You're still assuming that the demand for new cars is so elastic that it would nullify the gains of higher CAFE standards.

Let's go back to the 70's. "OMG catalytic converters! An extra $500!" Did demand drop so much that it nullified the benefits? Even if it did (hypothetically) move us backwards for a couple years in the 70's, what about the long-term? Are 70's-era catalytic converters/CAFE standards hurting sales today?


And in regards to your argument about swelling management due to conglomeration-- this would certainly give a fuel-efficient start-up quite a competitive advantage over the Big Three, wouldn't it?

8/1/2007 8:15:39 AM

It wouldn't help a fuel efficient truck or SUV manufacturer, thanks to CAFE fines.

But I don't know exactly how the market is operating, all I can give are scenarios.

If small car manufacturers are threatening to enter the marketplace, then the market would shift: prices for small cars would fall just enough to prevent such entry. Potentially, the market could settle with small cars being sold at a loss by the big companies so they can avoid fines on their trucks and SUVs.

Quote :

"You're still assuming that the demand for new cars is so elastic that it would nullify the gains of higher CAFE standards."

No, I'm saying that it could be that elastic, you are right that it probably is not. But again, we are not talking about CAFE standards compared to doing nothing. We could raise the gasoline tax or institute a vehicle tax. These options would begin working immediately, potentially driving up new car sales by getting old jalopies off the street.

As for the 70s, if you check the statistics fuel economy of vehicle sky-rocketed during the early the mid 80s as the price of gasoline quadrupled. And in an America that was substantially poorer than today, the equivalent of today's gas prices drove American's screaming for fuel efficient vehicles. By the mid decade the CAFE standards in place were exceeded every year by wide margins. To scale the prices with today's higher living standards, gasoline would need to go up to $8 a gallon if you hopes to garner the same effect it had back in the 80's. But if we did that, we could eliminate income taxes.

8/1/2007 9:07:18 AM

Quote :

"Potentially, the market could settle with small cars being sold at a loss by the big companies so they can avoid fines on their trucks and SUVs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:World_motor_vehicle_production_by_manufacturer

Cars make up what looks like 3/4 of GM's sales and 2/3 of Ford's sales. You're saying they'll subsidize 2/3-3/4 of their product? How expensive do you think they can make SUVs until consumers realize that they were a dumb choice to begin with?

Quote :

"We could raise the gasoline tax or institute a vehicle tax. "

I assumed we were discussing politically viable solutions?

8/1/2007 10:20:36 AM

No, we were discussing what would be the best government policy to increase fuel efficiency, some government other than our own. The best policy for our government to follow is to do nothing, since such regulation breeds additional attention from special interests and additional regulation. Any potential benefits CAFE standards may create are quickly outweighed by the corruption of our system of government.

Quote :

"You're saying they'll subsidize 2/3-3/4 of their product? How expensive do you think they can make SUVs until consumers realize that they were a dumb choice to begin with?"

Why were they a dumb choice? Sure, they cost more, but people like them, and enjoy being able to fit everything they need to inside them for trips and things. As the hummer demonstrates, obscene prices do not eliminate sales. Buyers have no idea why they things cost what they do, just like I bet you have no idea why sugar costs so much at the store. How expensive do you think sugar needs to be until consumers realize that sweet-tea was a dumb choice to begin with?

The point is, customers want SUVs. But only a company with lots of car sales gets to avoid hefty fines for selling them. As such, a lot of profit is available for anyone that can get SUVs to market without the fines, if selling three escorts at a $100 loss allows you to pocket $6000 for an SUV sale, why not?

True, the scheme failed in the end. The fines were not that high, so foreign competitors entered the market anyway, just pricing the fines into the sale price of their SUVs. All these new entrants drove down the prices and everyone lost money, particularly the American car makers which bet heavily on the scheme, landing themselves in bankruptcy because they could no longer afford to sell small cars at a loss, driving buyers to Asian small car manufacturers.

8/1/2007 10:42:38 AM

And yet you believe that this failed business model will once again be Detroit's reaction to new CAFE standards? SUVs are a trend and are already dropping in sales-- do you really think any rational automaker is going to sell its cars at a loss so that they can prop up a sinking ship?

Your sugar analogy is flawed. There's no real alternative to sugar; SUVs are easily replaced with much, much better alternatives.

8/1/2007 11:36:53 AM

Quote :

"There's no real alternative to sugar"

8/1/2007 11:38:21 AM

That crap sucks.

And it sucks even more when you're trying to cook with it.

You and I both know this.

Go cut off your java.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason : "Hey Ma-- go to the gorciery store and pick up a 5lb bag of Sweet and Lo!"]

8/1/2007 11:45:56 AM

Quote :

"SUVs are easily replaced with much, much better alternatives."

How? Explain to me what can fit a family of 6 plus a bunch of camping gear?

8/1/2007 11:47:08 AM

^
Station wagon. My family used to do it all the time when I was a young'un.

8/1/2007 11:50:19 AM

station wagon or minivan...dont know if i'd call those much, much better alternatives though

8/1/2007 11:51:13 AM

That's an extreme example, but regardless:

Minivan
Two cars
Minivan with a rooftop storage thing.
Minivan with a trailer
Rent something that meets your particular needs at the time

8/1/2007 11:52:10 AM

^^^wouldn't fit half the shit you can put in a big suv or have the ability to go off-road for camping sites. Obviously suvs are not practical for city use or everyday use, but there's always going to be a market for big suvs, because there's simply nothing else you can use.

^.^^ you guys ever try off-roading in a station wagon or mini van full of gear and people?

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ...]

8/1/2007 11:52:27 AM

Quote :

"Two cars"

are you saying driving two polluting automobiles is a much better alternative than driving one polluting SUV?

8/1/2007 11:53:02 AM

^haha yeah. Driving one suv full of your shit is still better than driving two smaller cars.

I'm talking about the future of big cars.

http://www.htlounge.net/articles/2326/1/Lotus-to-create-an-all-electric-SUV-with-644-horsepower

644 HP, 350 mile range, fully electric, and pretty kick ass in general. Not to mention other companies are coming out with hybrid suvs, and electric/cross over suvs. That lotus would take a couple bucks, maybe less of electricity to go 350 miles.



[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 11:56 AM. Reason : ,]

8/1/2007 11:55:52 AM

Quote :

"wouldn't fit half the shit you can put in a big suv or have the ability to go off-road for camping sites. "

That's the excuse everyone uses, but you never actually see anybody doing this type of stuff.

A) Hike to where you're going. Off-roading is dumb, and does nothing to get you into wilderness-- it just gets you into a slightly more redneck car camping site.
B) How many SUVs on the market are seriously capable of doing any sort of off-roading, anways?
C) Even among drivers who own SUVs that are significantly more capable than my Civic, how many of those drivers actually use those capabilities?

Buying an SUV is a good decision for maybe 5% of Americans- the rest are posers, and (back to the thread) will switch to cars if SUVs get too expensive.

Quote :

"are you saying driving two polluting automobiles is a much better alternative than driving one polluting SUV?"

For the summer trip, yes. Driving two cars all year, then two cars on vacation is much better than two SUVs all year, then one SUV on vacation.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 12:03:23 PM

Quote :

"That's the excuse everyone uses, but you never actually see anybody doing this type of stuff."

I don't actually own an suv, and my family has been strongly opposed to them all my life. We drive a Honda Odyssy and hike/backpack to all our camping sites. I was simply playing devil's advocate here.

I wouldn't actually buy an ICE suv. I'd wait until stuff like that Lotus comes out, and buy a big car that doesn't pollute for my kayaks.

Quote :

"For the summer trip, yes. Driving two cars all year, then two cars on vacation is much better than two SUVs all year, then one SUV on vacation."

Plenty of my friends have big suvs that they ONLY take when they go camping so they can carry thier kayaks, and gear, and family of 5. Rest of the year they drive hybrids.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 12:06:39 PM

Quote :

"How? Explain to me what can fit a family of 6 plus a bunch of camping gear?"

The majority of SUVs sold can't do that either so thats a poor argument.

8/1/2007 1:31:27 PM

^What? Suburban? Any of the larger suvs. Plus a roof-top rack for kayaks/luggage, or a trailer hitch for such stuff. I never said the "majority".

8/1/2007 1:37:40 PM

I've actually lol'ed when I saw some of my friend's SUV's cargo area.

The Dakota and Grand Cherokee come to mind.

8/1/2007 1:46:29 PM

can they go ahead and raise it to 100 mpg by say 2090? Would be just as effective.

Dont get me wrong its a good step but 2020? So they can claim to be tough on gas but dont actually have to face any economic backlash that would happen. Typical politics.

8/1/2007 2:06:10 PM

Quote :

"That's an extreme example, but regardless: Minivan Two cars Minivan with a rooftop storage thing. Minivan with a trailer Rent something that meets your particular needs at the time "

Exactly.

not to mention that very, very few people buy big SUVs because they want to take 6 people camping or kayaking so far out that they need 4x4 to do it, or because they regularly need big towing capacity.

Quote :

"you guys ever try off-roading in a station wagon or mini van full of gear and people?"

No, but almost no one who drives a big SUV uses it offroad. Most of them don't bring that much to the table offroad, anyway.

Quote :

" there's always going to be a market for big suvs, because there's simply nothing else you can use. "

In some cases, yes. I'm actually looking for a K5/Ramcharger/Bronco as a cheap offroader and ski truck (because it actually is the best tool for the job for hauling 3-5 people and all of their gear up a mountain through the snow in British Columbia). I'm a small minority, though. Scenarios where "there's nothing else you can use" or even "it's the BEST tool for the job" aren't why big SUVs sell.

Quote :

"are you saying driving two polluting automobiles is a much better alternative than driving one polluting SUV? "

He's saying that it's not worth driving a badly fuel-inefficient (and often price-inflated) and shitty driving SUV every day when you only need the hauling abilities three times per year. For most people, it's better to just take two cars or rent something on the rare occassions when one normal passenger car is inadequate.

Quote :

"Dont get me wrong its a good step but 2020? So they can claim to be tough on gas but dont actually have to face any economic backlash that would happen. Typical politics. "

well what else are they gonna do?

for that matter, why would you want to cause more economic backlash than is necessary? nothing critical is gonna happen between now and 2020 that raising the CAFE standards in America by a few mpg would have any effect on.

8/1/2007 3:06:44 PM

I don't actually own an SUV, and not a big fan because of:

Quote :

"not worth driving a badly fuel-inefficient (and often price-inflated) and shitty driving SUV"

Like you said. I was simply stating that some people, like you, use it for its intended purpose. I was dog sledding in upper maine (drove from portland) and my friend had a suburban and it was fairly useful because it carried all the gear, got all the people up there, and was a 4x4. Most of my friends who have a type of SUV ONLY use it for it's intended purpose, they never drive it around town. The exception is a couple friends who drive Honda CRVs, but it's not horrible because it's got the civic chassis (right?) etc.

Obviously driving an suv around town or on the road year round is stupid, wasn't disputing that. Was only saying there WERE exceptions to this statment.

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 3:16:48 PM

So what are we arguing here? Because only 5% of SUVs are used for their intended purpose, should we ban them outright?

They are status symbols, but who are you to dictate to someone else what they should want out of life? If their ownership is actually harming us all, then tax it. But don't create yet another mechanism for car markers to shift competition from the product markets to the political markets. If company CEOs are constantly off to Washington to wine and dine Senators and regulators, then they are not back in Detroit figuring out what customers want to drive and the most efficient way to make it.

8/1/2007 5:13:56 PM

and an SUV tax would never pass through congress/president. especially not right now.

8/1/2007 5:49:43 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON: After weeks of uncertainty, Democrats in the House of Representatives have decided against a confrontation over automobile fuel economy when they take up energy legislation later this week. Two proposals to boost the required mileage for new automobiles were submitted Wednesday for consideration as amendments to the energy legislation, but they were withdrawn by their Democratic sponsors. Democratic Rep. Ed Markey, sponsor of a proposal to boost vehicle mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2019, said he decided not to pursue the matter after consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi in a statement said she supported requiring automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles but that the issue was deferred "in the interest of promoting passage of a consensus energy bill.""

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/01/business/NA-FIN-US-Congress-Energy.php

8/2/2007 8:56:56 AM

That's pathetic.

YOU HAVE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES, BITCHES

Go ahead and let the Republicans take a stand on this publicly.

8/2/2007 9:44:58 AM

well. i would hardly say they control the senate.

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 10:30 AM. Reason : and they've been getting a lot of flack for not passing anything.]

8/2/2007 10:29:47 AM

I figure they would've knocked this out during the first 100 hours

8/2/2007 10:30:26 AM

Well the senate's already passed it.

The House pussed out.

8/2/2007 10:30:32 AM

really? well then yeah, that's dumb. the senate is usually the big hurdle.

8/2/2007 10:31:26 AM

The consensus bill better damn well have something to encourage better gas mileage.

And stricter enforcement of the Clean Air act in regards to power plants, while they're at it.

8/2/2007 12:29:47 PM

Quote :

"^What? Suburban? Any of the larger suvs. Plus a roof-top rack for kayaks/luggage, or a trailer hitch for such stuff. I never said the "majority"."

For the reasons of this thread there's no reason to talk about anything other than the majority of SUVs. And the Suburban is not that.

8/2/2007 1:35:27 PM

I'd just like to let everyone know that I drove about 20 miles earlier in a Suburban...and even though it was to pick up some 8'x4' signs that obviously wouldn't fit in your Prius, sometimes I drive Suburbans anyway

8/2/2007 1:36:52 PM

you bastard!!!

8/2/2007 1:37:45 PM

/care?

8/2/2007 2:30:58 PM

I'm going to drive a different SUV to lunch...I'll holler at ya'll later

8/2/2007 2:36:10 PM

Quote :

"and an SUV tax would never pass through congress/president. especially not right now. "

i wasn't arguing for that

8/2/2007 2:38:47 PM

lonesnark was

8/2/2007 2:45:01 PM

Quote :

"The consensus bill better damn well have something to encourage better gas mileage."

Why? If you want a car with better gas mileage, go buy one. But who are you to dictate to me what I can buy?

If your objection is running out of oil, you must realize that if others are forced to reduce consumption then prices will fall, encourages other forms of lavish consumption (the rich will take more trips in their leer jet, which in one hour burns more fuel than the average SUV does in a whole year) or the fuel will simply be burned by foreigners.

If your objection is the high prices resulting from their consumption, then here again your complaints are misplaced. In the short term, OPEC controls the prices, and will simply export less to counter American conservation, keeping prices high. Even if you succeed in reducing prices, you are again merely shifting consumption away from SUVs and towards other lavish uses: more vacations for the rich, shifting cargo from train to truck to air.

Before you interfere in the lives of others, you should really look into whether your efforts are actually going to change the world for the better.

8/2/2007 2:48:21 PM

It's just part of my liberal cabal's plan to socialize all of America's businesses, honestly.

But you're forgetting my other reason; environmental issues.


And I'm not ready to buy the rebound effect as far as consumption goes. It's purely speculation.

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2007 2:55:22 PM