I never considered the California Air Resource Board (CARB) a motivating force for Chrysler’s Viper model sale– until I read this WardsAuto story. “The new minimum CAFE standard of 35 mpg (6.7 L/100 km) in 2020 and additional pressure from California and 15 other states to limit carbon dioxide is part of what may force Chrysler LLC to jettison its Viper high-performance model,” Wards reported after a chinwag with GM Car Czar Bob Lutz. “‘Setting lower CO2 limits would equal setting CAFE at 43 mpg (5.5 L/100 km),’ Lutz says. ‘This is why the sale of the Dodge Viper by Chrysler makes sense, because anyone selling fewer than 50,000 vehicles annually would be exempt (from fuel-economy requirements).'” The Car Czar’s got a point! OK, OK, so California bill AB1493 sets a fleet exemption of 60k vehicles. And the EPA has denied CA the waiver they need to implement the law. And the real– and really bizarre– threat is that each state would have different fleet-wide requirements, depending on the model mix in that state. Never mind. “So if someone else bought Viper,” Bob bitches. “They could sell to capacity, but Chrysler couldn’t. This is why we are concerned about Corvette.” Bob blames the hypothetical threat on hypocritical Hollywood environmentalists. “The reason California set the exemption for less than 50,000 units is that it would mean the Hollywood folks could keep driving their Lamborghinis and Ferraris. Porsche could sell 11-mpg (21.4 L/100 km) Cayennes, but we couldn’t sell 20-mpg (11.8 L/100 km) Chevy Tahoes.” [Thanks to KixStart for the link.]
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Bob Lutz making sense?
How odd.
That’s only corporate spin to make the public ready for an upcoming move to jettison the Corvette and make it its own brand, exempt from the GM portfolio. In other words, GM is planning to sell off the Corvette, lock, stock and barrel.
TTAC hardliners may give me a hard time for suggesting this, but it is a time-honoured tradition to off-load strategically difficult portions of a business into another corporate entity wholly owed by the parent company. Couldn’t they do this with Viper and Corvette? Each stand-alone company would be under the 50/60K limit.
I don’t see how the thousand or so Vipers that get sold every year have a big impact on average fuel economy for a company that sells hundreds of thousands of vehicles
Nice way to make up for the Volt photo.
What day does she turn 18?I can’t look at the photo untill then.
Isn’t that just the way the world always works?
One set of rules (hardly any, in fact) for the rich, the elite, the powerful and the privileged.
And a set of “real” rules (by the million) for the rest of us.
And people wonder why I want to vote Libertarian?!
crackers – Couldn’t they do this with Viper and Corvette? Each stand-alone company would be under the 50/60K limit.
Corvette is de facto its own brand anyway, it’s not like Chevy would be losing anything except the least fuel efficient car in its lineup.
the top dog – I don’t see how the thousand or so Vipers that get sold every year have a big impact on average fuel economy for a company that sells hundreds of thousands of vehicles
Exactly! Each Viper is probably driven less than 3000 miles/year anyway.
I think it’s because the CAFE average is calculated based on the number of models offered, not the number of each model sold. Ridiculous, especially because crap like the Pontiac G3 and Jeep Compass are the result.
Ha. I think there is a bit of confusion here.
Bob has a legit point. Another point as to why CAFE is the most stupid, backwards, illogical law out there (or at least that I know of). Why should it be that if you sell more or less than some arbitrary number (50,000) that you do or don’t have to follow CAFE regs? Another example of why it won’t work. Because it doesn’t affect the end customer. Bob’s point about forcing people to lose weight by making smaller clothes is quite valid. If CAFE is to increase fuel economy, how does providing all these loopholes do any good? All it does is force companies to have to make drastic moves to vehicles that, in the grand scheme of things, don’t burn that much fuel anyway. Expense to the consumer is the only way you’ll get a meaningful reduction in fuel consumption (not that I advocate that either…but that’s the way it should work).
As far as CAFE, you have to remember it is a fleet average. I know the regs are changing, so I may be off (there are now or will be more classes, with different loopholes), but basically there is a certain EPA fuel economy number weighted by the number of models sold (again why it is unfair to automakers because the consumer chooses how many of each model are sold). While I think cars and light trucks are separate, and will remain so, essentially what it means is that if the EPA value for a Viper is 15mpg, and chrysler sells 1000 of them, that to hit 25mpg CAFE they’d have to sell 1000 35mpg cars to meet CAFE. Or 2000 cars that get 30mpg. Get rid of that Viper, and suddenly you don’t have to sell nearly as many high-mileage cars to meet that number.
Again, its insane. If everyone buys a Viper because they want it, and nobody buys Chrysler small cars because they don’t, Chrysler has to pay the CAFE fines because the customers didn’t want their small cars. Now, I understand the argument can be made that it is incentive to produce top-notch small cars, but even if Chrysler did that, who’s to say people won’t still prefer a Toyota or Honda small car and instead buy one of those instead of Chrysler’s theoretical class leading small car? There’s no guarantee. So you make a great small car and nobody buys it. Now you have to pay CAFE fines and you just spent extra money making a great small car nobody wants.
Plus it is not a level playing field. Toyota and Honda are well known for their small cars. Not nearly as many truck sales. They will hit numbers easily. Is it fair to GM or Chrysler that customers buy their trucks but not their cars? Again, it could go back to desireable small cars….to which I again counter that even if you built them, no guarantee anyone would buy them. If they want a truck, the worlds best small car will still not get purchased instead.
And the idea that each state should be able to set its own limits is INSANE. 1 air regulation standard (ideally for US and Europe). 1 fuel regulation standard. 1 crash standard. That’s it.
Expensive fuel or expensive taxes to purchase a car are the only way to meaningfully change our fuel consumption. CAFE is a joke that allows regulators to say they did something while consumers don’t have to give up anything and automakers have to foot the bill.
From the photo caption:
“Hayden is also very excited this week as she finally turns 18 years old!”
I, too, am also very excited (and relieved) this week that Hayden turns 18 years old……
The 50,000 rule protects low volume start-up companies that would have a difficult time to start selling there cars.
GM is getting so desperate that it is preparing to sell off Corvette? And to cover its trail — no, this isn’t about finances –they blame it on CAFE?
Clever if true. But I am hard-pressed to believe that Bob and friends could possibly let go of their very favorite GM product. That would be like voluntarily allowing one’s dangling modifier to be cut off. Taint gonna happen.
Be that as it may, Corvette would presumably have a much greater chance of being sold off for a reasonable sum than Viper, which never made much of an impact sales-wise and is too crude design-wise to have much staying power. It’s like an Avanti II without the timeliness styling.
Corvette as its own company (much like Aston Martin after its sale from Ford)? That would be very interesting. I would think that it would be profitable. Presumably GM would remain a part owner. Could it reserve rights to sell Corvettes exclusively through GM dealers?
MBella:
It’s sixty thousand. Bob got it wrong. Six Zero Zero Zero Zero.
This does point up the ridiculous side of the CAFE standard. If the objective is to get people to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles, a tax on fuel, or variable tax based on fuel-efficiency would do much the same thing. And if that money were then put into a fund to improve auto efficiency standards (like airport taxes go to improve airports), everyone wins.
CAFE will be like a tax in any event as the consumer ends up paying for the changeover to more fuel efficient cars in higher prices. It is unclear that the car companies are any more efficient than the government in distributing money to R&D. I’ll turn my flamesuit ON now…