Car Guy
Magical Thinking in California
Zero to 40 in under 7 years — that’s miles per gallon, with no exceptions.
California’s a mess. A bankrupt fiasco. A state that has regulated and spent itself into a well of debt so deep it makes the economic situation in the other 49 states seem not half-bad.
But instead of putting a chokehold on California’s run-amok bureaucrats, the federal government just gave them the go ahead to impose California-specific fuel economy and emissions control requirements on new cars sold there, beginning with the 2016 model year. California has long wanted to demand that new cars achieve 40 mpg, on average — 5 mph higher than the “49 state” requirement recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama.
Now there will be two sets of differing requirements for the flatlined auto industry to cope with: One for cars sold in CA, one for cars sold everywhere else. Maybe several different requirements, since a number of states have expressed interest in either following CA or maybe passing requirements of their own.
So, instead of building a single car to sell everywhere in the United States, the car companies will have to build some cars for CA, some for other states. Which of course will make them more expensive for everyone, since it costs more to build a “California Corolla” and a slightly different one for, say, Texas — instead of just a Corolla that’s sold everywhere.
The other option is for the industry to build all its cars to meet the CA standard and then sell them everywhere. But here again, state laws tend to be slightly different from state to state — and it will take lots of billable hours for the lawyers to sort it out and then more time and money frittered away by designers and engineers trying to make it all work. Which means, probably, it’ll cost you more, too.
Undergirding both the recently passed nationwide 35 mpg standard and the even more ambitious CA 40 mpg standard is a species of Magical Thinking that imagines if you can wish it (or toss out a new law) it will be so. The people running the EPA, the Congress and the CA state government are not engineers. They like the notion of 35-40 mpg cars (doesn’t everyone?) and assume it’s merely the intransigence of the car companies and the machinations of “big oil” that have kept such wonders from a desperate public.
But 35-40 mpg cars are hard to make when the government has already imposed laws and regulations that have pushed the weight of “economy” cars up by more than 500 pounds on average, mandated ethanol-laced “gasoline” that reduces average fuel efficiency by as much as 5-10 percent and the industry so bankrupted by the existing rules and rigmarole that there is not much money left lying around to “invest” in “new technologies” — which are rarely cheap. (Not many know this, but every single hybrid sold by Toyota to date has been sold at a loss, the company subsidizing the true cost in order to “encourage” the technology.)
We did have 40 mpg cars — dozens of different models — about a quarter century ago. But that was before the government came thunder-thighing into the room and imposed “safety” requirements like air bags and low-speed bumper impact edicts that made it illegal to build cars like the old VW Beetle or the Renault LeCar or the Plymouth Champ or even the venerable Chrysler K-cars of the early '80s — all of which got better mileage than any new “economy” car built today.
The economy cars of the '70s and '80s were much lighter than their modern counterparts, so they could get by with smaller, much less gas thirsty engines. Even without the advantages of modern technology, they easily got better mileage than almost any modern econo not-so-compact can deliver.
True, they weren’t as “safe” in an accident — and yes, they were slow (0-60 times were on the order of 15 seconds vs. 8-9 seconds today). But you literally cannot have it both ways. You can have a low-cost, extremely fuel efficient compact. Or you can have a more expensive, not-so-compact that’s astonishingly crashworthy for its size and rather peppy, too — but not quite so fuel efficient.
What you can’t have is a 40 mpg economy compact that’s as crashworthy as the mid-sized cars of 20 years ago and which can get to 60 mph in under 10 seconds for not much more than $10,000 or so — merely because you wish it to be so.
And a 40 mpg pick-up? Family-sized car? Why not also wish for world peace while you’re at it?
But in the Land of Dreams, magical thinking is a pervasive affliction. It has already driven California to the brink of an unprecedented financial disaster. Now we’re about to follow California’s example on a national scale.
Enjoy the ride. The upside is, it won’t last long…
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (56) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/02/magical-thinking-in-california
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Robert Rosencrans| 7.2.09 @ 7:22AM
I actually believe the situaton will lead to a financial diaster of epic porportions. Perhaps that's what it will take to wake the public up.
Eric Damon| 7.2.09 @ 7:31AM
I knew some people who drove the old K cars and who still have a couple of the old Beetles, and they loved them because they were so great on gas. But these new standards are insane, especially looking at the problems the auto industry is already having. Why saddle a struggling industry with these onerous regs, at this time? But I guess you could see that coming what with the federal government owning the car companies; now the companies aren't really on the hook for the losses...we are!
Blacque Jacques Shellacque| 7.2.09 @ 8:15AM
Perhaps that's what it will take to wake the public up.
The only thing that would wake people up in this hellhole of a state is a mass of death. The lawsuits would follow soon afterward.
ccc| 7.2.09 @ 8:22AM
For some reason the author forgo the option of not selling cars in California. If the car manufactureres do not wish to follow California regulations, then not selling in California seems to be the simplest option. But someone will figure out how to play the game, Tesla for instance, and make a large amount of money. It resembles that quaint system that was once known as capitalism.
Jeff| 7.2.09 @ 10:06AM
Here is an "out of the box" solution that was not mentioned.
Do not make cars for California and do not sell cars in California.
Pete| 7.2.09 @ 10:36AM
The gubmint and its union buddies have regulated/bullied the industry to the point where it can't compete in the world marketplace. But have no fear, DC royalty will take more taxpayer money and keep them artificially afloat (lest they risk losing union votes and muscle), selling in all 50 states. I will never buy from these companies again.
Dave| 7.2.09 @ 10:37AM
Refusing to sell cars in California is not an option. If any car manufacturer chose that option, some homosexual/transgender/etc. would slap a lawsuit against the company for discrimination and the company would be forced to comply.
R| 7.2.09 @ 11:03AM
PJ O'Rourke pointed out that governments hate cars because cars offer a degree of freedom.
Leftists want us stranded and therefore dependant upon them, and unarmed, therefore unable to resist them.
Krt| 7.2.09 @ 11:38AM
Not selling cars to CA is easy,
First month, sell all the cars you can that exceed the standard.
Second month, sell a few cars that don't for outrageous prices untill the average is met, then go back to cars that do.
third month, repeat
As a car seller you can price what the market will bear, the government officials will buy what they can, then what is left, no special deals for legislators. once the allotment is used up, SOL. No need for "Special Cars"
Louis Jenkins| 7.2.09 @ 12:21PM
"PJ O'Rourke pointed out that governments hate cars because cars offer a degree of freedom.
"Leftists want us stranded and therefore dependant upon them, and unarmed, therefore unable to resist them. "
Have you heard of OBD 3? Get prepared for onboard diagnostics that will rock your world (the bad kind of rock). Not only 35-40 mpg, but with on board GPS tracking that monitors everything going on, and what's going wrong with your car. Instead of On Star imagine Big Brother monitoring your travels, destinations, speed, # of miles per year, monitoring the air smog control devices, and who knows what else. It has been reported that GovCo is experimenting with approximately 250 autos around the nation. Keep you old pre-1996 cars running!! You'll still pay a national tax based on odometer milage, but the buggers won't know where you've been or how fast you went.
Tony in Central PA| 7.2.09 @ 12:41PM
Coming in 2010, the Government Motors Fer Shizzle. Its an ecofriendly flexfuel compact that can also run on government cheese. It features an interior made out of 100% hemp, that way, if it catches fire while you're inside, you don't care what happens. The stylish holes in the floor allow you to walk the car forward while in traffic, saving gas. They also increase ventilation and eliminate the need for air conditioning. Available with no downpayment and no monthly payments until your kids are middle - aged.
Bram| 7.2.09 @ 1:28PM
ccc & Jeff are right. Many models won't be sold there. It's not like the people living in the ruins of CA will have income left after taxes.
Reggie| 7.2.09 @ 2:20PM
Powerful plug in hybrids might give us both fun in driving and good MPG so I'm not as skeptical as the author. I do think the passion of driving is lost on liberals although I consider myself one. Driving a fun car is risky, somewhat unsafe, challenging and utterly a blast and American's (and yes, that includes us Californian's) won't let go of this lightly.
I for one traded in a fun car for a hybrid and lasted for 3 years - imagine taking antibiotics for 3 years, good for you if the doctor says but absolutely awful in your mouth.
I now have a 23 mpg Subaru WRX that's as close to sex on wheels to anything I can imagine.
While my Republican friends say the gov'ment will have to pry their guns from their cold hands, for me it's that stitched WRX steering wheel...
John Brody| 11.23.11 @ 9:56AM
Sounds like you've come over to the conservative side of the coin! Welcome!!!! Just make sure you vote accordingly, else your old leftist buddies will take away your horrible 23mpg fun-mobile. Ain't personal choice grand?!
Steve| 7.2.09 @ 2:20PM
What will happen in California is very clear. It is possible, under existing law, to have a car registered out-of-state and pay sales and use taxes for California. People will do what they do with motor homes, buy them in Oregon and register them there, and simply pay the sales and use tax. This will work until the equally liberal states surrounding California decide to commit fiscal suicide themselves. The productive members of California continue to leave in droves.
John Brody| 11.23.11 @ 9:57AM
Gone Galt! Been trying to get relatives to abandon Kalifornia for years now.
Dave Lincoln| 7.2.09 @ 3:47PM
"You'll still pay a national tax based on odometer milage, but the buggers won't know where you've been or how fast you went. "
Nah, Louis, everything is easier to get at in the older cars, including the odometer cable ;-) "Yeah, Mr. IRS man, you can check my cables. Just watch for that oil leak; she's still hot." Keep em running, is what I say too. Putting even 500-1000 bucks a year into maintenance on an old rig beats the heck out of payments on any new car I've ever seen.
The GPS/satellite comm. stuff is just plain scary, as you say, Mr. Jenkins. Hopefully, we still have some good EE's left in this country who used to build fuzzbusters.
Thanks for all your great articles, Eric. I look forward to them.
Len| 7.2.09 @ 5:37PM
This would actually be one of the rare times when the Commerce Clause can come into play.
Stan| 7.2.09 @ 6:40PM
The third option would be for the car companies to not sell cars in California. You would hear the citizens screaming all the way to Texas. They'd do away with this law as fast as possible.
Stan| 7.2.09 @ 6:40PM
The third option would be for the car companies to not sell cars in California. You would hear the citizens screaming all the way to Texas. They'd do away with this law as fast as possible.
Dave Lincoln| 7.2.09 @ 6:48PM
What was the middle thing again, Stan?
;-)
Paley| 7.2.09 @ 8:34PM
The option of not selling cars in California will not be doable for the citizens of such state. The state govt. will mandate, for example, that if you have a California driver's license, your car MUST, therefore drive a vehicle that passes their muster; i.e., fuel efficient, blah blah
DSAMMIS| 7.2.09 @ 9:17PM
#1 I have a 71 VW Bug and its a blast to drive, cheap to maintain, every part is still available, it gets 27 MPG which is fine with me. And it has no electronic monitors, goes through sand and snow without chains and is a Chik Chaser. What more does a 79 year old conservative need. Also had a "impossible to kill" K car at one time. For you whippersnappers out there who dont know where the distributor is on a Model A, and probably couldnt figure out how to operate a jack (No, it's not that) sorry you missed the mid 20th century
Dave Lincoln| 7.2.09 @ 9:59PM
You mean a "chick magnet, Mr. DSAMMIS. ;-) We've been using that term for well nigh 4o years if it's been a day. But, you haven't lived till you've owned a Mustang II " Mustang two, boredom zero!", as the commercial goes.
(enjoyed your post.)
DSAMMIS| 7.2.09 @ 10:08PM
At 79 we are entitlesd to memory lapses. I had a 67 Mustang GT one of the nicest driving cars at the time. I have also owned 5, count em, 5 Lotii, all equally unreliable, all a blast to drive
Christopher Holland| 7.3.09 @ 12:02AM
Just think - the same guys who came up with that mess now own GM, and they think they can run it at a profit, make green cars and create green jobs! That is one story that isn't going to have a happy ending.
MIX| 7.3.09 @ 10:00AM
Just make the Automobile Illegal in California. Horse use will be allowed only. think about it. Smog would all but vanish. Traffic congestion would be a thing of the past. You could put all the Mexicans to work cleaning the streets of the horse excrement, creating a new niche industry for the state. And, of course, certain celebs will suddenly have an abundance of studs for thier "erotic" enjoyment.
catladyjan| 7.3.09 @ 1:58PM
These environmental wackos are personality disordered who use the power of government to bully and gain control of the people. They were messed up from childhood. God help us!
Marc Jeric| 7.3.09 @ 4:29PM
Environmentalism is a cult of death. Eco-nazis are now in power and they will not give it up either. World population must be reduced from 6 billion to one billion - a "sustainable" number. Automobile is the prerequisite of personal freedom - and for that it must be banished.
George True| 7.4.09 @ 2:33PM
These are not insane fuel economy standards. They are eminently achievable. Having said that, I do not think individual states have any business mandating such things as fuel economy standards for precisely the reasons stated in the article.
Volkswagen has been making cars that get 50 mpg highway for at least the last 15 or 16 years. Their TDI diesel Golf, Jetta, and Passat all get 40-50 mpg. And these are not underpowered cars. They will pass most other cars going up a hill.
Starting about 20 years ago, Detroit largely created the market for monster SUV's and trucks. There is no reason people can't become re-enamored with fuel-efficient, fun to drive cars and light trucks. The government has had a role to play all along and has been MIA. They have used and continue to use under Obama the stick approach. They should have instead offered the auto companies some irresistible carrots.
If Obama had a whit of common sense (which he has amply demonstrated he does not) the first thing he would have done for the auto companies is precisely nothing. Let them declare bankruptcy and reorganize. Let them dump their union, pension, and healthcare obligations. Then offer them whatever combination of tax breaks and other incentives necessary to induce them to come out with 40-50 mpg passenger cars and light trucks.
It could be done with off-the-shelf technology. All GM or anybody else had to do was buy a TDI Volkswagen, take it apart, study it, and COPY IT. Or just make a deal with Volkswagen to start building their engine under license from them.
I'm not saying everything has to be designed or styled after Volkswagen, I am just using that as an example of what one car ocompany is doing had has been successfully doing for a long time now.
Two thirds of all new cars sold in Europe are diesels, including top of the line BMW's, Audi's, Mercedes, etc. There is a reason for this - on average a diesel engine of a given size is 30% more fuel efficient than a comparable gasoline engine.
I am not saying that diesel cars and light trucks would be the be-all and end-all. But if we had such vehicles widely available here, I believe they would sell like the proverbial hotcakes, and I think once people made the transition they would really like them. And it would be a drop in the bucket cost-wise for all of us individually and as a nation when compared to all the money and resources that is being wasted on hybrids, multifuel vehicles, and the ridiculous ethanol scam.
If we had the collective will to do something like this, within five years we could cut our oil consumption by at least 20%. That one thing alone would cause the price of oil to stay down in the $50-$75 per barrel range indefinitely.
John Brody| 11.23.11 @ 10:05AM
Well said! that's why I'm driving a VW Jetta TDI! I actually wrote and called Jeep a few years ago and told them that if they built the Jeep Gladiator in diesel, I would line up to buy it. That was in '05. Remember the Jeep truck concept at the Detroit Auto Show? Yeeeaaahhhhh.....how come 6 years later we don't have a domestic light diesel?
Jim Waltman| 7.5.09 @ 11:40AM
Looks like 2016 will be the year of no-sale at California new car dealers. Go ahead California and do what you've been doing because you'll end up the way you are now: Flat broke and a true welfare state!
Mark Nahmias| 7.5.09 @ 3:52PM
For proof that Peters is right I refer you to Car & Driver, 7/09, "Mileage Maestros", in which a 1999 Chevy Metro bests a new Honda Insight & ties a Toyota Prius in average MPG. the elites will never get it.
Solo| 7.5.09 @ 8:26PM
If mandating 40 MPG cars, trucks and vans is such a great idea, then why stop there?
Let's have 100 MPG...or 500. Hell...let's just make it a 1000 MPG and get it over with! That'll solve all the problems.
And while we're at it maybe the Obamessiah can order the development of "Pixie Dust" to sprinkle on the wings of our commercial aircraft so that they can fly without burning Kerosene--you know...to save the Polar bears and such!
"Yes we can"!
Lelani J | 6.5.11 @ 9:43AM
An interesting article and one worth noting.UTI Treatment