-
The One Good Thing About Tesla
June 7, 2013 | 19 comments
-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
Car Guy
CAFE Spells RIP for Trucks
Ford’s compact Ranger is the first casualty.
(Page 2 of 2)
With trucks, it’s even worse, because to a great extent the market for such vehicles is middle and working class. There are people in San Francisco and Washington with $200k annually incomes who will buy the Volt. But how many $40k-per-year electricians will be willing or even able to plunk down $30,000 for a “high efficiency” compact truck, as outlined above? Hence Ford’s decision to pull the Ranger from its U.S. model lineup — while continuing to sell it in other countries where there is no CAFE law.
It’s an impossible situation for the car companies. You can’t have both very high fuel economy and the capability people expect at a reasonable cost, while also meeting all the government’s existing crashworthiness standards, too.
The latter is especially interesting because, for the first time, two mutually exclusive government edicts — one relating to fuel economy, the other relating to crashworthiness — are coming into obvious conflict. It would be relatively easy to chop a few hundred pounds off the typical truck and without doing anything else, score a significant increase in fuel economy. It would also be possible, with a lower curb weight, to use a smaller (or less powerful) engine and still maintain approximately the same performance while further increasing fuel economy (by dint of the fact that a smaller, less powerful engine would use less fuel). This would also have the happy effect of lowering the price of the vehicle since it costs nothing to remove weight, or equipment that adds weight, such as the now-mandatory multiple air bags that all vehicles come equipped with.
But maintaining the vehicle’s compliance with existing and pending federal crashworthiness requirements while also significantly reducing its curb weight won’t be easily or cheaply done. It will probably require wholesale re-engineering of the vehicle, not merely replacing steel with high-strength, lightweight (and very expensive) composites. Major R&D will be involved and the end result, though possibly both “safe” and “efficient” will also cost a small fortune, just like the Chevy Volt.
The people on the top floor of the Ford building are not idiots. They’ve crunched the numbers. They see the future. There is none for the Ranger — and soon, bigger trucks, too. Bet your bippie GM and Chrysler are hip, too.
I predict it’s all over for trucks as mass-market vehicles.
We just don’t realize it yet.
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 (84) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/13/cafe-spells-rip-for-trucks
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Crack Smoker| 12.13.11 @ 9:14AM
Disturbing news for the small p*nis, big truck crowd.
JeffB| 12.13.11 @ 9:26AM
Are you projecting? Or did you forget about building contractors, plumbers, electricians, landscapers,local delivery, caterers,utility companies or anyone else that does actual real work in this country.
Maddox| 12.13.11 @ 10:15AM
Yes, now instead of our pickup trucks, we will have to use 3 or 4 vehicles to make deliveries for jobs and our family will need two for every beach vacation. I will have to make three trips to pick up straw and soil for my lawn work.
Good job eco-idiots!
John Navratil| 12.13.11 @ 10:20AM
Crack Smoker,
What's that you're sucking on?
DTOM| 12.15.11 @ 10:16AM
Something, small?
Christus Regeln | 12.13.11 @ 10:31AM
Crack Smoker:
Please continue smoking whatever it is you are on, at least until the remainder of your brain cells have died. 300,000,000+ of us in America and we have to tolerate ignorance such as yours. God help us.
Bill| 12.13.11 @ 11:17AM
You are a dangerously stupid useful idiot. Shoot yourself as a public service.
chuck| 12.13.11 @ 9:29PM
The other week I was putting siding on a house that had been hit by a tornado. I drive a Chevy 2500HD, extended cab, long bed. 12 mpg. I had 2- 24ft aluminum pole pump jacks, 2- 24 ft ladders, a 40 ft ladder, a 24 ft aluminum walk board, a 16 ft aluminum walk board, a 6 ft ladder, and a 8 ft ladder. I also had a compressor, nail guns, saws, benches, and a host of other tools.
Now, crack head, HOW THE FUCK AM I GOING TO GET ALL THAT ON A SMART CAR?
Quartermaster| 12.13.11 @ 10:04PM
Thermodynamics is a hard, rather than a fuzzy, science. That CAFE of 62 mpg won't be reached unless we start powering our cars and trucks with fast breeder reactors.
The left has utterly no attachment to reality.
markenoff| 12.13.11 @ 11:42PM
Disturbing news for those of us who are heterosexual and having children. These standards will significantly increase the price of all vehicles large enought to hold 1,2 or even 3 car seats. For those of you on the homosexual side or who are too ugly to mate it is not an issue. But since you cannot even take your child home from the hospital without a car seat, those of us parenting the future taxpayers and the people who will change your diaper when you are a drooling ninety-year-old (assuming you haven't died because you were denied care by one of the government health system rationing panels) have to figure out how to get car seats into Prius' (Priusi?). Of course, those of you who are already drooling morons or Obama voters (redundant) don't care about the reality of these new standards.
Right Write| 12.14.11 @ 12:36AM
You probably do smoke crack. Moron.
I piss on crackheads| 12.13.11 @ 9:28AM
Why does everything have to be some phallus metaphor whit losers like yourself.
loulou| 12.13.11 @ 11:02AM
Because he is exactly that, a LOSER. Maybe he'll overdose.
wukong| 12.13.11 @ 9:31AM
Perfect example of uberclass penis envy.
Over Educated Redneck| 12.13.11 @ 9:38AM
Apparently crack smoker has had a little too chemical pleasure, which would explain his probable lack of a job, real work experience and sex drive. But enough about that idiot. If crack smoker had ever lived in a rural farming/ranching area, or worked construction like I have, he, even though he's a obviously a truck hater with a small p*nis, would understand a large pickup truck with a big powerplant is an essential piece of equipment on a farm or for a contractor. It's how one transports one's tools, other essential equipment, and building materials to the work site. Obviously he's never had the joy of; driving down a FM road pulling a 15 foot goose-neck trailer loaded with rolled hay bails, hauling feed over to a pasture for cattle, pulling a livestock trailer, or moving his son into his college dorm room.
The impact of the CAFE goes beyond the cost of the vehicle, it's the added cost to redneck and blue collar America to whom these vehicles are working trucks. By God, they've earned their right to wave their p*nises at Crack Smoker and the enviroweenies. There's nothing worse than girly-man p*nis envy.
Radioman777| 12.13.11 @ 9:41AM
The whole anti-truck thing is driven by snooty, faux upper class losers. These are the same people who don't do anything for themselves, except steal other people's hard-earned dollars. If they don't like trucks, they should move to Europe.
DGinGA| 12.13.11 @ 10:05AM
Without their pick-up trucks, how can the liberals' illegal lawn maintenance guys get to work and bring all of their equipment? I suspect all of these smug, liberal, Prius-driving, SUV hating prigs will be mightily disappointed when their service providers can no longer perform their services because they can't afford to buy TRUCKS! Or the services will increase in cost so much we'll have yet another class of jobs that Americans won't do because they can't AFFORD to.
So my question is, was this change in the CAFE standards primarily directed at SUVs and the pickups got caught in the crosshairs, or was this specifically directed at pickups? I thought for the purposes of CAFE that trucks and SUVs were in the same class, and that had the libs panties in a wad.
Yet another reason to EVICT OBAMA in 2012 and get more conservatives in the House and Senate as well.
Ed| 12.13.11 @ 1:24PM
This is a kick in the groin from the Ruling Class to the Country Class. They hate the freedom enjoyed by those who live in the exurbs and farm country. My Dad had a really basic, small, no-frills, Izusu pickup truck 30 years ago. I doubt that even it would meet the new CAFE standards.
Maddox| 12.13.11 @ 10:19AM
If I can't be happy, nobody else will. I will feel ever so much better if I can force them to comply with "rules for idiots."
TrueBlue| 12.13.11 @ 4:38PM
Misery loves company, and since they feel so miserable about how horrible the US treats the world, they must make the rest of us feel miserable too!
Melvin| 12.13.11 @ 9:43AM
Crack Smoker can probably say what he says because he lives in the burbs in his parents basement, and has mom chauffeur him around.
Also, seems to have a case of, "Penis Envy."
Negro X| 12.13.11 @ 9:46AM
Knocking an enviro-moron off a segway is worth 25 bonus points, 50 if you use a ball bat 100 points if the segway has an obama sticker.
Drunken Sailor| 12.13.11 @ 12:10PM
Use your door to make it challenging. Bonus points if you can bounce them off a stationary object. Triple points if you can get two or more in a "Bumper Pool" style shot.
Al Adab| 12.13.11 @ 3:04PM
DS:
Maybe I should start painting little stencils of Volts, Prius, etc. on the door of my Dodge Ram 1500.
Drunken Sailor| 12.13.11 @ 3:22PM
Al, my suggestion is the front bumper, in reverse style. So the targets get a good look in their rear view mirror. I'm thinking of painting them on my Jeep Grand Cherokee (5.9 liter).
Brian L. | 12.13.11 @ 9:47AM
Good to know that our government is now almost exactly as draconian as the centrally-planned Soviet government of 30 years ago.
Please, can I have my OLD country back?
Melvin| 12.13.11 @ 9:47AM
I guess if there is any solace to this. When Juan cannot groom Senor Barracks yard because he doesn't have a vehicle large enough to haul all his equipment and haul away the grass and yard refuse, then the Elites who live in their gated communities might realize, "Ooops."
John Navratil| 12.13.11 @ 10:23AM
Melvin,
No, they'll just vote $7,000 lawn care subsidies to stimulate the economy. It's nothing more than bringing back the rake and the wheel barrow. Perhaps Barack will start a compost pile for his lawn clippings. He has already done it with the economy.
Petronius| 12.13.11 @ 9:49AM
The econazis are going after trucks not only because they have been exempt from their insane policies but because the compact pickup has been the real bargain of the American auto industry for so long. And the other reason is the IRS knows there are millions of off the clock tradesmen who utilize them to work for good old fashioned tax free cash. Since the government cannot force these guys on the books, they want them out of business, (unless they're illegal aliens.)
oldfart| 12.13.11 @ 9:53AM
I understand the market for mules and horses is going to increase. The Old Order Amish are waiting in the wings. Of course I wonder when our crazy Uncle Sam will start regulating methane from this type of 'horse power'. LOL
oldfart| 12.13.11 @ 9:58AM
Also, I am sure that as more union workers loose their jobs to this type of stupidity then pressure will be applied for certain approved 'exemptions'.
Dr. X| 12.13.11 @ 10:02AM
If gays and radical feminists drove trucks instead of white working class males, the government would subsidizing trucks instead of the Chevy Volt.
D Jones| 12.13.11 @ 10:05AM
There are a few problems with Mr. Peters' argument. The CAFE is 35 MPG, but that does NOT mean that each vehicle has to achieve the 35 MPG mark. CAFE is about "Corporate Average" so it's more about balancing fuel misers (Ford Fiesta or Focus in this case) with guzzlers (F-150s, Mustangs, etc.) to reach a corporate average of 35 MPG for all vehicles sold. To complicate matters further, the CAFE uses a complex formula to calculate, which results in the "actual" mileage average of cars sold being somewhat less than the CAFE number. Confusing to anyone but a bureaucrat.
The REAL reason the Ford Ranger died is simply: it was a fairly lousy mini-truck that had no significant chassis updates in nearly 20 years. In the last decade the percentage of mini-trucks as part of the entire U.S. auto sales has dropped from 8 to 2 as people have switched to SUVs, Crossovers, and smaller, more fuel efficient cars. So between product stagnation and an evaporating market, Ford saw no reason to go to the expense of building the new Ranger here.
Yes, they would have had to actually build it here to be competitive since the outdated "Chicken Tax" would have caused imported Rangers to sell for close to the same price as the larger F series. I'm betting if this tax wasn't an issue, we might see a small number imported to test the market place. As it is, it's just not worth it.
At the moment, Toyota Tacoma and Nissan Frontier own the mini-truck market. GM is still trying to own a piece of it with a new Colorado coming soon, but there is only so much room in the segment for winners. Same thing happened when people stopped buying minivans...at one point EVERYONE seemed to make them, now Ford and GM are out of the minivan market altogether leaving Chrysler, Toyota and Honda to dominate and Nissan to try to grab a share, too.
oldfart| 12.13.11 @ 10:20AM
I have a heavy duty truck because I have several acres of land, I tow and I haul. There is no alternative – that is the vehicle that meets my needs.
While it is true that this is the average if a manufacturer has significant sales of trucks then the overall average will be pulled down.
So what are the alternatives?
1. Increase the gas mileage of the truck
2. Sell one hell of a lot of vehicles that don't use internal combustion engines (perhaps it is time to bring back the Stanley steamer - being external combustion it will not create all the bad stuff.)
3. Limit truck production - limited supply will cause the price to go up actually increasing profits for the manufactures significantly. Also people like me will keep my truck running until the body rusts away.
Combination of the above.
Frankly an external combustion using the sterling engine sounds like a nice way to go.
In any case it is quite interesting how the Federal Govt does everything is possibly can to destroy American Industry.
John Navratil| 12.13.11 @ 10:49AM
oldfart,
The sterling engine is a sweet concept. It's also quiet and anything that makes heat can be used to fuel it. I had a friend who labored mightily to develop a sterling aircraft engine (dated, but interesting: http://www.airsport-corp.com/fourpartstirling.html).
The problem is that this engine is really too heavy for small power outputs and doesn't respond to throttle changes quickly enough for an automobile engine.
oldfart| 12.13.11 @ 12:54PM
I know - they tried to make it work to generate electricity from the sun but as some of the literature I have seen the operating rpm range is very limited. It may only be useful to keep the batteries charged in a battery operated car.
John Navratil| 12.13.11 @ 10:41AM
D Jones,
According to: http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2.....sales.html , Ford Ranger, in September, was #7 in the top 10 pickups by sales. The bigger trucks (F, Silverado, RAM, e.g.) dominated, but your appraisal of the Ranger does not appear to be widely held by those actually buying trucks.
The biggest shennanigan is in the alternative fuels use in the CAFE standard (see: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rule.....ground.htm - it's not light reading). The essence is that a Suburban running E-85 is credited as achieving 84mpg (the gallons of gasoline in the amount of E-85 to drive 84 miles) rather than the 12 miles of travel it get from the single gallon of E-85. But you have to have a Flex-fuel engine which is more expensive. These engines go in the really profitable offerings and not in the Ranger.
The irony isn't that the pool cleaning guy won't have a truck, it just will be a more expensive, more energy consuming truck. He'll have to buy the F-Series (today, at least). When those are gone, look to more of what we are seeing, today... Keeping vehicles "forever". We can look to Cuba for the path forward.
cavan| 12.13.11 @ 12:04PM
When GM became Government Motors there had to be backroom deals that guaranteed GM with fleet sales to the feds, the state govt., city govt. county govt, state universities and school districts. GE guaranteed to but 20,000Volts.
D Jones| 12.13.11 @ 3:19PM
Yes, the Ranger is the 7th best selling truck, but it does only sell about 1/10 the number as Ford's full size trucks do and just more than half of what Toyota's mini trucks do. Yes, Nissan sells even fewer, but the Frontier does sell triple the quantity of the full size Nissan and probably provides more overall profits.
Ford obviously does not see great profit in updating American plants to build the new Ranger, otherwise they would. Keeping a smaller truck with updated, more efficient engines could only help their CAFE in light of all the large trucks they move.
Skippy| 12.13.11 @ 4:05PM
I sell Fords.
I am asked weekly about small diesel engines in our vehicles.
Big Govt. will not allow us to sell those motors in America.
That is why Ford is getting out of the small truck biz.
If they did, we would sell them like hotcakes.
Our small diesels are good enough to sell everywhere except the US.
Funny about that...
John Navratil| 12.13.11 @ 11:13PM
D Jones,
That's my point about the E85 shennanigans. When you can't put an expensive engine in a small truck without skewering your profits and without it, it skewers your CAFE numbers you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Think of it, a Suburban can get 84 MPG and a Ranger only gets 25, but you need the 35 MPG average so you can still sell your fleet sedans.
As you point out, it's a small segment to Ford. I was pointing out that it still is a popular segment to some 3,000 people per month. It's not as if they weren't selling. Perversely, if Ford did invest in a "new" Ranger (you suggest that's why it's dying) and boosted its sales in this segment, it would only exacerbate their CAFE problem.
The bean counters have counted the beans. And the beans are all soaked in ethanol.
GaltFan| 12.14.11 @ 4:36PM
Go ahead and feel morally superior for thinking this sort of fantasy policy has limited consequences. Not only will people hold on to their bigger vehicles longer - thus depriving the economy of new sales, it will also drive up the price of (now more scarce) vehicles in the used market.
Know what else? Oblamer is also doing similar things in the agricultural sector of our economy. Know what that means? Along with fewer jobs in vehicle manufacturing and sales there will also be a reduction in jobs manufacturing and selling heavy machinery.
The best part? We will ALL be paying higher prices for food and have more people out of work.
For what? Really nothing at all...
RC| 12.15.11 @ 4:13PM
All this rancor and hysteria over, basically nothing! A pile of lies presented by the Spectator and a herd of sheep gobbling them up and belching out the indignation they've been programmed to produce.
FACTS! Mr. Peters has NONE but here are a few (from Motor Trend)
Based on the footprints of the vehicles offered, and the projected sales volumes, the anticipated CAFE targets for each manufacturer are:
-------- Cars / Trucks
BMW 30.2 / 25.7
Chrysler 28.6 / 24.2
Daimler 28.9 / 24.5
Ferrari 30.7 / -
Ford 30.1 / 23.6
General Motors 30.0 / 23.3
Honda 30.6 / 25.4
Hyundai 30.3 / 25.3
Maserati 27.5 / -
Mitsubishi 30.9 / 26.7
Nissan 30.5 / 24.0
Porsche 31.2 / 25.5
Subaru 30.9 / 26.6
Suzuki 31.0 / 26.4
Tata 27.5 / 26.1
Toyota 30.6 / 24.8
Volkswagen 30.9 / 24.9
Sales-weighted Average 30.2 / 24.1
The Ford Ranger, as it's sold now, MEETS the new standard. So why would it be cancelled in response to the new standard? Answer is simple: IT WASN'T!
Peters made that part up, offered nothing to support it and assumed (correctly) that none of his readers would care about the truth.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/feat.....z1gdhCIy5r
Or, you could ignore the facts and go back to your ill informed, paranoid discussion of the statists and your agendas of vehicular homicide (really funny, by the way).
You ought to be angry at the Spectator, for lying to you, at Mr. Peters for lying to you or for being to stupid to think of looking for the facts. But don't be angry at the EPA or the President or the Left for imposing on you a mileage standard WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.
Bill| 3.19.12 @ 2:01PM
I'm must not be reading my constitution properly. Where does it say the government can mandate gas mileage?
JayDick| 12.13.11 @ 10:11AM
The whole concept of CAFE standards is attractive only to statists. They are incapable of understanding free markets and how they operate. Every time the market foils their grand schemes, the only response they are capable of is more dictats.
We know from experience that the only effective way to reduce oil consumption is to raise the price. But the statists can't do that because the American people are smart enough to know it's not necessary and will complain loudly.
The statists also don't realize the likely consequences of the fuel economy requirements on trucks. There are probably many beyond the ones mentioned in the article. One that comes quickly to mind is that used trucks will become more valuable and will be repaired repeatedly way beyond their normal economic lives. Cuba has been doing this with old American cars for many years.
Let's hope the American people rebel against these stupid policies.
Mike Hawk| 12.13.11 @ 11:10AM
They need to repeal the laws of thermodynamics first.
old whiye guy| 12.13.11 @ 10:25AM
time to start telling the government NO. back it up with the second amendment.
Mike 3/505| 12.13.11 @ 4:51PM
Concur. But the only way we will be able to do that, is to get rid of government control of the money. The way the government controls industry, is with the ability to lock up their bank accounts w/out a warrant.
goldwater girl| 12.13.11 @ 10:31AM
Hey Crack Smoker,
I drive a suburban, but I don't have the "equipment" you referred to. However, I do have a big dog that loves to take rides, therefore, my bias towards "big trucks".
oldfart| 12.13.11 @ 10:51AM
According to the people that make the rules
1. Everyone should live in the city
2. Everyone should be able to walk, bike or use public transportation
3. If you need to go somewhere you fly, or take the train
4. You don't own a car, you use zipcar.
Anyone who does not conform to these rules has a serious mental disorder and needs to go to 're-education camps' courtesy of Pol Pot or Stalin.
Oh by the way – my youngest son’s Rottweiler loves my pickup
Al Adab| 12.13.11 @ 12:06PM
O/F:
You put your finger right on it. The Eastern, big city mentality so infects the regulatory agencies that they suffer urban myopia. Apparently they have never experienced the western U.S. to understand that cities lies five hundred miles apart and that people "out west" haul firewood, hay, construction material and a myriad of other products in their Pick-up trucks.
Counties in the western states are bigger than many of the eastern states. The populations of some like WY are smaller than many of the east coast towns. One size does not fit all. This is in microcosm the problem with federal centralization. How can those who have never experienced the vastness of the west conprehend the impact of their rules? Remember the 55 speed limit? That drove (pun intended) the western residents crazy. This is one of the best arguments against federal regulation to come along. End these agencies who promulgate rules having the force of law.
oldfart| 12.13.11 @ 1:03PM
A close friend lived in Montana for a number of years. He thought nothing of driving 100 miles to get a beer, driving on the lakes in winter and when winter driving taking his dog, another source of heat, blankets, extra gas etc. just in case in broke down. It might be three days before another person came along and there sure as hell was no cell phone service. You have to learn to be responsible for yourself. DUH. When you go grocery shopping you buy a month of food at a time. There is no 7-11 at the ‘corner’ to get a gallon of milk. The winters can be nasty but the summer beats living inside the Beltway in August!! Their entire focus of life is confined to their laptop, texting and Starbucks. Very myopic view of the world. I actually feel sorry for these “I am here to save the planet people.”
loulou| 12.13.11 @ 11:03AM
We have so many laws and regs that need to be overturned. Light bulbs, CAFE, snail darters--on and on. Lefties destroy. They do not build.
Crawler| 12.13.11 @ 11:25AM
Ideologues in government have become quite adept at limiting consumer's auto and truck choices and hindering manufacturers over the decades. This is no different.
If this infringing CAFE nonsense is allowed to prevail, soon we'll be like Cuba and their 1950s cars. We'll see more "Antique" truck tags than one can shake the proverbial stick at because consumers will demand REAL trucks over a newly manufactured inferior and substandard product.
I've got three old trucks and I'll do whatever it takes to keep them running and operating. I don't think I'll be the only one either...
skedaddle| 12.13.11 @ 2:41PM
You're not the only one because I'm keeping my over 15-year-old full size, 4-wheel drive pickup running. The new full size truck beds are higher making it impossible to life heavy stuff in and the prices are higher than the truck bed. In the current political climate we're keeping a cheap go-anywhere vehicle - you never know when you might need to go offroad!
Mike Hawk| 12.13.11 @ 11:49AM
Look on the bright side. This will create jobs for breeders of Mules, muleskinners, wagon builders and 20 mule team harness makers. We can ship all the manure to the WH for Moochelles organic garden.
JimH| 12.13.11 @ 12:30PM
I guess O’s boys at the UAW will have to confine themselves to building Volts. Is the fire extinguisher standard or an option?
Al Adab| 12.13.11 @ 12:41PM
Just wait for the next mandate. Sine they believe we can all be forced to buy insurance, then why not simply dictate that every second car must be a Chevy Volt? Maybe we need to start buying up that GM stock again.
Joe D.| 12.13.11 @ 12:52PM
We all know this is all bogus. But what can we do to stop this unconstitutional power grab by obama the phoney president. This man should have been stop a couple of years ago with all of his unconstitutional power grabs.
Buck Ofama| 12.13.11 @ 1:32PM
We must be RID of the white house vermin infestation ASAP.
Nymph| 12.13.11 @ 1:41PM
Looks like there might be a comeback of the buggywhip industry! See, not everything is doom and gloom........
Tom| 12.13.11 @ 1:43PM
How about if Obama's limo has to meet the Cafe standards too? Of course politicians always exempt themselves from the cr*p they foist on the rest of us.
Chris C| 12.13.11 @ 3:16PM
People who use pickups for work will just keep the old ones running. The US will begin to look like Cuba with old cars everywhere. Maybe all of the autoworkers who get laid off by Ford, GM, and Chrysler after the inevitable plant closures that this will cause can find work as mechanics keeping all of our current trucks running for years to come.
john dubose| 12.13.11 @ 4:50PM
These rules were obviously written by some of my classmates of old who droped out of engineering or physics because they could not comprehend conservation of energy. Now they want to repeal it by regulations. We are all screwed.
P Kline| 12.13.11 @ 9:37PM
Outrage! I bought a 97 Ranger new during the spring of 1998... it was a time of turmoil in my life, a time I'd rather forget, but that Ranger got me through a lot... several moves, several girlfriends, several jobs. I had been driving a borrowed car, but then the owner needed it back. The Ranger was there, it was incredibly useful, and it was cheap to buy (15 grand), cheap to insure, and cheap to operate (22 mpg).
The only real reminder I have of that time in life now is that truck. It just rolled 200,000 miles (as my second vehicle). I've lent it to countless people over the years. It's carried its weight over and over again: firewood, furniture, donations to the goodwill, supplies to and from the boat, you name it. It's worn out and getting hard to maintain, but I can't bear to part with it. I've had it longer than I've had my current wife!
No way a Prius could have come close to this kind of impact in my life. No way could have even bought one. When trucks are cars and cars are bikes, how the hell will we get anything done?
AutoEnthusiest| 12.14.11 @ 12:15AM
I'll step out and say up front that CAFE is full size truck load of crap.
With that said, I would like to point out that whatever CAFE standard is required, NOT EVERY vehicle in a manufacturers lineup will be required to meet the standard. A company will have to sell MUCH more fuel efficient vehicles to offset the sales of the fuel inefficient vehicles to reach the standard.
Another point worth mentioning is that a 35 MPG CAFE standard does not mean 35 MPG on the window sticker of a new vehicle. The method to reach the TWO fuel economy figures are very different so in reality, that 35 MPG equates to a figure more like in the upper 20s.
What I see happening is that new vehicles prices will skyrocket and we will all end up keeping our older vehicles that are less efficient...those "CAFE Queen" vehicles are going to be utterly pointless loitering on dealership lots. The government is trying to force which vehicles we buy but ultimately, the free market will demand or NOT demand certain things.
Gary| 12.14.11 @ 11:45AM
We will resemble Cuba and have old autos on the road if new ones suck because of the Luddites in Washington, which will probably suit O just fine. Liberals just Adore Castro and Cuba.
wukong| 12.14.11 @ 12:43AM
I have a 60 El Camino with a 409 and a 91 S-10 with a small block V-8. I could care less about CAFE.
The old dog may be smaller, but it still barks when it's master whistles.
Ken Royall| 12.14.11 @ 1:54AM
I wouldn't be so sure the libs won't get around to banning your vehicle too.
Ken Royall| 12.14.11 @ 1:53AM
The libs want to kill the suburbs and herd everyone into urban areas where they can be controlled. This is the bottom line of many of their policies.
Increasing CAFE standards will make new cars unaffordable to most people, the libs will be pushing transit as the solution. Of course we all know who controls the areas that have transit. The morons in the UAW are actively supporting their eventual destruction and don't even realize it.
Ivan Ivanovich| 12.14.11 @ 7:27AM
Does the Prius have a trailer hitch? And what about cars that run on Dihydrogen Monoxide?
John Navratil| 12.14.11 @ 8:47AM
Ivan Ivanovich,
Does the EPA still allow Dihydrogen Monoxide? I heard it can kill you, that it's a major component of acid rain, your body must excrete it to live and those portions of the Earth which are covered in the stuff are absolutely uninhabitable to humans. And you want to run cars on it? Have you no regard for your fellow man? You are the very reason we liberals have to regulate your behaviour. And you'd better be thankful!
Gary| 12.14.11 @ 11:41AM
I live in rural Arkansas where a truck is necessity, not a luxury. A trip to the nearest small town is six miles, to Fort Smith, 35 miles. What good is 40K Volt? It's insanity! We are being led by fools who have no concept how average people live, elitists, who want to control the most basic aspects of our daily lives in the name of climate control or the environment. These are urbanites who live sheltered lives, work for the government, the media, or academia and have no need for trucks. I really do despise them, I really do. A pox on them all.
Bob| 12.14.11 @ 1:20PM
It's not even a matter of needing a truck, but a matter of wanting a truck. All of this nonsense over CAFE is perpetuated by the lie of "global warming" and the myth that actually consuming naturally occurring resources is bad for the planet.
John Navratil| 12.14.11 @ 3:16PM
Bob,
Back in the 70's, just after the "coming ice age" hysteria, the CAFE was promulgated, if my memory serves me, to reduce dependency on foreign oil. In '75 (before CAFE) my Dad bought a brand new Olds '98 for almost nothing because everyone was voluntarily buying more fuel efficient cars. They didn't need to be told. Our gasoline consumption peaked in 2007 has dropped almost 10% since without any increase in CAFE standards.
I drive about 7000 miles per year in an older small truck that gets about 17 MPG. If gas goes up $1/gallon, it costs me $400. That's not nothin', but it won't make me buy a new car. Now, if I'm a road warrior putting 35,000 miles per year, I'm more interested. The effect of this nonsense is to eliminate the choice made by real people for their own circumstances. As you suggest, it all about control. The planners know best.
bruce108| 12.14.11 @ 2:59PM
Well, gee, after all, Barry Soetoro's entire scheme WAS to make the US into Cuba...
Bill Garber| 12.14.11 @ 8:25PM
Oh Eric,
We are going to love the new trucks. Keep in mind Ford, GM, and Fiat all signed on without resistance.
Like today, future trucks are largely going to be butt haulers. They'll look great and be hugely economical to operate, with special work-only upgrades for serious trucking that will not be part of the EPA tests.
Ford and GM and Fiat are not totally idiotic. They are going to sell trucks. Profitable trucks. Highly desirable trucks. And lots of trucks. And drivers are going to pay them more and the oil companies less … happily … taking a vacation on the total savings, maybe every year. Today’s trucks are already pushing fuel costs of 35 cents a mile, or $3,500 for a 10k mile year. Figure fuel savings of $2,000 per year, maybe $3,000 with higher fuel costs coming … it will be worth $5,000 more to save $3,000 annually over the life of the truck. Heck, $7,500 more will still be a bargain.
This standard levels the playing field for manufacturers and lets them step on the gas to quickly bring better technology to trucking.
City driving trucks will soon get higher mileage than road driving, with energy recovery systems that don’t need batteries … making them light as the proverbial feather, and great for stop and go with heavy loads.
We are absolutely going to love the trucks of the future is my predication.
Bill| 3.19.12 @ 2:08PM
We will love them. It's a good thing the government is stepping in to tell auto makers what people will love.
Bill| 3.19.12 @ 2:08PM
We will love them. It's a good thing the government is stepping in to tell auto makers what people will love.
AutoEnthusiest| 12.15.11 @ 3:25AM
To say that we will end up like Cuba is a bit over-dramatic. One thing is certain and that is that the current crop of vehicles available from just about every manufacturer are better than any previous time in automotive history. When you have clean diesels in Heavy Duty trucks making around 800 ft.lbs of torque, Pony Cars making over 400 HP and achieving well over 20 MPG on the highway, you simply cannot complain. That is not mentioning the crazy amounts of safety and technology built into the vehicles.
AutoEnthusiest| 12.15.11 @ 3:29AM
I forgot to mention how the Ranger really wasn't a victim of CAFE...think about it. Whoever can figure it out, I will give a lovely round of applause to.
Rational Human| 12.15.11 @ 7:35AM
Look, I know there are craftsmen who need trucks. I even know a plumber who rides around my area with bathtubs and water heaters on the bed. So I can understand why they would be upset about CAFE. On the other hand, I live near a large city. There are a HUGE number of "wanna-be's" who ride around in pickups which have NEVER seen a load of anything in the bed. What real workingman puts a glossy toneau cover over the bed? It's obvious that these vehicles are expressions of arrested development, not vehicles purchased for genuine utility. It wouldn't be so bad if there were only a few such examples of personal "expression". But around these parts - a big East Coast city - I see lots of people tooling about in showpiece large trucks and SUVs, even F-350s. Yes F-350s! Let me tell you - these are NOT workingmen! These are frustrated desk jockeys with more disposable cash than brains. These are the people who have no other way of differentiating themselves except by driving around in vehicles that are ridiculous, in that they have no need for them except a perverted psychological fetish. I'm not talking about Joe the electrician or Jim the plumber. They drive around in obviously very used pickups or vans, certainly not showpieces.
Finally - and this is for all the indignant free spirits on this blog - please remember that gas prices are in fact subsidized by the government. What do you think all the troops (and wars) are for in the Middle East? That gasoline you feel you can so rightfully burn comes at the cost of the lives and arms and legs (and genitalia) of our troops. And the cost of supporting these troops is HUGE. Billions if not trillions! So let me paint the picture for you: Soon the government will no longer be subsidizing gas prices (the wars and our excessive military will end.) And, oh yes, the rest of the world will also want that oil we now get, particularly China and India. When that happens, the cost of gas will go up, a lot. CAFE is just preparation for that eventuality. The time will come when you will just be happy to be mobile, and you will be less concerned about the status of your "ride". So please stow the indignation that the lifestyle you have chosen is no longer in the cards. Life can be a real b*tch, huh? Get used to it hombres.
RJ| 12.15.11 @ 12:18PM
@rational human, arrested development or not, if those in cities choose to drive the large truck, pay the prices for gas or diesel, insurance, parking etc it is their freedom of choice, Their money pays why the fark should anyone else care what they drive, the whole oil shortage, green global warming bullsnot agenda is a false crisis that is being foisted on those who want to be lead around by the nose and have their decisions made for them and accept no responsibility for their own well being.
Yea it may be gonna get bad, those of us out here in real life in America are prepared to survive no matter what the idiots who are causing the disaster. Ask yourself, could you feed yourself if the grocery store shelves are bare? Have you ever started a fire for warmth without a gas lighter or matches, would you stand up for yourself when some maggot is stealing your last food item, or trying to rape your wife?
Cafe standards are just another power grab.
ChuckL| 12.15.11 @ 3:44PM
The most disturbing thing about this is that the Constitution makes NO PROVISION for the federal government to make these regulations. They are in the things that have been reserved to the states and/or the people because they are not granted to the federal government by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.