So how much will Obama's 35mpg diktat actually cost?

[Inkara1]

The reason a lot of those tiny cars aren't legal here are twofold: 1. safety standards here they can't meet and 2. emissions standards here they can't meet.

 

[Winky]

neither of which are valid reasons not to offer them to the driving public

 

[jimpeel]

SOURCE

# 546

July 2006


CAFE Standards Kill: Congress' Regulatory Solution to Foreign Oil Dependence Comes at a Steep Price


by Ryan Balis

On the heels of the Arab oil embargo, in 1975 Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards as a regulatory solution to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil and gasoline consumption.1 CAFE standards mandate that vehicles sold in the U.S. meet fuel efficiency - or "fuel economy" - standards. Current standards require an average of 27.2 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars and 21.6 mpg for light trucks.2

Beginning in 2008, "one-size-fits-all" CAFE standards for light trucks will be phased out. New regulations will divide light trucks into six categories based on vehicle size - each category having its own mpg target.3 However, the fuel economy for these vehicles will be raised from the current 22.2 mpg to 24.0 mpg in model year 2011.4

According to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimate, implementing this change will cost American consumers over $6.71 billion in added vehicle expenses from 2007-2011.5 Yet Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, calculates that the fuel savings will be a mere 0.44 billion gallons of gasoline annually.6 On average, U.S. cars and light trucks consume some 11 billion gallons of gasoline each month.7

Despite the new regulatory "reform," high gas prices have lawmakers in Washington debating, once again,8 whether to impose even steeper CAFE standards. For instance, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) proposed burdensome across-the-board legislation to increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg on both light trucks and cars by model year 2017.9 Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have also recently called for CAFE increases.10

But such increases have unintended safety consequences for the safety of drivers and passengers. The reason is because carmakers build lighter and smaller cars that burn less fuel to comply with CAFE standards.11 The trade-off is these lighter, smaller cars fare much worse in violent crashes, resulting in greater rates of death and injury for occupants.

A number of studies have documented the lethal consequences of requiring carmakers to improve fuel standards.

* According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12

* A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."13

* An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14

* The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.15

* A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use." Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16

* The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound weight reduction of the average car. As a result, occupants were put at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death.17

* Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars. Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.18

Useful Quotes

In addition to the above studies, the following quotes provide a quick reference point of safety experts' results and statements on the consequences of CAFE regulations as they relate to vehicle safety.

* "The negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature."
-Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Brookings Institution, and John D. Graham, Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health19

* "Why Does CAFE kill? It does so because it constrains the production of larger cars and, in most modes of collision, larger, heavier cars are more protective of their occupants than are small cars."
-Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute20

* "n terms of just the total number of lives, when I purchase a larger car, there is a reduction of risk. I'm safer, and so is society overall... We can conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that when weight is reduced, as it must be under CAFE, we will increase casualties."
-Dr. Leonard Evans, physicist, author of Traffic Safety and president of Science Serving Society21

* "During the past 18 years, the office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress, the National Safety Council, the Brookings Institution, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the General Motors Research Laboratories and the National Academy of Sciences all agreed that reductions in the size and weight of passenger cars pose a safety threat."
-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration22

* "If you want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of small cars."
-Brian O'Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety23

* "CAFE is a solution in search of a problem."
-Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Brookings Institution24

* "The evidence is overwhelming that CAFE standards result in more highway deaths."
-Charli E. Coon, J.D., Heritage Foundation25

* "The conclusion is that CAFE has caused, and is causing, increased deaths.... CAFE kills, and higher CAFE standards will kill even more."
-Dr. Leonard Evans, physicist, author of Traffic Safety and President of Science Serving Society26


# # #

Ryan Balis is a policy analyst for The National Center for Public Policy Research. Comments may be sent to [email protected].

 

[randomJACKASS]

Jim, where did you learn your economics, in 2nd grade?

If new vehicles all get the most amazing mileage that any vehicle ever has before, then demand for gas goes down. When demand goes down and you have a set amount of product on hand but are still drilling and pumping more all the time because it is unknown how much there really is for the stuff. I am sure in the short term your paranoid fantasy holds some weight as oil men start to panic, but those assholes will just drill less, pump less, and the price will not go too radically up in any short amount of time. Regardless of what mileage those cars get, they will only slowly multiply on the roads. I mean who can afford a brand new car these days anyway when people have lost their homes?

f all that I just said happens does actually pan out and happen like that, after the initial panic and hikes those oil men will settle it down and keep feeding it to us. They are the richest most powerful merchants in the world. Do you think they would really do that? If they did, I guarantee you an alternative fuel for existing automobiles would be developed with a quickness!

 

[Gonz]

Imagine, the federal gov't & it's coffers, without sufficient fuel taxes...

 

[Luis G]

So making smaller engines with higher compression ratios and better technology to get similar power and better mileage than current engines is not a way to meet those standards?

It's relatively easy to meet the standards...assuming you're willing to lower the safety factor. If you want safety, well, it ain't sso easy now. A 80,000lb tractor-trailer combination vs whatever it Winky posted a few posts back, guess who will ALWAYS win.

No, you don't have to assume that and no that is not the only way. Read my previous post, notice that I said smaller engines with higher compression ratios and better technology not smaller_cars/less power/unsafe_cars/*[^what_I_said]*

 

[Gonz]

OK, build one. I'd love to see it. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Luis G]

OK, build one. I'd love to see it. I won't hold my breath though.

I don't have to build one, but I'm pretty sure many companies will by 2016.

Not that I have an extremely powerful car (110hp), but at a weight of nearly one ton, AC, airbags and 4 star euroncap security rating I can squeeze average 25mpg in the city and average 47mpg on the road at 130km/h.

I don't know what the combined consumption is, but I too doubt there's an american car that can give such performance.

 

[Gonz]

My wifes full size Taurus wagon with a V6 gets 30MPG on the interstate.

Some of it can be done but in order to get that kind of jump in efficiency something has to suffer. Size or mileage...both is a pipe dream.

 

[Altron]

AFAIK, there isn't anything around the 1 ton mark that meets current US safety standards. Probably the lightest car I can think of is a Miata, which is 2500 pounds.

Having like 30 airbags is making most of the current cars very bloated. We're seeing midsize sedans getting very close to 2 tons. A new Infiniti G35 is 3500 pounds, or like 4,000 if it's a convertible. Under 3,000 pounds is hard now even for 2-seater sports cars with aluminum motors.

My oldsmobile station wagon with full body-on-frame construction and an iron block V8 weighs about the same as this.

 

[Inkara1]

The 1962 Fairlane and the 1999 Taurus weigh about the same.

 

[Dave]

[nit picking] Thats a G37. The 35's never came with a drop top.[/nit picking]

 

[Winky]

 

[2minkey]

[nit picking] Thats a G37. The 35's never came with a drop top.[/nit picking]

wanted the 37 last summer but it wasn't quite out at that point and i needed to buy a car pronto.

now i'm really tempted to pick up a G37 or a 370z. it would be totally irrational, but... the new Z looks so cool... saw one in a lot a couple days ago and they really did a good job fixing some of the more awkward angles from its predecessor. must put these thoughts out of my head.

 

[MrBishop]

I would purchase a "Suzuki whatever Winky posted" kei car tomorrow
if they weren't illegal in this country.

As for not getting run down by a semi let me worry about that,
guess what? They aren’t that hard to see! heh heh

There is a grocery store chain here that caters exclusively to illegal’s.
One day I saw a car in the parking lot and was all like Dang that's a cute car.
Turns out in addition to not having to be citizens, not needing drivers licenses’
or car insurance they can drive illegal cars with foreign plates in this country.

I would buy one in a hot second if I could but alas
I am a law abiding an American.

Gimme high MPG or gimme death!

2005 Ford Ka
-
-

I'd take a Ford CMax in a hot second if I could.
http://d.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/carndriv/20070113/00/317320400.jpg
Diesel, standard, spacious - drove it around for 2 weeks last year in Spain/France. 2 adults, 2 kids, a butt-load of luggage and plenty of elbow room to spare. Tanked up once despite all the driving I was doing. Hellova car.

 

[Inkara1]

wanted the 37 last summer but it wasn't quite out at that point and i needed to buy a car pronto.

now i'm really tempted to pick up a G37 or a 370z. it would be totally irrational, but... the new Z looks so cool... saw one in a lot a couple days ago and they really did a good job fixing some of the more awkward angles from its predecessor. must put these thoughts out of my head.

Last I remembered, you bought your Altima off lease. What did you buy last summer?

 

[2minkey]

Last I remembered, you bought your Altima off lease. What did you buy last summer?

yeah. wasn't that last summer...? or, shit, maybe that was even the summer before.

 

[Inkara1]

It could've been last summer... but it sounded like you bought something different than the Altima, which confused me.

 

[Altron]

cool, what year altima? please tell me you got the VQ35 with a six-speed... that combo is so awesome.

 

[Sharky]

I don't have to build one, but I'm pretty sure many companies will by 2016.

Not that I have an extremely powerful car (110hp), but at a weight of nearly one ton, AC, airbags and 4 star euroncap security rating I can squeeze average 25mpg in the city and average 47mpg on the road at 130km/h.

I don't know what the combined consumption is, but I too doubt there's an american car that can give such performance.

Meet the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid, a mid-size car that gets 8 mpg better fuel economy than a "Smart" car.