I reckon it’s a nonsensical question. Again, President Obama’s new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations are nothing more than fantasy pandering. By the time the feds factor in ethanol and (inevitable) electric vehicle credits, calculate the “footprint” requirements (per given vehicle type and size), average those out across a given manufacturer’s fleet, and do the hokey-cokey, the CAFE standards will look like swiss cheese. Just like the current ones. In fact, I think it’s awesome that the MSM got so worked-up—in a gloating sort of way—about EPA CAFE. Holy smokes! The industry doesn’t oppose federally mandated fuel efficiency? Motown’s CEOs were in the Rose Garden for the announcement? Despite this media love fest, USA Today just couldn’t resist ye olde “Safety could suffer if we boost mileage by making cars smaller” shtick. Hey, how ’bout these apples?
The Obama administration’s sweeping fuel-economy and emissions initiative announced Tuesday reopens a fierce debate over tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety.
The government says no tradeoff exists, because nothing in the new rules would force automakers to sell more small cars, which are more dangerous in crashes than larger ones.
Huh? Scan, scan, scan. Safety studies . . . Environmentalists . . . Bankrupt automakers “skimping” by selling small cars to, uh, someone . . . Ah! Here it is!
“Because every (size) category has to get more efficient, if the soccer mom wants to buy her minivan, it will be a more fuel-efficient minivan. If someone wants to buy a big SUV, it will be a more fuel-efficient SUV,” said Carol Browner, director of theWhite House Office of Energy and Climate Change.
She said companies can use advanced technologies to improve fuel efficiency without dramatically changing their fleets.
In other words, loopholes!
Think of it this way: a Chevy Tahoe gets 14/20 mpg EPA (let’s forget about the E85 Flex-Fuel credit, even if the ethanol-fed Obama administration won’t). If you’re looking for a 20 percent improvement in its fuel economy, all you need is 16.8/24 mpg. Doable? Doable!
A few tweaks here and there (remember: Obama’s already talking about an additional $1300 per new vehicle sold), and Bob’s your uncle. And with those hard-to-forget E85 Flex-fuel credits and, say, a prototype Volt or six to even things out (if only in theory), Government Motors might not even have to dig that deep. Or, in fact, at all.
USA Today ends its “investigation” with more talk about bankruptcy’s effect on automotive safety, arguing that new safety regs have already been delayed or ameliorated to take account of the struggling domestics. In other words, they think the fix is in. Coincidentally enough, they’re right.
[If you believe that EPA CAFE is for real, here’s an excellent article on why it sucks.]
I’m guessing that a lot of the rise in average fuel economy is going to come from EV’s and PHEV’s, with 100-200+ MPG ratings if they rate upcoming cars the say way the Tesla Roadster was. Selling one EV easily offsets several other cars when calculating the fleet average. Many planned EV’s such as the Mini E, Focus, and Transit Connect aren’t flimsy tin cans. We’ll likely see battery-powered start-stop motors added to existing cars to increase their EPA ratings as well.
Along with advances in safety technology, I doubt we’ll see death rates increase in the near future as the fearmongers project.
There’s a few other things that will happen. Probably chief among them:
1) Less horsepower. The end of the horsepower wars. The rapid gains in power we’ve seen recently will end; perhaps we’ll even regress.
2) More turbochargers and superchargers in smaller engines instead of larger naturally aspirated engines.
3) More diesel, which will be easier thanks to the Bush Administrations’ ultra low sulfur diesel phase-in.
4) More CVT and more manual automatic transmissions, dual clutch and otherwise.
Hyundai seems to already be ahead of the game. Again.
Best warrantee in the biz to calm potential buyers nerves? Check.
Building cars in America? Check.
Improving quality to Honda/Toyota levels? Check.
Improving safety to Volvo/Saab traditional levels, and beyond? At a lower price point? Check and check.
Discussing, announcing then backtracking on the non-feasible diesels? Check.
Discussing, engineering, announcing and soon producing gas-electric hybrids? Check.
It won’t be long and GM and Chrysler will have boot prints with an oval-H on them, all over their asses, backs, and heads. Not to mention, Honda.
Toyota had better watch their back.
Voltaire: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. Sure CAFE is full of holes, but boosting fuel economy is the right way to go for a host of economic, political and environmental reasons. Fix the flaws, but don’t throw the whole thing out; love to hear some constructive ideas.
I’m thinking that the best is yet to come. High output four-cylinder engines. Widespread use of lighter and stronger materials. Lighter, better handling vehicles. Highly efficient drive trains. “Small” that doesn’t mean shoddy or cheap. Isn’t the what the B&B have been clamoring for all along?
I love this site but lately it seems that some of its editorial content has become backward looking and that any change is cynically and automatically judged as being for the worse. Generating controversy is a time-honored component of journalism – I get that. But let’s keep getting it right.
The problem is not the safety/lack thereof of small cars. The problem is finding a way to reverse the trend of growing weight and complexity in every vehicle on the road. Cars that once weighed around 2000lbs now weigh well over 3000 and have grown in size to match market demands – despite this they are still more efficient than their forebears. If we could marry a current generation powerplant to a vehicle that was as light as a car of 20 or 30 years ago, the problem would be solved. But the real engineering issue is how do you get something that light that still has a rigid structure, ample crumple zones, a million airbags, and all the doohickery that fickle buyers demand in today’s market? That will be the question to answer in the near future. I think it can be done, but the market will have to learn a few lessons – if you want lightness, you can’t have power windows, power locks, power seats, bank vault doors, lazy-boy seats, auto trannies, steel chassis, etc. I guess the real problem isn’t the engineering. It’s the buyers.
Considering that the smart fortwo is the only non-hybrid that is currently above the future CAFE target (and the laws of physics are not changing), this CAFE plan will be a fountain of unintended consequences.
I’m thinking that the best is yet to come. High output four-cylinder engines. Widespread use of lighter and stronger materials. Lighter, better handling vehicles. Highly efficient drive trains. “Small” that doesn’t mean shoddy or cheap. Isn’t the what the B&B have been clamoring for all along?
Yes, autopassion, but there’s no getting around that the cars will have less horsepower than they otherwise would, and the B&B generally clamor for horses.
It’s possible that other technological improvements will be so great than horsepower will still increase, albeit at a slower pace. In the worst case scenario horsepower levels will decline back to something like the 70s. The B&B have certainly not clamored for that.
Autopassion writes: “boosting fuel economy is the right way to go for a host of economic, political and environmental reasons. Fix the flaws, but don’t throw the whole thing out; love to hear some constructive ideas.”
I’ll agree that boosting fuel economy is the right political decision: expedient and doesn’t appear to make any demands on the citizens.
As for environmental, the “goal” should be to reduce the amount of fuel burned. CAFE doesn’t directly push this goal. Even if you could somehow magically close the CAFE loopholes, CAFE still doesn’t address simple changes in behavior or lifestyle that would get people to drive less. Or, for people who have access to two vehicles, CAFE doesn’t get people to use the more efficient vehicle when the functionality of the less efficient one isn’t needed.
As for economic reasons, CAFE is a huge disaster. CAFE is a government mandate that distorts the market massively. Why is it that light trucks were 20% of the market before CAFE and 50% of the market right now? By giving special privilege based on government decree, CAFE distorts economic behavior. Instead of working with the laws of physics to do the most reasonable thing, people and companies work with the arbitrary laws of the government. That makes for a weaker economy.
The mere fact that there are no howls of complaint from automotive lobby groups seems to suggest that there will be enough big loopholes to drive a luxury SUV through.
The mere fact that there are no howls of complaint from automotive lobby groups seems to suggest that there will be enough big loopholes to drive a luxury SUV through.
Just use the loophole used by the German manufacturers: pay the $5.50 penalty per each tenth of a mile per gallon that the vehicle underperforms the benchmark. So, for example, a Ford Mustang that benchmarks 25 MPG instead of 39 MPG would pay $770 extra. That penalty is effectively borne by the purchaser at the time of original purchase. That original purchaser already paid 10x amount in the first year’s worth of depreciation. The penalty on a zero MPG SUV will be $1650 and for a car it will be $2145.
It isn’t just shtick. Automotive safety engineers will tell you point blank that heavier vehicles are safer vehicles – period.
Of course, that isn’t a popular fact right now, but don’t let that stop anybody.
It IS schtick; small cars are generally safer than SUVs (a bit safer in single-vehicle accidents; causing much less damage to other vehicles in multi-vehicle accidents).
Reminds me of the old adage: “Strong, light, cheap. Pick two.”
Certainly engineering has progressed to the point that you can build a safe car that weighs under 4,000 pounds. I have faith in my Civic, for example, to protect me, however I know that a semi or speeding Suburban will cause extreme problems if I hit them wrong. What am I to do, go out and buy a semi? Cuz then, some OTHER guy will just buy a bigger semi, and I’ll have to worry about hitting them head on.
Will the return of higher gas prices affect how people feel about this?
carguy,
The car companies like it because it gives them a fixed standard to work with, and settles both CAFE and emissions issues, and resolves litigating state by state. Businesses like that kind of stability.
[commences plans for graphene unibody foundry]
You will love your keijidōsha.
It IS schtick; small cars are generally safer than SUVs (a bit safer in single-vehicle accidents; causing much less damage to other vehicles in multi-vehicle accidents).
M1EK, that’s sophistry. Yes, small cars are generally safer than SUVs in single-vehicle accidents because of rollover. But large cars don’t have to be SUVs. The SUV high center of gravity makes it more dangerous than cars of a similar weight.
Small cars are more dangerous than full size sedans or wagons. SUVs are more dangerous than sedans or wagons of a similar size and weight.
The death rate per million 1-3-year-old minis in single-vehicle crashes during 2007 was 35 compared with 11 per million for very large cars. Even in midsize cars, the death rate in single-vehicle crashes was 17 percent lower than in minicars.
From the IIHS.. Yes, SUVs rollover. But in single-vehicle crashes, very small cars are much more dangerous than large sedans.
Almost half of all crash deaths in minicars occur in single-vehicle crashes, and these deaths wouldn’t be reduced if all cars became smaller and lighter. In fact, the result would be to afford less occupant protection fleetwide in single-vehicle crashes.
Yet another claim is that minicars are easier to maneuver, so their drivers can avoid crashes in the first place. Insurance claims experience says otherwise. The frequency of claims filed for crash damage is higher for mini 4-door cars than for midsize ones.
Perhaps small car drivers are all just crappy drivers.
It’s a ridiculous job of switching the argument to claim that small cars aren’t dangerous just because SUVs roll over.
Overall death rates are higher in pickups but lower in SUVs than in cars, even. SUVs used to have a much higher death rate– I suspect that some of the difference has to do with not only safety improvements in SUVs, but also in them being sold to people who don’t actually use them for sport activities worse than dropping the kids off at soccer. Less intensive driving.
Also note that large sedans are the safest.
Of course, this will end well.
Given the ingenuity of both administration and big car company honchos, what can go wrong?
Of course, “a camel is a horse designed by a committee”. But compared to a horse, who would complain about speed, ruggedness, longevity and low consumption of a camel?
Let’s look back at the future: The Citroen 2CV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV
(“a low-priced, rugged “umbrella on four wheels” that would enable two peasants to drive 100 kg (220 lb) of farm goods to market at 60 km/h (37 mph), in clogs and across muddy unpaved roads if necessary.”)
johnthacker: Perhaps small car drivers are all just crappy drivers.
I wouldn’t be surprised if small car drivers are also much younger than other drivers, which would skew the results.
As for the death rate in pickups: I recall reading that pickup truck drivers are more likely to drive drunk and less likely to wear safety belts than drivers of other vehicles. Also note that pickups tend to last longer, which means that there will be more vehicles of that type without the latest safety feature on the road. It’s not uncommon in rural Pennsylvania – even where salt is used every winter – to see 20-year-old Ford and Chevy pickups in daily use.
How about a FWD unibody compact pickup truck?
I’m hoping these regs will force production of one.
Yeah, let’s bring back the Dodge Rampage.
johnthacker, there’s not a right-wing talking point that you won’t swoop out of the ether to defend, is there.