Advertisement

Who Hates High-Mileage Cars? Your Local Auto Dealers, That's Who

Follow John

U.S. Capitol

U.S. Capitol

Enlarge Photo

Sometime next month, the EPA and NHTSA will release final draft rules that increase corporate average fuel economy standards to 54.5 mpg by 2025.

Most--although not all--carmakers have signed off on the standards, but opposition has hardly died down.

The latest group to take up the fight against higher gas mileage is the National Auto Dealers Association, which Reuters reports is supporting a variety of measures to kill, delay, or defund the new requirements and the agencies developing them.

NADA is listed as one of the most powerful "heavy hitters" in campaign donations by the Center for Responsible Politics. Last month, it sent several hundred auto dealers to lobby Congress on the issue.

Remove the EPA altogether

Not that NADA is necessarily against higher gas mileage, mind you. It's just not for it, as much, or as quickly. It worries, as you would expect, about cost increases that could prevent price-sensitive buyers from signing on the dotted line for that new car.

Used car salesman

Used car salesman

Enlarge Photo

It has signed onto the legislative tactic du jour, a Republican-sponsored House bill that removes the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, which are directly proportional to fuel economy.

A 2007 Supreme Court decision said the EPA not only can, but must, regulate vehicular emissions carbon dioxide--and that's the work the bill seeks to halt. It would defund any EPA efforts to move forward on the new standards between now and September 2012.

Usual talking points

The arguments made by the auto dealers are pretty much the same as they always have been: They say the proposed standards will drive up consumer cost, reduce safety, and limit vehicle choices for consumers.

NADA executive Dave Westcott, a North Carolina dealer, told Reuters, "This is a big jump, and we'd like to slow this process down" so dealers can "find out what's working and what's not."

The association's familiar talking points play to some inchoate fears about Big Bad Gummint: It wants to put us all into tiny little unsafe econoboxes with no performance just to save a few piddling drops of fuel.

Cost, yes; safety, no impact

So let's look at the points one by one.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adminstrator Lisa Jackson and President Barack Obama

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adminstrator Lisa Jackson and President Barack Obama

Enlarge Photo

Indeed, new-car cost is likely to rise in real dollars. Saving fuel costs more upfront, as large, lazy, simple engines are replaced by smaller, more efficient ones with sophisticated technology like turbochargers, start-stop systems, and mild or full hybrid-electric systems.

Safety, on the other hand, is hardly likely to be compromised. The NHTSA imposed new, tougher crash standards for 2011, and carmakers are acutely aware that their vehicles must score high on NHTSA and IIHS crash-safety tests. Any new cars they build will do well on active and passive safety; they have to, if they're to have any hope of selling.

Limited choices? Not so much in vehicle types--yes, you'll still be able to buy full-size pickup trucks and SUVs in 2025, though they may cost more--but perhaps performance. Acceleration isn't likely to fall much, but it won't continue rising as it has done over the last 30 years. (Drive any 1980s "performance car" and you'll be shocked by how slow it is.)

54.5 mpg isn't actually 54.5 mpg

The new standards were shepherded by the Obama White House, and have been signed off on by most carmakers--along with the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the influential California Air Resources Board.

Incidentally, for a variety of reasons having to do with "adjustment factors" to make outdated CAFE test cycles produce ratings close to real-world results, a CAFE standard of 54.5 mpg translates to window-sticker mileage ratings in the low to mid 40s.

For the record, that's lower than the 50-mpg combined rating for the 2012 Toyota Prius on sale today.

+++++++++++

Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.

Advertisement
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (7)
  1. On the COST bullet point, it might be worth adding that cars may cost more "up front" but less in the long terms due to the use of less gasoline.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. Why do people do this? It makes perfect sense to save gas by building more efficient cars. But there always has to be someone who hates an idea, if someone came up with a full proof plan for world peace you can count on some party or group to rise up against it, saying it would hurt the worlds military or something stupid like that.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. I agree 100% with JB & CDspeed, especially John's cut-to-the-chase comment about overall costs, not just purchase price.
    Yes, vehicles will be more expensive, just as they are now due to stability control, ABS, air bags, etc., but in the long run, isn't it worth it? Reaching the mid-40s in 2025 is eminently feasible and excuses are not welcome. The D3 already signed off on this, next topic...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. Not only will they cost more up front, they will cost much more to maintain. Hi tech equals more maintance issues and parts that cost more. Either the customer will pay this after their warranty or the manufacturer will in extended warranties. Both groups loose. As always those of you that only see one side are blind to any other issues it raises. By the way, I know more about this than most of the people aurguing this. I sell parts for a Chrysler dealer. The tech does cost more, including your precious hibreds.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. Have any of you given anythought to what happens when we have fleets of electric cars? Battery recycling or disposal? The toll on our already weak electrical power grid? Why do people refuse to look at alternative fuels instead of batteries? Look at Brazil and other countries that have switched to bio fuel that has far less eco impact than any of our current plans.
     
    Post Reply
    -2
    Bad stuff?

  6. Now the carmakers want to get rid of the spare tire to save weight and save gas. Since when does 26lbs really make a difference and then save gas?
    To me having a spare tire is a safety issue-I don't want to be stranded somewhere. Oddly enough I had two flats once after hitting potholes;fortunately I had 2 spare tires in the car and was able to change them and be on my way.
    Car makers now are supplying a can to refill the tire-that's hoping for a specific issue.
    Put spare tires back in cars. Take 1000lbs off the weight of the car. My 1500 lb '86 Chevy Sprint(I use to own and miss) use to get 40-60mpg.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. Not surprising at all. The Tea Party isn't conservative enough for most of the car dealers I've met in my lifetime.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion? Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Advertisement

Find Green Cars

Go!

Advertisement

 
© 2014 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by izmo, Inc.