Corporate Average Fuel Economy, for those who care.

On the table is a revision to break down the light truck category into tanches based on the foot-print of the vehicle.

As I see it, this can cut one of two ways. First, it frees the Big 3 to make unlimited enormo-SUV's since those vehicles' low mileage will be insulated from the rest of the automakers' fleets. It will curb production of the mini-SUV's that are basically loss-leaders designed to bring the automakers' fleet average into compliance.

At first blush, it would seem that we'll be flooded with H2's, Aviators, E$crapades, etc.

But, maybe not.

There's a market for these lower-priced mini-SUV's, so one of two things happen--cheaper producers--mostly asian imports, will flood this market, thus no change to the status quo---or---these people will not "buy up" to the enormo-truck and "buy down" into passenger cars.

I still think that if a person buys a vehicle classified as a "truck"--light or otherwise, they should require a truck drivers license, and pay an appropriately higher truck registration fee. They should adhere to truck traffic regulations, and pay truck level penalties--including forfeiture of truck priveleges--just like a CDL.

On a happier note, on my ride in today I witnessed some smacked-ass rich kid total Daddy's SUV on her way to the second day of high school. Her tears as the cop was talking to her warmed the cockles of my heart.

Create some more beuracracy there Mr. Libertarian, will ya?

Driving a pickup truck is much more akin to driving a passenger car than a commercial truck. What you are proposing is not only stupid but also fails to really address the real problem which is building more fuel efficient light trucks and SUV's.

Also getting all those old, polluting gas guzzling hot rods off the road.

I do however support legislation to keep women from driving anything larger than an Accord.

I don't give a shit what you drive as long as you're not in my way.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of the CAFE at all, I'm just trying to gauge what might be the impact of the changes--an impact driven by the free-market force of consumer behavior.

I think small pick-ups should be classified as cars, much like the Ranchero or El Camino. They don't obstruct the vision of other drivers like the SUV's or larger pick-ups, the driver's line of sight and perspective is the same as a car so they don't under-estimate their speed, they have braking power similar to cars given comparable mass, etc.

However, stick Muffy behind the wheel of a truck that sits two or three feet higher than a car and outweighs a car by a healthy multiple, and you've created a public threat. All you've done is whittle away any margin of error for the driver who's too busy yacking on the phone, reading the newspaper, finishing up their morning toiletry, or turned around beating their kids (all of which I saw on my commute today).

We'll leave the Billzebub fleet out of this discussion for now ;) although, there's a helluva lot less petroleum-based-chemical-rich plastic on my vehicles.

I'm going to have to think on this a bit.

Thing is, the popularity of SUVs is just a buying trend. Station wagons, minivans, they all come and go. I know a handful of people, including myself, who would be very interested in purchasing a much more fuel efficient, hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle if they didn't look like some sort of Flight of the Navigator cast-off.

There are some obstacles to this, however.
1. Fucking Detroit Automobile Manufacturers. GM's Employee Discount promotion was the wrong damn idea that only glosses over that they sell cars that people don't really want. Sure, they got good summer numbers, but they have really shot themselves in the foot in the medium to long run on this one.

Even worse is that Ford and Daimler-Chrysler got tickled by GM's percentages and dollar signs and implemented similar programs. Creative thinkers, all of them.

GM needs to go back a few years and re-examine one of their own to find out how to get out of the rut. Cadillac was rebuilt from the ground up by scrapping the fleet and bringing out interesting cars that turned people's heads. GM ain't doing that now with any of their models (and I drive a Malibu). Ford has the new Mustang while Chrysler has the 300. Other than that, there aren't a whole lot of innovations or creative ideas from Detroit right now.

If they would stop playing Back to the Future and make a reasonable, interesting & stylish hybrid, I bet they couldn't keep the damn things on the lot. Problem is, R&D takes just a little bit of know-how and a whole lot of want-to. Giant balls you carry in a wheelbarrow don't hurt either. Detroit doesn't have the balls right now. They are also funnelling gobs of dough into union benefit programs, which makes scraping together some R&D funding when sales are sluggish that much harder.

2. Fucking Corn. We've dumped so much funding into this Ethanol money pit it's not even funny. Ethanol is not the answer. It's much less efficient than gasoline, and even might be inefficient on the whole when you consider all modes of production and transport. That's not good. Of course, Big Corn has firm hands all over Washington, and corn is the most subsidized agricultural product in the U.S., so don't expect their cash pipeline to be cut off anytime soon.

We can do this, I have little doubt. Right now though, money is cheap. Interest rates are low, which is why people can afford bigger & more expensive cars and bigger & more expensive houses. Despite what John F. Kerry and all the other anti-Bush hacks say, the economy is cranking along pretty nicely. That's not to give credit to the President for causing this economic progress, because the President doesn't run the economy. That's an error of misattribution too commonly offered.

Let gas prices keep creeping up, and let money get more expensive to borrow, and you'll see fewer SUVs on the road, without any innovation whatsoever. I don't think that's the best answer, but it does reduce some of the impact. One of our biggest problems as a nation is that we just have too much damn money. I mean, we buy fucking millions of gallons of bottle water because "tap water tastes funny", while contaminated drinking water kills thousands across the world every day.

E-Fu...

Your points are well-taken, and I think there is another force in play--

It's a fundamental shift in the consumption of automobiles. Not too long ago, a car was a long-term asset. People bought and kept cars for many years--how many cars did your parents have before they were 40? My dad had three. I'm on cars five and six, and I kept car number two for ten years which is way higher than average.

With the advent of leasing, cars have become disposable. The quality of the underlying product can suffer because the vehicle will become unfashionalbe before mechanical faults surface. It's easy for the marketing dept. to build and feed a fad, such as the SUV--especially when that fad is your highest margin vehicle.

Actually sitting here reading Jay Leno's Garage (a monthly column in Popular Mechanics); this month he is talking about new, cleaner and more efficient diesel engines. Something about this 'graph is funny but I'm not sure what:

He's right, Mercedes Diesels are pretty gay.

[img][650:366]http://world.honda.com/Hybrid/AccordHybrid/images/top.jpg[/img]

No gull wing doors though...

No death ray, either.

I didn't think the Accord or Civic hybrid was about fuel efficiency but more about cleaner emissions. I have a friend who has an Accord Hybrid and he doesn't get better gas mileage than my Prius.

The thing about the Accord and Civics (which I did consider) is that while they maintain the status quo on look, they charge more for them. At least with my Prius (while it may look space-agey and awkward to some), it's got a hell of a lot of bells and whistles that the Civic didn't have, and it was cheaper.

I'd buy a prius. My buddy doug has one, and I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone with the bread to buy a new car wouldn't buy one. They are totally fucking sweet.

I don't think Prius is quite the solution, since it rings up just 35 mpg. Excerpt from Wired, who used research from Consumer Reports, which is subscription only:

Dana, how does your Prius do on gas? My buddy gets way better than that.

But don't you think this is effected by cheap money and a service/managerial sector that has seen substantial gains in income and purchasing power? (Oh wait, here come the whines from the "shrinking middle class thanks to no manufacturing jobs" crowd)

I say fuck it, I love my SUV.

Yeah, I do better on mileage... on longer trips, I usually average around 53-55 mpg, and in just city driving, I get around 47-49 mpg. It really has a lot to do with HOW you drive the car too-- no suddent stops/starts, coasting where able, using cruise control as often as you can, etc. If I drove my Prius the way I drove my old Miata, I'd probably get 35 mpg too.

And don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm coasting at 45 mph on the freeway, I'm going typical speeds.... ok, maybe not typical for Atlanta, where it was no surprise to find myself going 85 on the freeway, ha ha!

35mpg on city streets is still a shitload better than most cars.

Of course it isn't the solution, but it's a considerable improvement. The main argument I've heard the most against hybrids is that the money you save on gas doesn't make up for the increased price tag (even with current gas prices), but that's not entirely the point of owning one.

In a macro-economic sense, the "cheap money" may be an incentive to "buy up", but I don't think it explains the increased frequency with which we buy cars. I think leasing has changed our attitude toward our cars. We look on a car as something we have for a couple years, then trade in for a new one.

I'm curious about what happens to the people buying the $25K mini-SUV's that will never be in the market for a $45K tank. Does Honissyota continue to build mini-SUV's for these people, or do they revert to cars?

But not that big of an advance, especially when compared with other cars in it's size class.

When the ex was car shopping in 03, she nearly bought a Prius, and got a Corolla instead because she was waiting to see how they did over the years with reliability. The Prius ended up being only a few K more, but at that time the govt. was offering tax incentives to Prius buyers that made the diff. only a little more than 1K. She nearly did it, then her dad talked her out of it.

Don't know if they're still doing that or not...

Dana?

btw, a base 2005 Prius averages around $21,500. I got mine for the 2004 model price because I was on a waiting list for almost 9 months. I don't know how the other states are, but I got $1500 back from the state of Oregon for purchasing the car, and a $2000 deduction on my federal income taxes. So really and truly, for a comparable mid-size Toyota sedan, it's not really that much more.

The Civics at the time I test drove one, just for their base model was like $22,000+, it only came in 3 colors, and it's still considered a compact car. Plus the battery was located in the back hatch, so you could never fold the back seats down for more storage. Big problem in my opinion. Just buying a regular Civic would be more environmentally responsible... you don't have to get the hybrid.

edit: btw, gas is around $2.50 for regular unleaded around here. My tank holds 10.6 gallons, and I can usually make that last for close to 2 weeks/almost 400 miles on the tank. So you're talking maybe $53 a month I spend on gas.

i should just get some blankets and set up a fort in my cubicle and live there - that would save a shit load of gas.

btw, Toyota is coming out with hybrid Highlander. Don't know what the cost is, but I'm sure it will be close to $30k or more.