Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Automakers lining up to support US-EU trade pact

The Detroit News reports automakers are coming out in support of proposed free trade legislation between the US and the European Union. The Association of Global Automakers, representing major Asian manufacturers, says the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will promote economic growth, increase jobs and make US and EU companies more competitive on the global market. The legislation will also open the door for EU and US regulators to agree on one standard for emissions, crash protection, child restraints, fuel systems and tire pressure monitors. If that happens, automakers could save millions of dollars by being able to build and sell one car for both markets.

Jaguar-Land Rover North America also stands behind that move, but would also like to see the US completely eliminate its current 2.5 percent tax on imported cars. The company isn't alone. Ferrari has also spoken up in favor of eliminating the tariff, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, comprised of Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Volkswagen, Toyota and Daimler among others, also supports harmonizing regulations between both markets.

All told, the EU and the US make up 32 percent of global vehicle production and 35 percent of the total buyer market. The Detroit News reports the US exported some $8 billion in cars to Europe last year and another $5 billion in parts.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/05/23/a...eu-trade-pact/

gengar

This makes no sense. Automakers can already build and sell one car for multiple markets (by adhering to the most restrictive government standard). They choose not to because making multiple different models - each tailored to the minimum government standards of their respective markets - decreases cost and increases revenue. I could see some argument if there was some standard that conflicted directly with another standard, but they're talking about way too many different issues for this to be the case.

What makes these lobbyists think that a single bureaucratic standard could possibly rectify this problem?

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

a common standard makes sense to me. it would simplify logistics, even if car makers today can built multiple flavors for different market regs.

now what doesn't make sense to me is that the u.s. doesn't even have consistent standards within the u.s. especially with the insane gasoline regs.

RocketGuy3

iTrader: (1)

While this seems like it will be a good move, if Japan and Korea are not also included in the agreement, it seems to me on first glance like their automakers would get utterly screwed. But my suspicion is that if a US-EU auto pact became a reality, then Japan and Korea joining the mix would follow suit pretty quickly. Unless there is some secret, anti-East-Asia motivation behind this pact... Or there's something else I'm missing.

SteVTEC

That is the case, when it comes to emissions standards.

The US and EU have had very different approaches to emissions requirement philosophies such that you couldn't meet the standard for one without failing something in another. In the US we've never been able to get the highest spec super high compression 'lean burn' gasoline direct injection engines from Europe because the NOx emissions are too high. Typically we get watered down versions with a point lower compression and w/o the lean burn mode to comply with NOx requirements in the US. There's also difficulties when it comes to diesel soot emissions. Europe allows far more of it than the US does. None of the urea (AdBlue) catalyst treatment systems used on diesels in the US are required in Europe. US doesn't care so much about CO2 emissions, but Europe clamps down on that hard with a lot of taxes.

Sure, it might be possible for European automakers to offer dumbed down engines as a global standard that would meet both US and Euro emissions standards, but then they'll lose their competitive edge if their rivals don't and are able to offer more power and better fuel efficiency (at a higher cost to them) by offering tweaked engines for each market.

As far as crash and safety requirements, I think the US and EU do have different requirements here and there. For example, the recent thread about European automakers not being able to offer their advanced lighting systems here because of requirements in the US dating back to the 1960's requiring that vehicles have a low and high two-way switch for headlights, thus preventing modern adaptive lighting systems from being used here. An EU automaker could offer the "dumbed down" system in Europe, but at a competitive disadvantage. Their rivals could rightly claim that they're offering 'dumbed down' cars for America.

So yes, I think this would be a significant development and that a lot of good things might come out of it.

spwolf

from 1.7. 2013 and 1.1. 2014, NOx treatment is required in Europe.

As to crash it is different for sure to the point of different engineering needed... plus you need to pass tests in both EU and US, which is also costly.

Harbinger

The interesting part would be if the enhanced pact would apply retroactively, allowing imports of older EU vehicles into the US that haven't met the 25 y/o requirement yet?

gengar

But this was precisely my point: Manufacturers currently choose to make different models for different regions because there is an economic advantage to doing so.