with CAFE but letting the american public decide with their wallets would still give you whats going on today. smaller cars. and like roy said, CAFE isn't even close to being hard on companies.

    the camry is the stereotypical american family car. its a big midsized car that can fit a growing AND grown family of 5. gets decent mileage, and decent pick up too.

    in europe, the stereotypical "family" car is a focus. people in europe dream of moving out of the city, getting a nice little house of their own, and driving a 5 door focus. maybe if they make enough money they can afford the one with the 2L petrol engine in it. I've heard that one has some pretty good "go".

    mean while back in suburban america, thats the car you buy for your oldest kid when he turns 16. a beater to go to college in.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. By Roy Posted: 4/29/2008 5:15pm PDT

    And the key for the American consumer to grasp is that a smaller highly efficient engine (which weighs less) can still provide plenty of power for cars ... as long as the whole car is lighter. That does not necessarily mean they have to be smaller, but decreasing size is an easy way to make a car lighter (except in the case of the BMW 135!).
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. By NaBUru38 Posted: 4/29/2008 6:21pm PDT

    "Porsche engines make a lot of power for the gasoline that goes into it." (edited)

    But they produce too much power, Chris. Porsche engines are (may be) good at delivering power that normal people don't really need. A two-seat full-size pickup does need a powerful engine to carry heavy load, and a seven-seat minivan may need a fairly proficient engine (the 220hp S-Max is already nasty), but a four-seat hatch doesn't and a two-seater even less.

    I love cars, that's why I read these kind of blogs and write comments. Therefore, I'm of course against bans. But owners of cars with bad fuel consumption figures should pay for what they desire and don't need. And there are very few kinds of taxes: new car taxes, annual taxes and fuel taxes.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. By Bill Posted: 5/1/2008 4:15am PDT

    You're just as arrogant as the "Car Talk" guys are.

    You love cars, but hate power that their drivers "don't need."

    Tell you what, from now on I'll tell YOU what to drive and how much horsepower you can have and we'll see how happy you are.

    Oh that's right, you're a car guy, so you'd be happy with a 4 cylinder Mustang II.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Connect with Facebook

Motor Authority. Now with your friends.

Discover stories your friends read.
Share stories more easily.
You control what you share.
Learn more

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.