CAFE for Dummies.

Discussion in 'Legislation' started by xcel, Oct 16, 2007.

  1. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi All:

    ___Here is what the insiders are saying (or are told to say) about future CAFÉ standards in the upcoming energy bill(s).

    Jason Vines – Chrysler Group Media – Oct. 16, 2007

    ___I have not phrased a response just yet but I am getting real tired of seeing this kind of BS diatribe inside of a media only outlet on an internal Auto manufacturer’s blog? WTF :angry:

    ___Good Luck

    ___Wayne
     
  2. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    You're not going to like this one then Wayne.;)

     
  3. SSixty

    SSixty Gas Miser

    This is why it takes sooo long to get things done in Congress.

    Opponents treat this like its the automatic-weapons ban for trucks, like they'll become illegal or extinct. Its not as if government workers are going to go knocking on doors demanding everyone give up their trucks. GM has already shown initiative that they are capable of producing hybrid suvs. They just needed the kick in the pants to get them motivated.

    What?? I'll bite on the fact that hybrids have a higher initial cost. That part they actually got right. But its not as if once the loan is paid off that the car's value becomes $0. I imagine hybrids also carry a fair premium on resale, anyone confirm this? Of course they do! And how many hypermilers can account that it doesn't really take all that much time for the premium to pay for itself in savings.

    As for the choice, utility, affordability and preserving jobs. Scare tactics. They want to win over as many people as they can by waiving an American flag and talking about patriotism. How patriotic is it for GM and the likes to produce FE cars for Europe and dinosaurs for the US? This is a wakeup call for all the car companies. Let the competition begin........... or resume?
     
  4. Chuck

    Chuck just the messenger

    This is sooo like many of the plots in the doctor shows from Dr Kildare to ER - patient told they need a lifestyle change and they scream and kick for a magic pill instead.
     
  5. ILAveo

    ILAveo Well-Known Member

    I smell a rat. Let me be specific.....

    The CATO article said: "In fact, a review of market data by Clemson University economist Molly Espey and Santosh Nair found that consumers actually overvalue fuel efficiency. That is, they pay more up front in higher car prices than the present value of the fuel savings over the lifetimes of the cars."

    When in fact the Espy and Nair's article abstract said:

    "The marginal value of increased automobile fuel economy is estimated using a hedonic model of 2001 model year automobiles sold in the United States. This value is then compared to the average expected lifetime fuel savings attributable to increased fuel economy. Results indicate that automobile buyers fully internalize fuel cost savings attributable to improved fuel economy at low discount rates, and may partially internalize other perceived benefits of improved fuel economy such as reduction in global warming or fossil fuel dependence." MOLLY ESPEY, SANTOSH NAIR (2005) AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY: WHAT IS IT WORTH? Contemporary Economic Policy 23 (3), 317–323.

    Decoding the abstract for people who didn't do graduate work in econ, this abstract says that after the authors crunched the numbers it looked like people paid extra to drive cars that didn't pollute so much in addition to the extra upfront amount that fuel economy paid them back at the pump.

    (BTW: I have difficulties accepting the authors' conclusions at face value for technical reasons that include difficulties in predicting future resale values of cars and future prices of gas. For example, their conclusions might be changed by data that would reflect recent gas price increases. Maybe hybrid owners just expected higher future fuel costs?)

    IMO Saying that hybrid drivers are willing to pay extra to be "green" seems to be very different from saying that they "overvalue" fuel efficiency.

    The Cato authors appear to have misrepresented the original authors' conclusion--you should always check Cato's citations-- they too often take honest work out of context.

    Of course if the gas tax were raised to cover gasoline's pollution and national security costs maybe the Cato authors' calculus about rational vehicle choice would be valid, but I don't think that was their point.
     
  6. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    Interesting, when I first read the Cato "overvalue" statement I figured it would trail back to some hybrid vs. non-hybrid reference of dubious worth. It appears from the abstract that people are willing to spend more for fuel economy, it's not clear (to me anyway) that they are getting their moneys worth, which is what Cato seems to be saying.

    IMO if there was no such thing as a hybrid, fuel efficient cars would not be considered expensive as hybrids have been characterized. In general the more expensive vehicles are less fuel efficient. How is paying less for a more fuel efficient vehicle overvaluing fuel efficiency?

    If I compare a I4 Tacoma to it's $1700 more expensive V6, the I4 costs less and saves fuel. I undervalue horsepower.
     
  7. ILAveo

    ILAveo Well-Known Member

    At the risk of beating a dead horse....

    When I read the article abstract I thought that the discussion of green benefits from fuel efficiency made it clear that the original authors were deliberately avoiding the conclusion that the Cato authors seemed to attribute to them. I would describe the Cato statements as a case of putting words in someone else's mouth. It doesn't seem entirely honest to me.

    The Cato authors' implication that the only value in greater fuel economy is the money saved at the pump allows me to draw additonal conclusions about their personal values.
     
  8. thetonka

    thetonka Well-Known Member

    I may get attacked for this, but I think that cars and trucks should be seperate, but not as they are today. I think SUVs should be included in the "cars" category. Actually it should be split more along the line of utility vehicle(trucks designed for use by contractors, delivery, landscaping, etc.) and transport(cars, SUVs, Vans, anything primarily used to carry people). Having said that I do not believe this split should be used to allow the utility vehicles to get away with being less efficient. I just think it would be easier to implement.

    Plus than it would be a much easier argument to increase both levels higher. Hear me out. If they are combined we will see some hyper mileage vehicles at the top, a lot of middle of the road vehicles and then some gas guzzlers at the bottom. Simple statistics. So should the people who buy the hyper mileage vehicles subsidize the gas guzzlers?

    So they split the vehicles more appropriately, give better definitions that can not be misinterpreted, and then raise both. Personally I think this would be a much more realistic solution and get much better results. But what do I know.
     
  9. Vooch

    Vooch Well-Known Member

    Aveo,

    From the abstract it appears that people value the 'extra cost of FE' correctly. The authors only suggest that people have a low discount rate for the future savings. They ascribe a positive NPV to the FE.


    Thanks for pointing out that CATO outright lied.
     
  10. joeshmuck

    joeshmuck New Member

    why not let people decide what they want. why not have a 500 hp gas motor and a hybrid that could putt around in the same vehicle??? whay do all hybrid engines have to be lame?
    why not a high performance vehicle that uses a hydrogen internal combustion engine and hybrid? technically it would get zero mpg... i dont know , maybe the world is just too stupid for that type of vehicle.
     
  11. Chuck

    Chuck just the messenger

    Maybe a proper introduction would be a better start instead of jumping into an arguement....after seeing how many people have gotten themselves into sub-prime mortages, I have the same lack of confidence of them being fiscally responsible when choosing fuel efficient vehicles.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2008
  12. mparrish

    mparrish Rosie the Riveter Redux

    Some people see things as they are and say why?, I dream of a "high performance vehicle that uses a hydrogen internal combustion engine and hybrid" that gets "zero mpg" that never was and say why not?
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2008

Share This Page