New CAFE requirements penalize Subaru

There is an interesting thread (well, at least the 1st page) at nasioc about how the new CAFE standards require that for MY2011 Subaru has to have a CAFE average of 36.9 mpg for its passenger cars, but GM is only required to meet a target of 30.0 mpg. Porsche has to meet a target of 37.6 mpg!

 

In the first post of that nasioc thread is a chart and graphs showing all the target values for the various manufacturers. NHTSA has a complicated formula for computing target MPG.

 

It is clear that if a manufacturer wants to meet a lower target MPG, all they have to do is increase the footprint of the vehicle, by increasing wheelbase and/or track width. What a nutty system.

 

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1526329

thats kinda a screwy system of determining mpg....

 

bigger the vehicle, lower mpg requirements? might as well every car maker, design a monster truck sized vehicle with a 1L engine powering it.

Ridiculous calculations. The figures seems to be more intent on protecting the big manufacturers than to actually cut down fuel consumption.

 

A better way to cut the fuel consumption is higher gas prices and then let the market decide.

 

For Subaru this may mean that we are bound to see more 1.5 liter versions (the Impreza here in Sweden is available with an 1.5 liter engine.) with narrow tires, stripped down weight and less features like sunroof. The 1.5 liter Impreza today gives you 24/37 mpg city/highway according to available figures. I won't be surprised if we are going to see even FWD 1.5 liter MT imprezas and Legacys just because the standards have to be met. And larger engines that are targeted for maximum fuel efficiency but not for power. More low-end torque though. I won't be surprised if that occurs combined with aftermarket tuning in form of new camshafts etc.

 

Or that the complete style of cars will change where the wheels will be placed extremely far out in the corners just to allow for lower requirements. Those cars will look ridiculous and probably have a horrible handling.

its stupid, but i assume the idea was you cant put the same standards on a company who half their line is pickup trucks

Wow, that is really nuts reading their reasoning for making these changes. They are saying oh GM its perfectly okay for you to continue making your big SUV's since they are safer in crashes and we wouldn't want you to rush into making smaller unsafe fuel efficient vehicles now would we?

 

What a load of bull...

So the next CAFE-conforming Legacy will look like this then?

 

http://www.bedug.com/pics/CAFE-legacy.JPG

 

A quick&dirty photochop...

Hacked pic from awosubaru , see http://legacygt.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1919901&postcount=614

Kind of looks like a stretched Mini cooper:lol:

 

A better way to cut the fuel consumption is higher gas prices and then let the market decide.

 

 

Could you please take your socialist views of what the world should be OUT of the discussion. I wonder how come everyone and their mother posting from Europe feels that the higher gas prices in the US are fine.

 

I am as European (born and raised) as you are EHNILS but this country (USA) fought wars to be unlike Europe and to protect its way of life. And if its way of life includes cheaper gas then that is what we need to fight for...whether thru political lobby or thru other means. Besides, there is at least as much speculation in driving up fuel costs as is market forces - but one market force NOT true is us running out of oil.

 

Now, back to this idea of CAFE. The law, as is now and presented above, is stupid. And no, I am not complaining about the burden imposed on Subaru and Porsche to essentially have some of the better fuel economy among the cars. But rather the unequal requirements, which sees large manufacturers of essentially land yachts and huge boats (read GM, Chrysler), get away with less "punishment".

Those regs are bullshit.

 

I would like to see a turbocharged H6 with three cylinder deactivation get 37 mpg on the highway.

 

Or why not a 2.5 liter H4 turbo with 2 cylinder deactiviation at highway speeds.

 

In my dreams I guess........

So the next CAFE-conforming Legacy will look like this then?

 

http://www.bedug.com/pics/CAFE-legacy.JPG

 

A quick&dirty photochop...

Hacked pic from awosubaru , see http://legacygt.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1919901&postcount=614

 

 

Yes, except with bulbous fenders also, to allow the wheels to be further out. Legacy owners can finally have wheels with a 5" lip;)

Call me crazy but I think increasing the footprint will increase drag and make the car heavier, decreasing fuel mileage. So it may actually hurt more than help to increase footprint...

Could you please take your socialist views of what the world should be OUT of the discussion. I wonder how come everyone and their mother posting from Europe feels that the higher gas prices in the US are fine.

 

He didn't say the government should raise prices. Reads to me like he was just advocating not having these arbitrary and unfair mpg requirements.

CAFE......

 

http://russomcbo78.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/04_isaacs_big_shit_r.jpg

Could you please take your socialist views of what the world should be OUT of the discussion. I wonder how come everyone and their mother posting from Europe feels that the higher gas prices in the US are fine.

 

Oh the irony. You do realize that this is a thread about how the government is forcing manufacturers to make products that are not what customers want? CAFE is just a little slice of the centrally planned economy that Marx was so fond of.

There is an interesting thread (well, at least the 1st page) at nasioc about how the new CAFE standards require that for MY2011 Subaru has to have a CAFE average of 36.9 mpg for its passenger cars, but GM is only required to meet a target of 30.0 mpg. Porsche has to meet a target of 37.6 mpg!

 

In the first post of that nasioc thread is a chart and graphs showing all the target values for the various manufacturers. NHTSA has a complicated formula for computing target MPG.

 

It is clear that if a manufacturer wants to meet a lower target MPG, all they have to do is increase the footprint of the vehicle, by increasing wheelbase and/or track width. What a nutty system.

 

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1526329

 

 

hahaha...porsche to get 37?

 

i guess they will pay their fee and carry on.

 

funny how the real problem gets swept away.

 

or maybe it's a conspiracy. you know. they make soo much more profit from inefficient crapped vehicles (suv, trucks) that they need to set higher standards to other makers to slow them down.

 

prices are already hitting the economy decently. doesn't make any sense.

The US doesn't believe in lower gas prices as a policy!! We believe in the FREE MARKET. That means, if Chevron can raise the price to $6/ gallon and we will pay it, then its OK for them to charge it. The market is adjusting already, the F-150 is not the #1 seller this quarter for the first time in 25 years; and gas sales are down and still dropping. CAFE is just a way of saying that the government doesn't trust the economy to force better mileage, they will do it instead 'cause they know best :lol:

Call me crazy but I think increasing the footprint will increase drag and make the car heavier, decreasing fuel mileage. So it may actually hurt more than help to increase footprint...

 

Yes - but the CAFE will be more forgiving at the same time.

 

Just having the footprint to calculate with is really not a good index. Load carrying capacity would have been better... But the fuel consumption had to be measured at full load too...

The US doesn't believe in lower gas prices as a policy!! We believe in the FREE MARKET. That means, if Chevron can raise the price to $6/ gallon and we will pay it, then its OK for them to charge it. The market is adjusting already, the F-150 is not the #1 seller this quarter for the first time in 25 years; and gas sales are down and still dropping. CAFE is just a way of saying that the government doesn't trust the economy to force better mileage, they will do it instead 'cause they know best :lol:

 

By the same token, if the fuel sales are dropping, shouldn't the price of gas decrease ? Well I guess not here...

The CEO of GM has said numerous times "If you want to buy an Aveo, I'll gladly sell you an Aveo. It gets 34mpg. But that's not what consumers are buying. The problem isn't that we can't make economical cars, it's that consumers don't want to buy economical cars"

By the same token, if the fuel sales are dropping, shouldn't the price of gas decrease ? Well I guess not here...

 

Sales may be dropping in the US, but are they dropping worldwide?

 

If so, are sales dropping faster than supply? (this is admittedly difficult to answer)

 

I expect that the price will go down in the fall, if not sooner.

The CEO of GM has said numerous times "If you want to buy an Aveo, I'll gladly sell you an Aveo. It gets 34mpg. But that's not what consumers are buying. The problem isn't that we can't make economical cars, it's that consumers don't want to buy economical cars"

 

The problem is people do not want to buy an economical car from GM

 

Consumers do want to buy economical cars, as evidenced by the recent big sales increase for the Honda Civic.

..............I wonder how come everyone and their mother posting from Europe feels that the higher gas prices in the US are fine................

 

The corporate leadership at Ford have publicly stated their support for an additional 50 cent tax on gas, instead of having CAFE requirements.

The US doesn't believe in lower gas prices as a policy!! We believe in the FREE MARKET. That means, if Chevron can raise the price to $6/ gallon and we will pay it, then its OK for them to charge it. The market is adjusting already, the F-150 is not the #1 seller this quarter for the first time in 25 years; and gas sales are down and still dropping. CAFE is just a way of saying that the government doesn't trust the economy to force better mileage, they will do it instead 'cause they know best :lol:

 

We believe in a free market that says if Chevron raises the price to $6/gallon, making an unusually high margin, that competitors will sell for lower margin, bringing Chevron's price back down. Where the free market fails is if a market is highly concentrated and there is collusion, then antitrust laws and the DOJ come into play to correct this.

 

Even a monopoly is completely legal in the US, just not monopolistic acts.

We believe in a free market that says if Chevron raises the price to $6/gallon, making an unusually high margin, that competitors will sell for lower margin, bringing Chevron's price back down. Where the free market fails is if a market is highly concentrated and there is collusion, then antitrust laws and the DOJ come into play to correct this.

 

Even a monopoly is completely legal in the US, just not monopolistic acts.

 

i took a full class on anti-trust and hes right on that one. whys oil so expensive? cause OPEC is a cartel that price fixes but its international therefore no anti-trust laws to stop it

On one hand, I don't think OPEC has that much power. They would, in theory, if they stuck together, but they don't. The cartel sets a price of $X, and one of the members makes extra money by selling 100% of their capacity at $X - 10%, while the others lose business to the defector (and the non-OPEC states, who get a windfall when OPEC raises their prices).

 

 

On the other hand, I look forward to the results of this:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/10/Activist_sues_OPEC_for_price-fixing/UPI-60081213113717/

 

I think he's doomed, but we'll see. He's not dumb, he's pro-free-market / anti-socialist, so that fact that he's trying this is pretty interesting.