Trump administration set to roll out lower fuel economy standards for cars, light trucks

[Sherminator98]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-gas-mileage-electric-vehicles-pollution-403742074c3f3140aaa1d10829daf35f

[akirby]

Quote

Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, said that the final rule “ignores the feasibility of clean technology and the millions of fuel-efficient cars already on the road.”

“Trump is tanking sensible mile per gallon standards at the worst possible time for consumers, who are getting hit with sky-high prices at the pump,” Becker said in a statement. “Consumers will pay the price for these reckless rollbacks while Trump’s Big Oil and Big Auto buddies reap the short-term profits.”

Katherine García, director of the Sierra Club’s Clean Transportation for All campaign, vowed the environmental group would fight the rule and said that the loosening of fuel standards would “make driving more expensive too.”

“Less fuel-efficient cars mean more gas burned, spending more at the pump, and dirtier air in our communities,” Garcia wrote in a statement.

When the 2024 standards went into effect, NHTSA estimated they would save 14 billion gallons of gasoline from being burned by 2050. The agency also said that while new fuel-efficient vehicles cost more up front, savings on gasoline over the lifetime of the car or truck would more than make up for that.

What the liberals continue to ignore is that the higher targets made cheap small cars untenable and pushed mfrs to bigger more expensive suvs and trucks.   Good intentions but completely out of touch with reality and common sense.  
 

No mfr is going backwards on fuel economy and we will see more smaller cheaper vehicles.

[blazerdude20]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

What the liberals continue to ignore is that the higher targets made cheap small cars untenable and pushed mfrs to bigger more expensive suvs and trucks.   Good intentions but completely out of touch with reality and common sense.  
 

No mfr is going backwards on fuel economy and we will see more smaller cheaper vehicles.

 

I doubt it. Fuel economy standards changing won't drive manufacturers to produce small, affordable cars. The economy at large very well may push it, because vehicles are expensive overall; But much of that has to do with the publics desire for more space and manufacturers pushing heavy premium trim mixture for larger margins. 

 

The reality is much of the public wants a larger vehicle in the US market. When you can get a 2026 RAV4 with 47 MPG for $32k, a sedan is a tough sell when its going to be $25k+ for C sized cars. The increased MPG is minimal from a operational cost standpoint, but the ride and utility take a massive hit... There will absolutely be people who want the cheapest new car, but as we have seen, that is not a customer most manufacturers really want to pursue.  I think you'll see a couple "new" entrants into the market but will they survive long term with cost and economy of scale questions. 

 

I see long term the smaller, cheaper end of the market being EVs. 200 mile range. Whereas the nicer, larger vehicles are a hybrid. Just my prediction. 

[akirby]

I'm not talking about fiestas - I'm talking about a focus hatchback.  There is still a sizeable market for companies with low costs that can make money at lower prices.  Widespread low cost EV adoption is still years if not decades away.

 

Under CAFE the mfrs could not afford to even try to make small cars because the CAFE targets were so much higher than larger vehicles. This simply makes them feasible again and at least a few mfrs will take advantage.

[bzcat]

The small cars were killed off because of footprint rule which was designed to allow car companies to keep selling bigger and less fuel efficient vehicles.

 

You can fix CAFE by modifying the footprint rule to only apply to certain size and above vehicle. A wholesale rollback of CAFE target makes no sense and doesn't increase the incentive to sell small cars. It's like fixing a plumbing leak in your basement by demolishing the second floor. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

The small cars were killed off because of footprint rule which was designed to allow car companies to keep selling bigger and less fuel efficient vehicles.

 

You can fix CAFE by modifying the footprint rule to only apply to certain size and above vehicle. A wholesale rollback of CAFE target makes no sense and doesn't increase the incentive to sell small cars. It's like fixing a plumbing leak in your basement by demolishing the second floor. 

So why were consumers buying small cars in 2015 when CAFE was close to 36%?  This doesn't incentivize buying small cars it stops penalizing mfrs from building them.  Low costs and higher mpg is plenty of incentive for customers.

[Zestyg]

9 hours ago, akirby said:

What the liberals continue to ignore is that the higher targets made cheap small cars untenable and pushed mfrs to bigger more expensive suvs and trucks.   Good intentions but completely out of touch with reality and common sense.  
 

No mfr is going backwards on fuel economy and we will see more smaller cheaper vehicles.

CAFE isn’t why vehicles are more expensive, although it certainly has a lot to do with why they are larger due to the footprint rule. Increased safety standards and required features like backup cameras are much more at fault for why it is just simply challenging to make something like the Ford Focus profitably without totally spartan interiors. Size on the other hand isn’t very expensive to do especially since you have to do it anyway for safety. 
 

CAFE’s didn’t kill cheaper cars, it just didn’t prevent it. If smaller size was feasible with safety tech and was cheaper, we would see movement towards that. Instead, we see Ford do stuff like the 100A Explorer and base trim Maverick hybrid. 
 

 

Hard to fit this thought coherently into my post, but you should consider how in Europe despite no CAFE and smaller car sizes, they are relatively more expensive. Using French prices because I can’t read the other websites, a Toyota Corolla is $34,350 MSRP in France starting and is around $26,800 MSRP in the US for the equivalent SE model (sans hybrid). If Toyota is just more expensive over there, the cheaper Renault Clio still clocks in at ~$28k. A ST-Line Escape Hybrid costs $37,860 MSRP in France and $35k MSRP in the US, the French price would get you a Platinum hybrid in America. This is how much you have to charge for these cars to be profitable, and the American market just isn’t willing to go for a Ford Focus hatchback at like $28k. They would absolutely go for a Maverick at that price though.

Edited September 28 by Zestyg

[akirby]

45 minutes ago, Zestyg said:

CAFE’s didn’t kill cheaper cars, it just didn’t prevent it. If smaller size was feasible with safety tech and was cheaper, we would see movement towards that. Instead, we see Ford do stuff like the 100A Explorer and base trim Maverick hybrid. 

How do you build an affordable Fiesta sized vehicle that gets 56 mpg?   Or a Focus that gets 50 mpg?  Even with hybrid powertrains that's hard to do and expensive.

But hitting 35-40 mpg is doable.  That's the change.

[blazerdude20]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

How do you build an affordable Fiesta sized vehicle that gets 56 mpg?   Or a Focus that gets 50 mpg?  Even with hybrid powertrains that's hard to do and expensive.

But hitting 35-40 mpg is doable.  That's the change.

They may be cheaper but will they be cheap enough to really drive sales, profitable sales at that. You want to make cheaper cars, then you’re likely going to need lower safety standards at that size. Even then it may take the Chinese makers entering the market to actually get cars under $20k again. 
 

I am curious if Ford will have a “cheap”sedan or hatch available in under 24 months or if once again they are late to the party. The Japanese and Korean manufacturers have small cars still available and in other markets. Ford has mostly abandoned those segments. 

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

So why were consumers buying small cars in 2015 when CAFE was close to 36%?  This doesn't incentivize buying small cars it stops penalizing mfrs from building them.  Low costs and higher mpg is plenty of incentive for customers.

 

IIRC the 50 MPG target was using the CAFE standards from the 1970s, which on the actual sticker, would be anywhere from 20-25% lower in real world usage. I think that is the one fact that everyone gets their axle wrapped around. 

54 minutes ago, blazerdude20 said:

They may be cheaper but will they be cheap enough to really drive sales, profitable sales at that. You want to make cheaper cars, then you’re likely going to need lower safety standards at that size. Even then it may take the Chinese makers entering the market to actually get cars under $20k again. 
 

I am curious if Ford will have a “cheap”sedan or hatch available in under 24 months or if once again they are late to the party. The Japanese and Korean manufacturers have small cars still available and in other markets. Ford has mostly abandoned those segments. 

 

Here is the thing, it is just about impossible to make an affordable car that is profitable using that metric. The unfortunate fact is that EVERYTHING is more expensive, and to expect say a 2030 Focus type sedan to cost the same and be profitable as a 2005 Focus is insanity. 

 

I think the 30-40K market is the "affordable" market that auto makers can make a profit and offer products that appeal to people. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

IIRC the 50 MPG target was using the CAFE standards from the 1970s, which on the actual sticker, would be anywhere from 20-25% lower in real world usage. I think that is the one fact that everyone gets their axle wrapped around. 

 

Here is the thing, it is just about impossible to make an affordable car that is profitable using that metric. The unfortunate fact is that EVERYTHING is more expensive, and to expect say a 2030 Focus type sedan to cost the same and be profitable as a 2005 Focus is insanity. 

 

I think the 30-40K market is the "affordable" market that auto makers can make a profit and offer products that appeal to people. 

It is the unadjusted city and highway combined so 54 mpg cafe is closer to 37 mpg window sticker.  
 

But you guys are still missing the point.  Under the old footprint sliding scale a small car had a much higher target that was very difficult to obtain at a reasonable price.  A RAV4 target is way lower than a Fiesta and easier to meet.  But they realized that consumers need larger vehicles and trucks and they couldn't hold them to the same standard thus the footprint scale.  The unintended consequences is that once the target for small cars became too difficult to meet the mfrs just stopped making them.  Lowering the standards to 2015 levels makes it far easier to meet the standard and ALLOWS mfrs the OPTION to bring back vehicles that are smaller and cheaper than their current lineup.  Not $19k but definitely in the $20ks.  Wife's aunt just bought a Buick Envista suv for $26k.  

[DeluxeStang]

15 hours ago, akirby said:

What the liberals continue to ignore is that the higher targets made cheap small cars untenable and pushed mfrs to bigger more expensive suvs and trucks.   Good intentions but completely out of touch with reality and common sense.  
 

No mfr is going backwards on fuel economy and we will see more smaller cheaper vehicles.

Do you believe this means we'll see Ford return with car form factors extending beyond mustang? It seemed like even up until the end, the issue with Ford's cars wasn't sales volume as much as it was actual profit margins. The volume was still substantial with things like fusion even if it had declined over time. But it just wasn't profitable. 

 

Maybe with this new rally racing inspired direction Ford of Europe is getting, we could get some cool sedans or hatchbacks related to that ethos that are more feasible as these regulations get rolled back. 

[DeluxeStang]

 

5 hours ago, blazerdude20 said:

I am curious if Ford will have a “cheap”sedan or hatch available in under 24 months or if once again they are late to the party. The Japanese and Korean manufacturers have small cars still available and in other markets. Ford has mostly abandoned those segments. 

I think we'll see something in the US market around 2030ish, but it'll be based on UEV. Some time ago, Farley said he didn't want to let products like the civic or Kia cars dominate the middle of the market. But said instead of making a hybrid civic rival, he wanted to put that team on UEV instead. 

 

Which makes sense, UEV has a ton of potential, and it's more future proofed against these back and forth regulation changes.  Not to mention people who toured the UEV design studio said there were 5 or so designs under tarps, most trucks and utilities, but 1 was clearly a hot hatch or sedan. There was also a rally racing escort in the design studio for inspiration. 

 

A rally racing inspired escort on UEV would get Ford back into the hatch space, but in a way that was more exciting and leaned into the passion product strat. My guess is we'll get fathom, a few additional utilities, and then a car form factor once those have been released.  

[akirby]

7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Do you believe this means we'll see Ford return with car form factors extending beyond mustang? It seemed like even up until the end, the issue with Ford's cars wasn't sales volume as much as it was actual profit margins. The volume was still substantial with things like fusion even if it had declined over time. But it just wasn't profitable. 

I don't expect a fiesta or focus sedan but I could see a slightly smaller suv or hatchback at some point.  It won't be a priority over other vehicles and a lot will depend on factory capacity.  I'm just saying it's an option now whereas before it was not.

 

6 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I think we'll see something in the US market around 2030ish, but it'll be based on UEV. Some time ago, Farley said he didn't want to let products like the civic or Kia cars dominate the middle of the market. But said instead of making a hybrid civic rival, he wanted to put that team on UEV instead. 

That was based on UEV bringing lower platform cost and the old CAFE rules.  It was the only fiscally viable option at that point.  With ICE getting cost reductions it opens the possibility of new ICE options in that space,

[rmc523]

My only thing about manufacturers jumping too far into this pool is that it's possible (or likely) that a future/next administration may bring the requirements right back, and with how long it takes to turn the ship in the auto industry, right as products get online, they'd be bringing the standards right back.

[akirby]

40 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

My only thing about manufacturers jumping too far into this pool is that it's possible (or likely) that a future/next administration may bring the requirements right back, and with how long it takes to turn the ship in the auto industry, right as products get online, they'd be bringing the standards right back.

It is possible but I don't think it's likely.  I think everyone understands the negative consequences of the higher targets and footprint tiering and have given up on pushing 100% EVs for the near future.  I also think the market will continue to reward hybrids and higher fuel economy and EVs without government intervention.

[Zestyg]

14 hours ago, akirby said:

How do you build an affordable Fiesta sized vehicle that gets 56 mpg?   Or a Focus that gets 50 mpg?  Even with hybrid powertrains that's hard to do and expensive.

But hitting 35-40 mpg is doable.  That's the change.

You don’t. that was designed to only be possible by having EV in your lineup. If you can’t do it, then you can just buy the credits off of someone who can. This is exactly how it played out mostly to Tesla‘s benefit. It’s hard to guess how Tesla would’ve acted if this policy regime wasn’t ended, because Elon is a psychotic idiot, but it would have incentivized Tesla to continue to actually make cars rather than all the other bullshit they’re doing. It would’ve been very profitable for them to make a $25,000 EV. At this point, they would be able to make it at an operating profit without credits, but credits would supercharge its margin. It probably would’ve sold extremely well. But the policy was ended, and Tesla turned that project into the stupid cybercab instead.

 

All things considered, if Ford and seemingly also Toyota are successful at copying Tesla’s engineering approach, we will end up in a similar place just a couple years behind schedule of the original policy and with less idiotic companies leading the American EV market. 

[rmc523]

24 minutes ago, akirby said:

It is possible but I don't think it's likely.  I think everyone understands the negative consequences of the higher targets and footprint tiering and have given up on pushing 100% EVs for the near future.  I also think the market will continue to reward hybrids and higher fuel economy and EVs without government intervention.

 

Meh, you're expecting government to act rationally lol.

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

I don't expect a fiesta or focus sedan but I could see a slightly smaller suv or hatchback at some point.  It won't be a priority over other vehicles and a lot will depend on factory capacity.  I'm just saying it's an option now whereas before it was not.

Maybe something a little larger than a focus? I've said for some time bringing back an enthusiast escort would perfectly align with Ford's passion product strategy. 

[Texasota]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Maybe something a little larger than a focus? I've said for some time bringing back an enthusiast escort would perfectly align with Ford's passion product strategy. 

Maybe that’s the Mustang CUV? I want to take a serious look at that for replacing my Escape. I’m hoping it will offer an efficient hybrid power train.

[Sherminator98]

22 minutes ago, Texasota said:

 I’m hoping it will offer an efficient hybrid power train.

 

Here lies the problem with hybrids-an Atkinson cycle style hybrid with an eCVT are generally the most fuel efficient hybrids, but that comes at the cost of performance-the hybrid system helps replace the HP lost to the Atkinson cycle. I was looking at what Toyota offers and hits 225HP, unless you go to the AWD PHEV, which I'm assuming has additional electric motors and weighs 500lbs more then the hybrid model. I'm also going to assume the eCVT is also more limited with torque input then a regular AT. 

 

If you go the route Ford does with powerboost hybrids, your not looking at a huge increase in MPGs when you compare to the most fuel efficient ICE options-not enough to offset the additional costs, at least in the F-150 line up (powerboost 3.5L vs what was the 2.7L Ecoboost) 

 

So with that said, I don't think the market would be really welcoming of a Mustang CUV with a Atkinson/eCVT style engine and the Powerboost would be more or less just a power adder like it is in the F-150. A 2.3L with the hybrid A10 transmission would make a nice replacement for the 2.7L V6 in a RWD product, but not sure how much MPG would increase, but I'd assume the power would be roughly the same as the outgoing 2.7L V6. I can get about 20 MPG around town with my Bronco with a 2.7L V6. 

Edited September 29 by Sherminator98

[akirby]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Maybe something a little larger than a focus? I've said for some time bringing back an enthusiast escort would perfectly align with Ford's passion product strategy. 

But I think that's the new maverick cuv - aka escape replacement.  That's why I said one size smaller.

Edited September 29 by akirby

[akirby]

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Meh, you're expecting government to act rationally lol.

It can happen once in a blue moon.... 😎

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Maybe that’s the Mustang CUV? I want to take a serious look at that for replacing my Escape. I’m hoping it will offer an efficient hybrid power train.

My guess is the mustang cuv is gonna be basically identical to the mach-e in size and design. But with ICE powertrains. Probably some EBS, maybe a 5.0 if they really wanna go for the performance angle. 

[DeluxeStang]

49 minutes ago, akirby said:

But I think that's the new maverick cuv - aka escape replacement.  That's why I said one size smaller.

I know, I'm saying you're thinking of utilities, I'm thinking of car form factors. A super small hatchback or something doesn't make much sense. But a focus sized batch or maybe slightly bigger could have a market if priced well.