Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:56 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: CR says higher CAFE standards will save car buyers $4,600 Back to Topics
Eugenian
Champion Author
Oregon

Posts:2,785
Points:540,645
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:25:12 AM

CR, in a 27-page report ... estimates that drivers will save about $4,600 with the recently adopted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in place. CR basically figured that the average cost of a new car would rise about $2,000 but fuel use would drop enough to save $7,300 during the car's lifetime (higher taxes and maintenance will eat up the $700 difference between the gross savings of $5,300 and the stated figure of $4,600).
Visit AutoBlog for full article
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
52MPG
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:10,636
Points:2,551,275
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jun 19, 2013 11:01:22 AM

Like Obama care is saving us money?
DanMtz
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:6,738
Points:2,055,615
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Jun 19, 2013 10:04:41 AM

If that's true, we don't need CAFE standards. Which is why it's not true.
dabayer
Champion Author New Hampshire

Posts:4,458
Points:957,000
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jun 19, 2013 9:07:31 AM

blah blah
POWERSTROKE7.3L
Champion Author Washington

Posts:1,435
Points:331,350
Joined:Jul 2009
Message Posted: Jun 19, 2013 8:11:12 AM

Cant even work on your own car any more.
blupupher
Champion Author Houston

Posts:6,896
Points:1,541,755
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Jun 19, 2013 8:03:49 AM

at least someone is finally admitting they will cost more to make.
As for saving me money, I drove 3200 miles in my car last year, so I will never see any "savings" from CAFE unless I own my car for 20+ years.
SammyAdams
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:6,504
Points:1,600,030
Joined:Nov 2010
Message Posted: Jun 19, 2013 1:34:34 AM

To: Sneakers55 Re: Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 6:55:00 PM (Printed below)

"On Jun 18, 2013 4:53:25 PM, SammyAdams wrote:

>The entire premise of this article is difficult to reconcile with the freedom
>lost by the consumer.

IMHO, there should be no freedom to pollute unnecessarily.

>It's like trying to find something GOOD to say about "athlete's foot".

It's more like trying to find something good about polio. At least you can prevent polio by vaccination. Of course, the anti-vaccine crowd will dispute that but most of them have never seen anyone in an iron lung."

==========================================================

Nobody is advocating for pollution "unnecessarily" or willy-nilly without any regard for humanity. But pollution is an inescapable consequence of life. There was more pollution at the turning of the 20th century when we had horses "pooping" in the streets and when we were burning "soft coal". It is also axiomatic that one volcanic belch puts more pollution into our atmosphere than all the automobiles in the WORLD (combined).

So, pollution has been with us since the resulting curse from the fall of mankind and will continue until God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth. What we have now, however, is a federal government that is out of control; usurping power where the Constitution gives no authority. I'm still waiting to be shown that Article in our founding document authorizing the creation of the EPA by an "Executive Order" from a President.

Executive Order? Isn't that akin to edicts by a dictator? Doesn't the Constitution vest all legislative authority in Congress?

And you apparently did not understand my metaphor (finding something GOOD to say about "athlete's foot") by supplanting it with a non sequitur (finding something good about polio). And you missed the point altogether that I was making which was "these mandates are based on false science". Those clamoring for more stringent government control in order to combat AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) are United Nations scientists or those scientists looking for a "grant" to find such.

The same crowd who are now spewing their fabrications about AGW are (By and large) the same who informed us that we were entering another "ice age" in the 1970s. The "Ice Age" theory was devoid of any evidence then (and rightfully abandoned) and the AGW theory is just as false today.
RRBC
Champion Author Victoria

Posts:5,806
Points:1,262,985
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 11:18:09 PM

Nah, don't really believe it
Sneakers55
Champion Author Houston

Posts:64,630
Points:2,842,415
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 6:55:00 PM

On Jun 18, 2013 4:53:25 PM, SammyAdams wrote:

>The entire premise of this article is difficult to reconcile with the freedom
>lost by the consumer.

IMHO, there should be no freedom to pollute unnecessarily.

>It's like trying to find something GOOD to say about "athlete's foot".

It's more like trying to find something good about polio. At least you can prevent polio by vaccination. Of course, the anti-vaccine crowd will dispute that but most of them have never seen anyone in an iron lung.
Sneakers55
Champion Author Houston

Posts:64,630
Points:2,842,415
Joined:Nov 2005
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 6:47:50 PM

Is the $4600 saved using EPA mileage or Consumer Reports real-world mileage? A lot of vehicles will probably go hybrid and real-world drivers have a hard time getting the Federal Test Procedure 75 mileage used for the EPA estimates. Also, many of the manufacturers use E-0, a fuel that's getting rarer than hens' teeth!

On the other hand, if they go to Diesel fuel, Federal Test Procedure 75 generates results considerably lower than what real-world drivers obtain!
SammyAdams
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:6,504
Points:1,600,030
Joined:Nov 2010
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 5:53:25 PM

The entire premise of this article is difficult to reconcile with the freedom lost by the consumer. It's like trying to find something GOOD to say about "athlete's foot". The federal government has NO authority in this matter and it becomes doubly "brutish" when you consider that these mandates are based on false science.
mike56MI
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,262
Points:1,056,015
Joined:Aug 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 5:08:06 PM

OK
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author Riverside

Posts:1,772
Points:191,005
Joined:Oct 2012
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 12:34:50 PM

Yeah, we'll see.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
streetirsx
All-Star Author North Dakota

Posts:601
Points:565,030
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 12:30:47 PM

I'll believe it when i see it..
Discovery02
Champion Author Colorado Springs

Posts:8,895
Points:1,090,520
Joined:May 2012
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 11:35:16 AM

Higher CAFE standards are a good thing because efficiency isn't going to improve until auto manufacturers are forced to do it. But, really, they think only $700 will be spent on taxes and maintenance???
CaptainStall
All-Star Author New Brunswick

Posts:691
Points:337,585
Joined:Jun 2013
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 11:09:29 AM

Why is it taking so long for fuel efficiency to get better? Do the car makers get kick backs from the oil companies?
marcelpr
Champion Author New Orleans

Posts:4,147
Points:1,183,210
Joined:Dec 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 10:07:15 AM

I'm skeptical of the Consumer Reports estimate. I think the average car buyer will be lucky to break even.
Skunk63
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:5,946
Points:1,390,500
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 9:14:09 AM

Funny math. I don't see it that way.
EnviroChemist
Champion Author Oklahoma

Posts:3,826
Points:906,685
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 9:13:05 AM

Consumer reports have been less than credible in my experience with their reporting. The items they hate, I seem to like and have good service from, and the items they support, break and give me nothing but problems, most of the time. This report is just pure speculation on their part.
JDchefF
Champion Author Lancaster

Posts:1,509
Points:332,895
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 9:02:23 AM

Don't agree with their math, lighter cars are not necessarily good, especially in an accident.
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:14,630
Points:1,559,870
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 8:58:14 AM

LOL, their numbers only add up in the world of make believe.

And what about the cost of human life?
jeffbone
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:2,812
Points:737,605
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 8:52:08 AM

...and what about increased medical bills and funeral expenses due to lighter, less safe cars?
streetdesign
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:3,593
Points:1,369,085
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 8:43:34 AM

We would save even more money if they get rid of ethanol for good. Poorer MPG is due to ethanol.
mastermariner
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,482
Points:1,292,015
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 8:29:19 AM

The CAFE standards should have been in place 30 years ago
darshanzala
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:591
Points:188,095
Joined:Jan 2013
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 8:20:43 AM

Fuel saving much more depends on driving habit. It can save you thousands of dollars and you can end up spending much more as well.
AVKZ
Champion Author Kalamazoo

Posts:1,971
Points:996,425
Joined:Apr 2012
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 8:08:10 AM

We shall see...
brbaritone
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:4,375
Points:2,477,440
Joined:Jan 2007
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 8:04:48 AM

If the prices of oil and gasoline continue to rise, car buyers won't save anything.
NilesBishop
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:3,165
Points:798,165
Joined:Feb 2013
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 8:00:46 AM

I stopped reading their reports when they always seemed to pan products that I had owned and had no problems with. I could not correlate their ratings to any real life experiences with the products I purchased.
Dennis783
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:16,961
Points:3,487,715
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 8:00:23 AM

that would assume I would only buy that new car once and keep it forever
madison8359
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:18,101
Points:2,428,880
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:53:04 AM

More alternative energy needed.
doeslayersr
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:13,251
Points:1,706,030
Joined:Dec 2010
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:51:23 AM

Pure hogwash. Based on wild assumptions of what the price of fuel will be in 4 to 13 years from now.
humblepie
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:65,113
Points:3,185,745
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:49:29 AM

a total load of fertilizer
Wally3023
Champion Author Pennsylvania

Posts:4,827
Points:1,284,060
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:47:34 AM

Good to know
Peachy1
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:3,085
Points:2,432,160
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:45:26 AM

Whatever...
Evilmaddog
Champion Author British Columbia

Posts:6,691
Points:1,766,320
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:45:17 AM

then u get lower mpg with ethanol
FPLREP
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:12,391
Points:3,258,185
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:40:33 AM

And when has anyone gotten the mileage that is stated on the sticker?
bar1035
Champion Author Charlotte

Posts:13,710
Points:2,122,495
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:39:58 AM

What a joke predicting the future taxes and maintenance like a know it all. Pay more up front and HOPE for lower costs - the Obama way
kx250
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:3,904
Points:1,241,180
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:37:53 AM

If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd to sell you.
gs7101
Champion Author San Antonio

Posts:8,532
Points:578,765
Joined:Jun 2009
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2013 7:30:37 AM

This looks good on paper, but don't believe their claim.
Post a reply Back to Topics