How will 2024 CAFE standards impact your buying?

[JHZR2]

My Mazda 6 has a non-turbo 2.5L engine and I’m getting an average of slightly over 35mpg with a mix of rural and highway driving. Speed is only part of the answer. I‘m being punished indirectly by way of restricted future vehicle choices because someone wants to use their F350 as a daily driver. When half the vehicles on the road have V8 engines and aren’t legally classified as ‘cars’ then that’s not something that slowing down can fix.

Speed is even more of an issue with these monster vehicles with horrible aerodynamics.

The knobs you have to turn are speed and combustion efficiency.

The ideal is reasonably lower speed with maximum combustion efficiency.

Some engines are more efficient at higher loads. But the fallacy of this is that you don’t want more load in order to achieve higher combustion efficiency. You want max efficiency at lower load. To get this the lower lid has to be achieved with lower speed and a lower rated engine.

Probably 55 mph aerodynamic cars with 70hp or so engines would be about right. Maybe not fun, but for most people moving, about the best efficiency.

This is why the variable displacement, and hybridization (which is effectively electrical variable displacement), and turbocharging are the answers.

Actually, phev is the answer imo.

 

[edyvw]

This is what many don't get about the benevolent role of government. Run at a profit, deficit, or wash it's nice to have

-- a post office, for sending bills, merchandise, technical resources

-- a highway system

-- R&D that got us the internet

In America because people like moving around we get airline subsidies, train subsidies, and, you guessed it...

Government serves those purposes. As I said numerous times, Adam Smith argued that capitalism without strong involvement of government is impossible.
That is what taxes are for. You pay something you like, something you don’t.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Of course we subsidize it. You have direct and indirect subsidies.
We didn’t raise taxes on gasoline and diesel since 1993. We have to make it up from somewhere for infrastructure maintenance.
1/4 of our DoD budget is used for maintaining flow of oil. Land/leas subsidized etc.
Some if that is of course justified, in order to keep world economy going. Some is done so that Bob down the street can still drive his 3/4 tone pick up and feel secure about himself.

So not taxing gas enough is a subsidy? EV's aren't funding infrastructure either. States are free to tax gasoline as much as they like and many do. No one is handing the oil companies a check - ie no subsidy on the fuel.

On the leases - the oil companies pay the federal government a royalty on production. They take all the risk and completely fund development - so thats also factually incorrect. This is the same system used by other mineral development companies on public lands.

Our fighting in the sandbox - possibly true in the past - but we produce enough oil for our own uses now - or can buy it from friendly countries like Canada or Mexico. We don't need to be in the sandbox for any reasons of oil - and haven't in a long time. If we choose to stay that's on us.

None of these amount to subsidies by any definition, other than not liking oil companies.

Not saying your incorrect regarding people driving inefficient vehicles, but I don't see it amounting to a subsidy.

 

[bullwinkle]

My Mazda 6 has a non-turbo 2.5L engine and I’m getting an average of slightly over 35mpg with a mix of rural and highway driving. Speed is only part of the answer. I‘m being punished indirectly by way of restricted future vehicle choices because someone wants to use their F350 as a daily driver. When half the vehicles on the road have V8 engines and aren’t legally classified as ‘cars’ then that’s not something that slowing down can fix.

That’s the problem I have with this whole deal-people stopped using trucks as trucks & started using them as “big cars”. Therefore, I leave my trucks parked (except the company van which is overloaded with parts & tools) and drive the dinky Corolla & xB to save gas-but the greenies want to take my fuel efficient vehicles away too (eventually). Do they think they’re going to TELL the people who just bought an $80K CC 4X4 that they’re taking it away?? It’s not happening! And, IBTL!

 

[edyvw]

So not taxing gas enough is a subsidy? EV's aren't funding infrastructure either. States are free to tax gasoline as much as they like and many do. No one is handing the oil companies a check - ie no subsidy on the fuel.

On the leases - the oil companies pay the federal government a royalty on production. They take all the risk and completely fund development - so thats also factually incorrect. This is the same system used by other mineral development companies on public lands.

Our fighting in the sandbox - possibly true in the past - but we produce enough oil for our own uses now - or can buy it from friendly countries like Canada or Mexico. We don't need to be in the sandbox for any reasons of oil - and haven't in a long time. If we choose to stay that's on us.

None of these amount to subsidies by any definition, other than not liking oil companies.

Not saying your incorrect regarding people driving inefficient vehicles, but I don't see it amounting to a subsidy.

You don’t like to hear this. Subsidies are not checks (though GM &Co have experience in that).
States can and do set taxes. But we have federal interstate system. You do have to make up money somewhere. Hence, regional governments struggling to keep up with crumbling roads and still having third world (though a lot of third world has better hwy’s) interstate system.
You really don’t need subsidies for EV ir CAFE. Raise federal gas tax to catch up with inflation, nothing else, and people will be flocking to EV’s like crazy. But, people like stuff being given to that, ESPECIALLY those screaming “low taxes.”

Maintaining post WWII world order doesn’t depend on “we make so much oil.” When you are (and you want to be) a superpower, there is much more into it than just defending your borders. Oil companies are biggest profiteers of that system. And that is fine. But, this garbage hypocrisy about regulation, CAFE, EV’s, is usually coming from states and people who are direct beneficiaries of some other subsidies or federal funding.

 

[CleanSump]

Watch out for those lady boys unless you're into that sort of thing. Lol

My wife will protect me.
Some of them are rather pretty.
How do you know I don't like it?
Lets not get the woke awoke.

 

[E365]

I'm praying this nonsense is gone in 2024! I'll refrain from a rant.

Not gonna happen. Ford was prepping investors for EVs at least as far back as 2017. GM was already announcing battery factories in 2019. This stuff was already in motion years before this week’s announcement or the CA 2035 law.

GM and Ford are $10s of Billions into EV development and factories already. No going back now…

EVs will ultimately be more profitable

Source: Autoline on YouTube.

 

[SC Maintenance]

You don’t like to hear this. Subsidies are not checks

So your saying having a functional government means everything is subsidized?

But we have federal interstate system

The Interstates were built by the federal government, but they are now owned by the states. Both the states and feds fund their upkeep, and last I checked, the primary source of money for the federal government were taxes (of all types) and royalties - from things like oil leases. If your state lets them fail, thats on them as well. Our interstates are fairly well maintained, and we have the second lowest gas tax in the country.

Hence, regional governments struggling to keep up with crumbling roads and still having third world (though a lot of third world has better hwy’s) interstate system.
You really don’t need subsidies for EV ir CAFE. Raise federal gas tax to catch up with inflation, nothing else, and people will be flocking to EV’s like crazy

So people driving EV's not only get a direct income tax credit but they also don't need to pay taxes for the road upkeep either? Your logic is flawed. The guy driving a F350 is already paying 4X the gas tax of someone driving a civic - but they still take up approximately 1 space on the road. So if anything, the F350 guy is paying more than their fair share or road repair.

is usually coming from states and people who are direct beneficiaries of some other subsidies or federal funding.

I live in SC, and its often sighted as a state that receives a lot of federal funding - so I delved into it. Guess what - 73% of that funding is social security and Medicare - because people like to retire here. Last I checked, those people paid into that system, and if they federal government hadn't mismanaged and raided both so many times, it wouldn't need to be counted as transfer payments. It really shouldn't be counted - those people can choose to live wherever - so they choose here.

After those, the next biggest line item transfer is Military, and the Savannah River clean up (a military nuclear site).

So where is all my subsidies coming from again?

 

[edyvw]

So your saying having a functional government means everything is subsidized?


The Interstates were built by the federal government, but they are now owned by the states. Both the states and feds fund their upkeep, and last I checked, the primary source of money for the federal government were taxes (of all types) and royalties - from things like oil leases. If your state lets them fail, thats on them as well. Our interstates are fairly well maintained, and we have the second lowest gas tax in the country.


So people driving EV's not only get a direct income tax credit but they also don't need to pay taxes for the road upkeep either? Your logic is flawed. The guy driving a F350 is already paying 4X the gas tax of someone driving a civic - but they still take up approximately 1 space on the road. So if anything, the F350 guy is paying more than their fair share or road repair.


I live in SC, and its often sighted as a state that receives a lot of federal funding - so I delved into it. Guess what - 73% of that funding is social security and Medicare - because people like to retire here. Last I checked, those people paid into that system, and if they federal government hadn't mismanaged and raided both so many times, it wouldn't need to be counted as transfer payments. It really shouldn't be counted - those people can choose to live wherever - so they choose here.

After those, the next biggest line item transfer is Military, and the Savannah River clean up (a military nuclear site).

So where is all my subsidies coming from again?

Please, you argue about functional government but at the same time you rant about subsidies. EV’s need push. Of course, AGAIN, if gas tax fallowed inflation at federal and state level, EV’s would not need subsidies and CAFE would probably not be necessary. GM got direct check from government, Ford got huge sweet deals in other business dealings, and Chrysler was saved by government as no one wanted that junk until government directly went after FIAT. You are writing on a platform that is direct product of subsidies. So, EV, solar need subsidies, same like farmers need too.
I am very well aware of conditions of roads in SC. Weather is primary reason why roads in SC are in good condition. SC is huge recipient of federal funding. The reason why military has so much spending is bcs. that when bases were closing politics favored SC. You guys are financed by other states. AR just lowered income taxes, which translates in more work for us in CO or people in CA. People do like to retire there, but that comes at huge expense to other services that generally in SC are lacking. That is what attracts retirees. No income or low income taxes etc. BUT, that comes at cost. You guys are basically subsidizing retirees. It is indirect subsidy! It comes at cost:healthcare, education etc.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Please, you argue about functional government but at the same time you rant about subsidies. EV’s need push. Of course, AGAIN, if gas tax fallowed inflation at federal and state level, EV’s would not need subsidies and CAFE would probably not be necessary. GM got direct check from government, Ford got huge sweet deals in other business dealings, and Chrysler was saved by government as no one wanted that junk until government directly went after FIAT. You are writing on a platform that is direct product of subsidies. So, EV, solar need subsidies, same like farmers need too.
I am very well aware of conditions of roads in SC. Weather is primary reason why roads in SC are in good condition. SC is huge recipient of federal funding. The reason why military has so much spending is bcs. that when bases were closing politics favored SC. You guys are financed by other states. AR just lowered income taxes, which translates in more work for us in CO or people in CA. People do like to retire there, but that comes at huge expense to other services that generally in SC are lacking. That is what attracts retirees. No income or low income taxes etc. BUT, that comes at cost. You guys are basically subsidizing retirees. It is indirect subsidy! It comes at cost:healthcare, education etc.

Point to where I ranted about subsidies? I asked where gasoline is subsidized, because I hear it over and over but no one can show me a subsidy. I still don't see how its subsidized beyond the "everything is subsidized", which I get your point, but its not really what is inferred when its mentioned relative to EV's. If Electrical power distribution wasn't subsidized there would be no EV's either - so its a circular argument. Your selectively choosing pieces of everything is subidized.

As for retirees coming here - its not for low taxes because our taxes are not low - 7% state income tax top line and kicks in at a low rate, 6.5% sales tax - I believe that is significantly higher than your state. Property tax isn't bad. But no - more tax money hasn't helped our schools. Roads are good though

I do agree with you however, I would be happy to send all the retirees back up North. Its getting too crowded.

 

[grisby]

O man, every time the word subsidy comes up in a post, the "broken record" folks chime in and it turns into an EV vs gas rant. Usually takes it off topic and the thread goes nowhere fast.

But good points on both sides in this thread so far!!

 

[demarpaint]

Not gonna happen. Ford was prepping investors for EVs at least as far back as 2017. GM was already announcing battery factories in 2019. This stuff was already in motion years before this week’s announcement or the CA 2035 law.

GM and Ford are $10s of Billions into EV development and factories already. No going back now…

EVs will ultimately be more profitable

View attachment 150669
Source: Autoline on YouTube.

I know that, the Administration is what I was referring to. The EV is here to stay, the nonsense is in how the transition is being made, and the time frame. I was trying to say it in the most diplomatic way possible. People who know me knew what I meant.

 

[OilUzer]

Is it %3 of the cars in U.S. are electric now? They make lots of noise for that %3.

They don't make any engine noise however, and have to pump it through the speakers! lol

 

[edyvw]

Point to where I ranted about subsidies? I asked where gasoline is subsidized, because I hear it over and over but no one can show me a subsidy. I still don't see how its subsidized beyond the "everything is subsidized", which I get your point, but its not really what is inferred when its mentioned relative to EV's. If Electrical power distribution wasn't subsidized there would be no EV's either - so its a circular argument. Your selectively choosing pieces of everything is subidized.

As for retirees coming here - its not for low taxes because our taxes are not low - 7% state income tax top line and kicks in at a low rate, 6.5% sales tax - I believe that is significantly higher than your state. Property tax isn't bad. But no - more tax money hasn't helped our schools. Roads are good though

I do agree with you however, I would be happy to send all the retirees back up North. Its getting too crowded.

In policy there is a thing called an indirect subsidy. If you need to see a check in order to understand it, then I really cannot help you.
Think about DoD budget. Pentagon asks for one sum; Congress says: nope, you will get MORE money. Why? Bcs. pet projects (which both of our states enjoy from). Bcs. why not fix the roof on the barracks again, etc. It is a socialized economy.
The same goes for the oil industry, various leeways, subsidies that indirectly help etc. It is good politics.
EV's are subsidies like everything else in infancy. If you do not like it, I highly doubt anyone will scratch their ear. A lot of people complained about horse carriages becoming obsolete. They are dead, and cars have become a thing.

SC, in general, is a much cheaper state, and without retirees, it would have even less money. CO has a more decentralized collection of taxes. The state collects much less, but local governments make up for it. So, on average, taxes in CO are actually higher. More money stays at the local level and regional govts. have more discretion in spending.

 

[Creekside]

HUH? Actually, if every home had a Fiat, there would be no need for EVs. It's only because Americans feel the need to drive 10-15 mpg gas guzzling trucks and SUVs that spew out tons of green house gases instead of 40 mpg Fiats, that the government wants to push EVs so much.

Can I borrow your Fiat to pull my bale trailer this summer in the hay fields? What about to go check cows at the other end of the farm in next winter’s snow? I’m sure with enough welding rod I can get a hopper bottom hooked to it to haul grain this summer too.

 

[CleanSump]

The question was; How will the new Cafe standard affect you plans, not what is your political postion on subsidies, the push for electric, etc etc etc.

It's politics now.

Train left the tracks, travelers took the wrong fork...................

 

[CKN]

Not gonna happen. Ford was prepping investors for EVs at least as far back as 2017. GM was already announcing battery factories in 2019. This stuff was already in motion years before this week’s announcement or the CA 2035 law.

GM and Ford are $10s of Billions into EV development and factories already. No going back now…

EVs will ultimately be more profitable

View attachment 150669
Source: Autoline on YouTube.

Yes-that's what the naysayers on here find hard to understand. There are BILLIONS going in to R&D and manufacturing. EVs are not a fad and ARE NOT GOING AWAY-regardless of how many negative EV topics get posted on this forum.

 

[Elkins45]

Yes-that's what the naysayers on here find hard to understand. There are BILLIONS going in to R&D and manufacturing. EVs are not a fad and ARE NOT GOING AWAY-regardless of how many negative EV topics get posted on this forum.

It would be nice if there were some policy consideration given to people who live outside major cities. There is a significant portion of the population who wouldn’t be able to maintain their livelihood with the current state of EV tech.

EVs and hybrids make sense for a lot of folks, maybe even a majority, but pretending they are a solution for everyone is just wrong. There needs to be some sort of rural exemption.

 

[fantastic]

I don’t want a hybrid. For the driving I do there’s no real benefit in fuel economy but a huge downside in complexity and maintenance costs. I also don’t want a turbo.

I’m not the person dumping all the CO2 into the atmosphere. Can’t the government please just leave me alone?

According to your signature you've presumably have 4 vehicles under one roof. I would imagine that is not exactly dumping all but it's a good chunk contribution so I wouldn't claim "It's not me".

Let me use this example: Your 4 vehicles put out more CO2 then my 1 Vehicle. So you are putting out more than I. You seem to claim "not me" but that isn't the whole story.

You claim "leave me alone" but no one is forcing you to buy a new vehicle Including the gov.

CAFE standards have been a part of automobile history since 1975. Did that stop you from buying the vehicles in your sig? This post is questionable. It screams "The gov is out to get me & I need to buy a new car now!".

What is appealing about this new Camry? Could it be that it has good MPG? Oh the irony LOL

 

[demarpaint]

According to your signature you've presumably have 4 vehicles under one roof. I would imagine that is not exactly dumping all but it's a good chunk contribution so I wouldn't claim "It's not me".

Let me use this example: Your 4 vehicles put out more CO2 then my 1 Vehicle. So you are putting out more than I. You seem to claim "not me" but that isn't the whole story.

You claim "leave me alone" but no one is forcing you to buy a new vehicle Including the gov.

I have no dog in this fight. I three vehicles under one roof, here's the rub. I can only drive one of them at a time. So if I owned three of the exact same vehicles as you have, we'd both be putting out the same CO2, assuming the use and conditions are the same. Vehicles sitting shut off aren't putting out any emissions. Now if I lend one of my vehicles to someone, I'd say if they weren't driving my vehicle they'd be driving someone else's vehicle. So the point would be moot.