VWVortex.com - Trump abandons plan to freeze fuel efficiency standards of cars
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 139

    Thread: Trump abandons plan to freeze fuel efficiency standards of cars

    1. 11-01-2019 09:53 AM #1
      Trump abandons plan to freeze fuel efficiency standards of cars


      Trump abandons plan to freeze fuel efficiency standards of cars

      It’s a bad look for General Motors, Toyota and Fiat Chrysler

      The White House appears to be abandoning its plan to freeze the fuel efficiency standards of cars at 2020 levels, reversing a cornerstone policy of Trump’s campaign, reports The Wall Street Journal. The administration is now considering a 1.5 percent annual increase instead.

      The move could leave General Motors, Toyota and Fiat Chrysler in a lurch. The companies sided with the president in a legal battle over whether California could set its own fuel economy standards. From the outside, it seemed they capitulated to his demands, rather than the overwhelming evidence that vehicle emissions need to be cut in order to protect against climate change. Now, they may have squandered a lot of goodwill and damaged their reputations without getting what Trump promised.

      Under Obama, car companies were going to have to nearly double the efficiency of their vehicles, to an average of 54 miles per gallon, by the year 2025. They argued this would make cars too expensive, prompting Trump to propose a new plan that would freeze fuel efficiency standards at an average 37 miles per gallon, just above where they are today.

      California decided to go ahead and commit to those Obama-era goals — a decision that angered the president. He tweeted that Henry Ford was likely “rolling over” in his grave at “the weakness of current car company executives.”

      California lawmakers struck a deal with Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, and BMW to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles and reduce emissions by about 3.7 percent, through the year 2026. Together, those four companies make up about 30 percent of the global car market, which meant that California’s pact was enough to put Trump’s plan at risk.

      “Since other states follow California’s lead on air regulation, the deal has the potential to split the market if the Trump administration enacts a federal rule with lower standards,” our transportation reporter Sean O’Kane explained in August.

      That’s more or less what seemed to be happening, until the White House reportedly started to walk back its decision. The new plan will likely involve a 1.5 percent increase in fuel efficiency every year, “using an industry measure that takes both gas mileage and emissions reductions into account,” according to The Wall Street Journal. If it moves forward, the administration could face legal challenges from California and other states who still want to see stricter standards.

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. Senior Member AZGolf's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 6th, 2000
      Location
      Phoenix area
      Posts
      34,498
      11-01-2019 10:10 AM #2
      I'm all in favor of increased fuel economy standards. I mention CAFE even in threads which are only marginally related to fuel economy because I love the effectiveness of the CAFE law. I'd be happy to see some great discussion about the future, how CAFE lets us balance EVs with Hellcats, and the excitement of hybridization being a potential tool to fight turbo lag and more and more cars go turbo with downsized engines.

      EDIT: Nevermind then - apparently the replies ahead of mine were deleted. Nice!
      Last edited by AZGolf; 11-01-2019 at 03:48 PM.

    4. Member ice4life's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 5th, 2017
      Location
      Mile High City
      Posts
      6,380
      Vehicles
      E350 Wagon, Arteon
      11-01-2019 10:31 AM #3
      This is irresponsible reporting. Toyota clearly came out and said that their stance had nothing to do with the actual standard that was set, but rather that they didn't feel California had the right to set different standards than the non CA standard states, regardless of what the standards ended up being.

      It's just so deceptive the way people can't actually understand what these auto makers' stances are. And I can't imagine toyota cares about this recent headline considering they already came out and said it is not related to the set standard itself.

      Don't be uneducated. Don't read shoddy sources like the verge.
      Last edited by ice4life; 11-02-2019 at 09:50 AM.

    5. Member QUIRKiT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 19th, 2006
      Location
      Dallas, TX
      Posts
      1,806
      Vehicles
      Olga-vagon & Harriet
      11-01-2019 10:41 AM #4
      Quote Originally Posted by AZGolf View Post
      I'm all in favor of increased fuel economy standards. I mention CAFE even in threads which are only marginally related to fuel economy because I love the effectiveness of the CAFE law. I'd be happy to see some great discussion about the future, how CAFE lets us balance EVs with Hellcats, and the excitement of hybridization being a potential tool to fight turbo lag and more and more cars go turbo with downsized engines.

      But then I see the name-calling literally began with the very first reply on this thread, ensuring that this thread is an unproductive dumpster fire instead. OK.
      Agreed. Although I wouldn't expect any less from CTK.
      Quote Originally Posted by Capt.Dreadz View Post
      This place is going to hell on a Thule roof rack.

    6. Member Unilateral Phase Detractor's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 23rd, 2005
      Location
      Columbus, Ohio
      Posts
      13,789
      Vehicles
      2016 Mazda CX-5  2013 Ford Focus Electric
      11-01-2019 10:45 AM #5
      Quote Originally Posted by ice4life View Post
      This is irresponsible reporting. Toyota clearly came out and said that their stance had nothing to do with the actual standard that was set, but rather that they didn't feel California had the right to set different standards than the non CA standard states, regardless of what the standards ended up being.

      It's just so deceptive the way people can't actually understand what these auto makers' stances are. And I can't imagine toyota cares about this recent headline considering they already came out and said it is not related to the set standard itself.

      Don't be uneducated. Don't read shoddy sources like the verge.
      Agreed. I've seen people on all parts of the political spectrum mindlessly repeat what was said because "it seems plausible". The truth has not generally been on this administration's side, but you still have a responsibility as a citizen to check the facts for each topic rather than believing that the other side is always wrong.

    7. Member ice4life's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 5th, 2017
      Location
      Mile High City
      Posts
      6,380
      Vehicles
      E350 Wagon, Arteon
      11-01-2019 10:48 AM #6
      Quote Originally Posted by Unilateral Phase Detractor View Post
      Agreed. I've seen people on all parts of the political spectrum mindlessly repeat what was said because "it seems plausible". The truth has not generally been on this administration's side, but you still have a responsibility as a citizen to check the facts for each topic rather than believing that the other side is always wrong.
      Well said.

    8. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      6,545
      Vehicles
      '16 TLX SH-AWD- NA is BEST
      11-01-2019 11:04 AM #7
      Quote Originally Posted by AZGolf View Post
      I'm all in favor of increased fuel economy standards. I mention CAFE even in threads which are only marginally related to fuel economy because I love the effectiveness of the CAFE law. I'd be happy to see some great discussion about the future, how CAFE lets us balance EVs with Hellcats, and the excitement of hybridization being a potential tool to fight turbo lag and more and more cars go turbo with downsized engines.

      But then I see the name-calling literally began with the very first reply on this thread, ensuring that this thread is an unproductive dumpster fire instead. OK.
      I didn't call anyone names

      I think CAFE is a good topic to discuss. No need to wait for a thread about Trump to do it

    9. Member Karl_1340's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 1st, 2017
      Location
      Ottawa
      Posts
      1,024
      Vehicles
      2018 ATS 2.0T 6 speed manual, 2014 RDX, 1989 VW Cabriolet
      11-01-2019 11:08 AM #8
      In my opinion CAFE is responsible for not only the clean air we breathe, but also the performance levels of todays cars.
      If it weren't for the gas crisis, and CAFE regulations, we would not have hybrid performance cars coming, direct injected small displacement turbos cranking out V8 power while getting 40mpg.

      But, I think stricter CAFE regulations are not what is needed right now.
      I think the president and all world leaders need to put pressure on countries like China and India to clean up their air.

    10. Member Hajduk's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 24th, 2000
      Location
      Ottawa CDN
      Posts
      17,728
      Vehicles
      Golf GTI 7
      11-01-2019 11:12 AM #9
      Quote Originally Posted by Karl_1340 View Post
      I think the president and all world leaders need to put pressure on countries like China and India to clean up their air.
      China is already doing this with their NEV policy.

      India is relatively poor. Why should rich countries like the US tell them what to do?

    11. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 9th, 2014
      Location
      Corning, NY
      Posts
      3,031
      Vehicles
      2020 Toyota 86
      11-01-2019 11:22 AM #10
      I'm not familiar with the details, but isn't CAFE the reason everything is turning into a truck? Making vehicles bigger/taller reduces their requirements, because murica?

    12. Senior Member Sporin's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 17th, 1999
      Location
      Vermont, USA
      Posts
      34,044
      Vehicles
      '94 Miata - '16 RAV4 - '10 Prius
      11-01-2019 11:27 AM #11
      Quote Originally Posted by ice4life View Post
      This is irresponsible reporting. Toyota clearly came out and said that their stance had nothing to do with the actual standard that was set, but rather that they didn't feel California had the right to set different standards than the non CA standard states, regardless of what the standards ended up being.

      It's just so deceptive the way people can't actually understand what these auto makers' stances are. And I can't imagine toyota cares about this recent headline considering they already came out and said it is not related to the set standard itself.

      Don't be uneducated. Don't read shoddy sources like the verge.
      Meh, I don't think the average person even knows that General Motors, Toyota and Fiat Chrysler made a "deal." And if they do, I doubt they understand what the "deal" was. Anyone with a reasonable thought process could see that those manufacturers were basically just doing what they had to do not to get on the trumptrain **** list. I doubt that one single dollar was spent differently by any of those manufacturers after that deal was made.

    13. 11-01-2019 11:58 AM #12
      Fake news!

    14. Member ice4life's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 5th, 2017
      Location
      Mile High City
      Posts
      6,380
      Vehicles
      E350 Wagon, Arteon
      11-01-2019 12:23 PM #13
      Quote Originally Posted by MonsterM View Post
      Fake news!
      Well yeah, it's the verge. That's why the OP didn't even put the source. It's nonsense for the uneducated partisan masses.

    15. Member 88c900t's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 6th, 2014
      Location
      "typical wisconsin rust"
      Posts
      9,280
      Vehicles
      Skyline GTS-T type M, 19 GLI S, Mazdaspeed Miata,
      11-01-2019 12:54 PM #14
      I've said it before but this was a pointless plan, as the costs associated with CAFE compliance are already baked in, because development is a very long process. Most of us are familiar enough with the industry to understand this. Virtually all politicians are naive and uninformed on the automotive industry, just look at Schumer's plan.


      That said why should California, who doesn't understand how to manage a forest and can't even keep the power on dictate the entire country's policy? People say it's so wonderful "muh 6th largest economuh" and yet people are fleeing the state in droves to Arizona, Texas etc..

      Quote Originally Posted by troyguitar View Post
      I'm not familiar with the details, but isn't CAFE the reason everything is turning into a truck? Making vehicles bigger/taller reduces their requirements, because murica?
      more or less.

      Quote Originally Posted by QUIRKiT View Post
      Agreed. Although I wouldn't expect any less from CTK.
      CTK deleted his post. I guess he "cucked" out...
      I gave up dailing old and rare cars and became a normie.
      Quote Originally Posted by Burnette View Post
      Gear Patrol, which has as much cred as Paw Patrol
      Quote Originally Posted by l88m22vette View Post
      88c900t wins again, you really ****ing crush it at listing a ton of cheap options
      Quote Originally Posted by volvohutter View Post
      You'll always get a pass due to your history of owning classy and sophisticated automobiles

    16. Member ice4life's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 5th, 2017
      Location
      Mile High City
      Posts
      6,380
      Vehicles
      E350 Wagon, Arteon
      11-01-2019 12:57 PM #15
      Quote Originally Posted by 88c900t View Post
      That said why should California, who doesn't understand how to manage a forest and can't even keep the power on dictate the entire country's policy? People say it's so wonderful "muh 6th largest economuh" and yet people are fleeing the state in droves to Arizona, Texas etc..
      ding ding ding ding ding. There is the underlying issue which you have illuminated for the people not able to see it for themselves. Just because you are overly progressive, doesn't mean you can't also be naively ass backwards. They are not mutually exclusive.

    17. Member Hajduk's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 24th, 2000
      Location
      Ottawa CDN
      Posts
      17,728
      Vehicles
      Golf GTI 7
      11-01-2019 01:14 PM #16
      Quote Originally Posted by 88c900t View Post


      That said why should California, who doesn't understand how to manage a forest and can't even keep the power on dictate the entire country's policy? People say it's so wonderful "muh 6th largest economuh" and yet people are fleeing the state in droves to Arizona, Texas etc..
      But it's not just California's policy. They didn't just make this up out of the blue.

      These standards were previously agreed to by all parties. The only reason it's become an issue now is because Trump wanted to undue another Obama legislative agreement - and California called BS on that.

    18. Senior Member Sporin's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 17th, 1999
      Location
      Vermont, USA
      Posts
      34,044
      Vehicles
      '94 Miata - '16 RAV4 - '10 Prius
      11-01-2019 01:22 PM #17
      Quote Originally Posted by Hajduk View Post
      But it's not just California's policy. They didn't just make this up out of the blue.

      These standards were previously agreed to by all parties. The only reason it's become an issue now is because Trump wanted to undue another Obama legislative agreement - and California called BS on that.
      Agreed.

      It wasn't a thing until Trump made it a thing and now it's no longer a thing. As noted, these efficiency costs are baked in over decades of development. You can't flip a switch in Washington and suddenly cars are $3,000 cheaper a year later (the number the White House pulled out of thin air.)

      Seriously, it's not worth us here on TCL getting into another partisan fight about when it is now a complete non-issue. I say we hug it out and get back to your regularly scheduled Fridays.


    19. Geriatric Member @McMike's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 9th, 2002
      Location
      Northern part of the Virginia
      Posts
      37,155
      Vehicles
      German Vans, British cars, and a motorbike.
      11-01-2019 01:23 PM #18
      Quote Originally Posted by ice4life View Post
      Well yeah, it's the verge. That's why the OP didn't even put the source. It's nonsense for the uneducated partisan masses.
      Isn't this the source? How would we have known it was The Verge if it wasn't?

    20. Member ice4life's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 5th, 2017
      Location
      Mile High City
      Posts
      6,380
      Vehicles
      E350 Wagon, Arteon
      11-01-2019 01:24 PM #19
      Quote Originally Posted by Hajduk View Post
      But it's not just California's policy. They didn't just make this up out of the blue.

      These standards were previously agreed to by all parties. The only reason it's become an issue now is because Trump wanted to undue another Obama legislative agreement - and California called BS on that.

      CARB was the result of a merger of the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board. That same year, the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967 was enacted, giving California the ability to set its own more stringent air quality rules due to California's unique geography, weather and expanding number of people and vehicles.

      So, yeah they did make up CARB out of the blue- at the time as a necessity for their disgustingly dirty cities. Over the years, other states joined CA more for uniformity and simplicity rather than for principle as CA would have you believe. And as a result, the reasoning for the establishment of CARB has lost its way, and in the typical fashion, CA is trying to dictate the way everyone else should do things.

      For the third time, it is not about the actual standards, it is about the fact that CA thinks they can set what said standards are for the rest of us. If trump said that it should be increased by 5% let's say, and CA's stance was all along 3.7%, it would still be the same issue in reverse. They are just trying to spin it to seem like Trump and the non CA states are anti-progressive because they are causing people to get hung up on the standard, rather than the principle.

      CA is also in hot water for having made a cap-and-trade deal with Canada without congresses approval. They think they can do whatever they want, and unfortunately that is not how it works.

    21. Member robr2's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 5th, 2005
      Location
      Boston
      Posts
      8,837
      Vehicles
      2015 Passat "Limited Edition"
      11-01-2019 01:30 PM #20
      As others have said, although some companies agreed in principal with the reduction proposed, I doubt any of them said F it to the billions they already spent and stopped moving ahead.
      IMHO, they know that the current administration is an aberration and expect things to return to the stable business climate they prefer.

    22. Member ice4life's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 5th, 2017
      Location
      Mile High City
      Posts
      6,380
      Vehicles
      E350 Wagon, Arteon
      11-01-2019 01:31 PM #21
      Isn't this the source? How would we have known it was The Verge if it wasn't?
      I meant he did not put The Verge at the top of the quoted text, making it more like click-bait. When I quote an article on TCL, I always put the source at the top. It would be like me quoting you without including your name in the quote, which I will now proceed to do.

    23. Member Hajduk's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 24th, 2000
      Location
      Ottawa CDN
      Posts
      17,728
      Vehicles
      Golf GTI 7
      11-01-2019 01:33 PM #22
      Quote Originally Posted by ice4life View Post

      For the third time, it is not about the actual standards, it is about the fact that CA thinks they can set what said standards are for the rest of us. If trump said that it should be increased by 5% let's say, and CA's stance was all along 3.7%, it would still be the same issue in reverse. They are just trying to spin it to seem like Trump and the non CA states are anti-progressive because they are causing people to get hung up on the standard, rather than the principle.
      It's about the current administration not standing by what has been previously agreed to - for purely political reasons.

    24. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 31st, 2017
      Location
      Boston
      Posts
      178
      Vehicles
      2017 V60 Polestar
      11-01-2019 01:40 PM #23
      So, is the complaint that states should not have the authority to set their own standards? I thought we didn't want federal regulations and states should be able to regulate themselves, whether good or bad?

      Doesn't really matter how one state affects the other states, correct? Hasn't that been the entire argument?

      Down with regulations and embrace true unregulated capitalism!

    25. Member ice4life's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 5th, 2017
      Location
      Mile High City
      Posts
      6,380
      Vehicles
      E350 Wagon, Arteon
      11-01-2019 01:47 PM #24
      Quote Originally Posted by Hajduk View Post
      It's about the current administration not standing by what has been previously agreed to - for purely political reasons.
      No, no it's not. That's your partisan political side talking, which is ironic considering you have no steak in our politics.


      Quote Originally Posted by dhdd View Post
      So, is the complaint that states should not have the authority to set their own standards? I thought we didn't want federal regulations and states should be able to regulate themselves, whether good or bad?

      Doesn't really matter how one state affects the other states, correct? Hasn't that been the entire argument?

      Down with regulations and embrace true unregulated capitalism!
      It's not that simplistic. Particularly in the anti-trust argument. When states start following other states for simplicity reasons, it imbalances the concept of states' rights as ultimately the rest are forced to follow to remain competitive. CARB is growing like a cancer for the wrong reasons, and the government is stepping in to try to reel it in. The fact that the fuel economy standards might be frozen, or only slightly increased, is ancillary to the true issue at hand.

    26. Member The_Real_Stack's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 18th, 2016
      Location
      Arlington Heights, the center of the universe
      Posts
      3,215
      Vehicles
      AP1 and JLU
      11-01-2019 01:50 PM #25
      Quote Originally Posted by AZGolf View Post
      I love the effectiveness of the CAFE law. I'd be happy to see some great discussion about the future, how CAFE lets us balance EVs with Hellcats, and the excitement of hybridization being a potential tool to fight turbo lag and more and more cars go turbo with downsized engines.
      I think people who think CAFE is a good idea are, and I do not use this word lightly, retards.

      I think people who think highly of the move towards 2.0Ts, which are better on tests but the same or worse in the real world are, and I mean this sincerely with no additional hyperbole, helmet-wearing window-licking retards.
      Quote Originally Posted by Volkl View Post
      My wife wanted a SUV with a manual transmission. I suggested a Wrangler, she said no way, too masculine

    Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •  
    vwvortex.com is an independent Volkswagen enthusiast website owned and operated by VerticalScope Inc. Content on vwvortex.com is generated by its users. vwvortex.com is not in any way affiliated with Volkswagen AG.