mmarshall

The reason that domestic-designed/built vehicles were not competitive with imports in the 1980s was not because of gas mileage, but because of quality. We had a number of compact and sub-compact cars, like the Chevy/Geo Metro XFi (although that was actually a Suzuki product) that could stretch a gas dollar out to 50 or 60 MPG...as good or better in some cases, than the best of today's hybrids and diesels. There was also the domestically-built Plymouth Horizon Miser, Ford Escort, and Chevy Cavalier...which could also stretch one's gas dollar, though not quite to the same extent. But the problem with those domestic products was that, quality-wise, they were absolute trash (trust me...I lived through that era and knew those cars well). They would stumble and stall (before they got EFI in the late 80s), turn into rattle/squeak boxes almost overnight, leak their fluids out of gaskets and seals, shed trim parts like dog hair, shimmy/shake from poorly-made wheels and tires, be a PITA to own, and, in some extreme cases, even catch fire while idling (that happened to a friend of mine with her Ford Escort). The American auto industry screwed itself in the 1980s....MPG standards had little or nothing to do with it.

Aron9000

^ Keep in mind that Ford DID NOT go bankrupt.

Inept management(decades of inept management) and cultures extremely resistant to change are what led to the bankruptcies. The big 3 were never able to get their costs in line to where they could make competitive small cars and turn a profit on said small cars. With CAFE giving them a free pass to make big $$$$ on overpriced trucks and SUV's, yeah maybe the government created a regulatory environment for them to make an EASY buck on cars/trucks that had much fatter profit margins. Still I lay the blame on management and corporate culture, as other car makers flourished under the same regulations.

That being said, GM is so heavily invested in China, if they lose money in the US, it doesn't matter quite as much as it used to. In 2015 they sold 3.6 million cars in China, vs 3.0 million in the USA. 5 to 10 years from now, it wouldn't surprise me if they sold double the cars in China that they do in the USA. Hate on Rick Wagoner(GM's CEO from 2000-2008) for running the company aground, but the man did have some vision in China. It was under his watch that they laid the foundation for GM's success in China.

mmarshall

Wagoner, despite the bankruptcy, didn't do anywhere near the damage to GM in his reign that Roger Smith did 20 years earlier, in the 1980s. Roger Smith was a strict, Do-it-by-the-Book businessman that cared about absolutely nothing but the bottom line. Defective vehicles?.....So what. His orders were to simply turn 'em out, bad parts and all. Lawsuits and liabilities? Meh.....it's cheaper to pay them out than to start building better cars. Customer Loyalty, and if they get burned? Again, who cares?..........there's a s**ker born every minute. Lido Iacocca, over at Chrysler, wasn't quite as unscrupulous as Smith, but still did a lot of double-talking in TV commercials while basically turning out junk. And Hank the Deuce (Henry Ford II), over at Ford? He ran what was one of the greatest family fiefdoms of all time....even made (later) VW's Ferdinand Piech look honest LOL.

I'm not saying this, BTW, just to go off on a rant or tirade (enough people do that as it is)...but to illustrate that, even though the increasingly strict regulatory atmosphere of the 70s and 80s didn't help, at the time, the American auto industry brought most of its woes on itself.

swajames

Many factors contribute to fuel economy including vehicle weight, aerodynamic efficiency, tire technology and others. It's not just the size of the engine or number of cylinders.

Vehicle weight is a big contributor to efficiency or inefficiency. Increases in agility and responsiveness will tend to follow if you adhere to Colin Chapman's advice and "add lightness". One important facet of efforts to meet a demanding CAFE target would inevitably have been a renewed focus on lightweight but strong materials and advanced chassis design that helps to keep weight under control. It's not that hard to build a big, heavy vehicle and throw a big V8 upfront. It takes better engineering prowess and true focus to build a light car with a powerful but highly efficient engine. That's the kind of vehicle I'd like to see more of, and the aggressive CAFE targets would have inevitably have helped.

Regulation isn't always bad - in this case, it may well have resulted in some truly excellent light and efficient cars. Efficiency doesn't have to compromise performance, and I'd argue that we lose if we let the manufacturers off the hook here.

Hold their feet to the fire and demand light, efficient product.

Aron9000

I agree with what you say, that vehicles need to be lighter. However, with increasgly stringent crash standards(the big one being the rollover/roof crush standard which has resulted in huge a/b/c/d pillars), its hard to make new cars lighter. Especially 2 door cars with long doors, you can end up with some seriously goofy designs with huge blind spots(IE 5th and 6th gen Camaro)

Toys4RJill

This is a tough decision for Trump. While I generally agree with most of his ideas or concepts, I think it would be a tragic mistake to roll back the progress that Obama was striving for. Humans cannot keep destroying the planet. It would be interesting if Trump accelerated the use of more clean driving technology. If Trump rolls back the CAFE requirements, this will not mean the return of the V6 or V8s. Most of automakers have made the necessary changes to their model lines to comply with current and upcoming CAFE regulations. The EPA woman who wrote the Fortune article is right, the car manufacturers that comply or don't roll back their technology will have an advantage once fuel prices rise in price. Hopefully Trump does not change things. Bad decision.

situman

Honestly, I feel like the tariff or border tax is just a negotiation tactic so we'll see how that pans out. However, I feel like that's the current state of things where manufacturers have to find savings where they can.

situman

I feel like everything that Trump puts out, everyone, and I mean everyone tries to put a negative spin on things. As if there are no positives. 8 yrs ago the big manufacturers did go "bankrupt" in a sense and that's with a higher mpg standard. I believe even the federal govt knows that the 54mpg standard isnt achievable. It is their way of pushing the automakers to go alternative fuel like hydrogen or full electric. How will a 6000lb F150 ever going to achieve anywhere near it and it will be a problem for domestic automakers since pickup trucks are their bread and butter. Talk about bankrupting the big 3 when you take away their bread and butter!

tex2670

This was going to happen eventually, no matter who became president--whether this term, or another term prior to the effective date. I totally agree that 54 MPG is ridiculous, because that's the average. When the average beats highway MPG of just about every single car available now, it should tell you that figure it not realistically achievable.

I'm not sure I call it a feather in Trump's cap though. Sure--automakers will be appreciative. But this will be spun as more anti-environment policy.

tex2670

Sorry, but this is only 1/2 true. Geo Metro was late to the game--by the late 80s, American cars had already fallen behind. The Japanese cars were better in quality and fuel economy. Civic, Accord, Corolla, etc., etc., had small, efficient engines. In addition to the cars you list above, American makers rushed out cars like the Chevette, the Omni, the Fiesta, the Citation, to try and "compete". Those cars were crap, and were not as fuel efficient as Japanese rivals.

mmarshall

It was true in the context of which I was using it. I was not refering to any foreign-designed cars sold under the American nameplates. Back then, one could not consider them truly domestic products.


We also introduced, at the time, some super-economy sub-compacts of American origin. The Plymouth Horizon Miser was probably the best example....it had a special carburetion system, tall transmission gearing, and was stripped of a lot of accessories and weight.

I did not mention the Chevette because it was an Isuzu design, not American....we were talking about American designs. The Fiesta was Mazda/Kia-derived. Yes, the Citation was a piece of junk (I owned one). As for the Omni, I did mention its Plymouth Horizon Miser brother (and I owned a non-Miser version for a couple of years).

Sulu

The standards are defined as a fleet average. To meet the average, an automaker can have ALL of their passenger cars and light trucks (heavier-duty trucks are not included) meet the standard, or they can have a range of fuel economy figures, ranging from the very fuel-efficient small vehicles to less-efficient large vehicles, as long as it averages out to the standard.

As you stated, it is not possible for a heavy vehicle such as a Ford F-150 meet the standard, but as long as Ford is able to balance it out by selling a range of vehicles, from the large, heavy pickup truck down to the small, fuel-efficient Ford Fiesta, it should be fine.

The fleet average measurement means that it is more difficult to meet the standard when fuel prices are low, since when fuel prices are low, consumers are not encouraged to shop for more fuel-efficient vehicles, which skews the fleet average fuel economy down.

UDel

There was no "real" progress from the Obama administrations ridiculous fuel economy standard, in some ways it has made things worse. All it is doing is forcing automakers to change up the type of engine they put in cars, give buyers less choices at higher costs, force more pricey hybrids and expensive electrics on the market that are not selling, etc. Many automakers have resorted to tactics to game the EPA to get more favorable ratings and it still does not solve basic issues. What is worse is automakers are resorting to small displacement turbo 4's to try to get over the hump, for EPA cycles they can achieve better fuel economy but in real world driving they generally don't get any better fuel economy while often being less refined, less reliable, and in some cases using more oil then IC engines. Most hybrids have proven to be over rated in their fuel economy benefits while adding thousands to the price tag, electrics like Tesla's are turning out to have their problems too and are over rated in their range. The huge amounts of money being spent on hybrids and electrics takes away from IC vehicles too which is a lose for buyers.

From 2008-2016 CAFE ratings only went up less then 5 mpg. It went from 25.5 to 31.2 despite many more hybrids put into market and put on the road, electrics put into the market, DI put in most engines, more compact cars, multi gear transmissions, better oils, stop start systems being much more common, small disp. turbo 4 cylinders and 6 cylinders replacing NA engines, lighter cars, and automakers gaming the EPA with small disp turbo engines and hybrids being over rated compared to real world fuel economy. Not really much of a improvement despite those strict regulations. What more can automakers do, cars are already very fuel efficient these days, if people drove less, which I try to do, it would make the biggest difference. Making SUV's and Pickups have the exact some regulations, fuel standard requirements as cars would also help in making them smaller and more fuel efficient and maybe make them a little less popular instead of them being classified as "light trucks". There is simply no way to get to that 54.5 mandate so soon unless automakers only build and sell small Prius and Leaf like cars which the vast majority of buyers clearly don't want. With the reviews automakers likely played ball with the Obama administration because they expected them to be lowered after it was shown it was totally unrealistic or a different President would lower them.

IC engines nor oil drilling destroys the planet, hybrids and electrics don't solve any problems either, they just change them and add new ones. Electrical devices are made from petroleum products/methods and powering them uses energy that pollutes. If people really want to lower their footprint they need to get rid of their electrical devices, stop heating and cooling their large homes and buy and use a bike as a start. Most people will not do that, buying and driving around in a hybrid or electric is not saving the planet. What good is it to try to drastically lower what passenger cars fuel usage and emissions are when you have so many trucks right beside you belching plumes of diesel smoke in the air and other polluters like boats, aircraft, that continue.

If those CAFE regulations are eased automakers will certainly stop replacing 6 and 8 cylinders in certain cases with 4 cylinders and will not have to spend so much money on hybrids and electrics which takes money from IC vehicles.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

what i want to see is a streamlining of gasoline 'standards' across the country... currently refiners have to make DOZENS of different kinds of fuel, even different kinds for different times of the year, to comply with different state rules. streamlining this would reduce refining complexity greatly, improving supply, competition, and easing prices. but environmentalists don't care - they just want to see gasoline be forced out of business as quickly as possibly, no matter the cost.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

i don't see how that's true given that ford changed the most successful (in sales) vehicle of all time, the f-150, over to aluminum, saving hundreds of pounds in weight, but not making a 'goofy design'.