Posted on 06/18/2019 6:18:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
Buying a new car is almost always a daunting task, with salespeople trying to sell that extra warranty or undercarriage rustproofing. And, to add insult to the process of buying a new car, federal bureaucrats regularly tack on rules that jack up prices for consumers. In fact, average prices for new cars are nearing $40,000.
But, that staggering high amount may soon fall due to the Trump administration’s ambitious drive to roll back onerous rules. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of freezing, or at least slowing, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars, unshackling vehicles to a ticking time bomb of costly rising standards imposed by President Barack Obama. Many members of Congress aren’t happy with these revisions, and the House energy committee and associated “experts” will be sure to sound the alarm at a June 20 hearing. Congressional convulsions aside, keeping standards from dramatically escalating prices would save Americans billions of dollars at the auto dealership.
Car salespeople have earned their...subpar...reputation by tacking on multiple fees after a price is supposedly agreed upon. Auto shoppers can escape dealing with slick salespeople, but they have no respite from bureaucrats continually raising fuel economy standards each year. In 2012, the Obama administration introduced strict rules requiring a fuel-economy average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 fleetwide. A 2016 Heritage Foundation study found that those rules are as costly as they sound; buyers on average would have to fork over more than $7,000 extra for their vehicle in 2025 than under pre-Obama rules.
Now, the Trump administration is poised to embrace a middle-of-the-road (pun intended) solution by freezing the 2020 mandated standard of 37 miles per gallon and maintaining the freeze through 2026. Alternatively, Trump’s EPA may simply slow the steady upward climb of CAFE standard. Either way, cars and light-duty trucks will no longer have to attain average efficiency of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
Already, the environmental left is crying foul, accusing policymakers of not caring about Mother Earth and the impending apocalypse of global warming. But, by the Obama administration’s own measure of the “social cost of carbon,” CAFE standards are simply too costly to justify environmental benefits. The original rulemakers wanted consumers to pay $1,000 for every avoided ton of carbon dioxide billowed into the atmosphere. This is a perplexingly high amount to ask consumers to pay, considering that Obama’s EPA pegged the cost of a ton of carbon at just $20.
If green zealots had their way, though, consumers would pay increasingly high prices for cars that may not even be more efficient. Fuel economy standards would seem to favor very smaller, less powerful vehicles which require less gasoline. But U.S. requirements take vehicle “footprint” into account (i.e. square footage), allowing laxer fuel economy rules for larger vehicles. This, combined with the large American consumer preference for SUVs and trucks, has contributed to the collapse of the U.S. sedan market. As University of Chicago scholar Koichiro Ito points out, the tightening of fuel economy rules has simply led to vehicles getting larger, shortchanging efficiency at a substantial cost to consumers.
These added expenses don’t stop at the sticker price. Because larger cars are safer for their occupants but more dangerous to pedestrians and occupants of other vehicles, encouraging the adoption of larger cars leads to higher costs even for Americans that choose to walk or drive smaller cars. Ito concludes that these “externalities” cost billions of dollars each year and make the roads less safe for nearly everyone around. In the name of saving the environment, the previous administration spurred consumers to purchase gas-guzzlers with little thought to the consequences. The federal government thrust itself head-first into a complicated auto market, and consumers wound up footing the bill.
If the federal government is truly serious about helping the environment, they’ll end their own destructive environmental tendencies. Publicly owned power plants, hospitals, and water utilities, for instance, are up to 20 percent more likely to have violated federal air and water rules than their private counterparts. Privatizing would lead to cleaner air and less costly operations, saving consumers money instead of sticking them with a $7,000 bill.
Instead of driving car prices higher, policymakers should put the brakes on disastrous regulations bilking American consumers.
Trump's best pick, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt was well on his way towards accomplishing this. And then he was basically fired.
“I am quite sure engineers could easily build and market a comfortable car that would last 400,000 miles and cost under $10,000.”
For city driving UTV’s should be legal, they will get 35+ MPG and are less than 10K.
I thought this already happened?
Government...increase MPG and decrease power of gasoline by adding ethanol.
Increase mileage by law.
decrease mileage by law.
Leftists can't say it but weight is not what concerns them, it's size envy. They want your car 50% visibly smaller than theirs. Increasing MPG is just the socially acceptable cover story, and why a cost/benefit analysis isn't a factor.
37 is unreasonable. 25 mpg is reasonable.
I don't think that having a tire pressure indicator, that when it failed cost me $400 to fix, offers me any value. In fact it cost me the $400 to fix and the hundreds to install and equip in the new vehicle. Honestly, there are dozens of examples of this. Cars are commoddoties and if not for the insane regulations (and union wages in some states) one could easily offer a base BMW for $25,000 and a Jeep Wrangler for $20,000 or less.
The Bureaucratic State in action.
[[[Do you think anyone actually wants a car that shuts it’s f’n engine off at every f’n traffic light?]]]
I’m hearing more and more of these vehicles on the road. How utterly ridiculous. It would drive me crazy.
Check out Mahindra Roxor, not under $10K but something like you are talking about.
I just got a new F150 as a company car. It has the shut off. First time my wife noticed it, she went off on the stupid tree huggers.
I try not to let it auto shut off. Near my house, I have to make a U-turn in an intersection. The delay to start the truck is actually dangerous.
I have a 2016 Mercedes E350. It has an eco button that won’t turn off. You punch it to turn it off and the next time you look it’s lit green again. Not real sure what it does but it doesn’t power down and then back up. I hated that rental.
Not sure if it had a button or not. It was a rental so I didn’t spend too much time punching buttons. As long as it went, stopped, and the ac worked I was happy. lol
Neither is “reasonable”.
Politicians are not Automotive Engineers and none of them would be driven around in a Government Vehicle that gets 55 MPG.
Just another way to control the Population.
The ROXOR is not street legal. It costs 16K barebones.
No one regulated that pressure gauge you are complaining about, and no one forced you to buy a car that had one... blaming regulation for things that have nothing to do with regulation is silly and wrong.
I showed you the numbers, you choose to ignore them, thats on you.
Cars today are on par adjusted to inflation to what they were in 1970, and offer a lot more features, some mandated others driven by the market.
Could someone build an absolute base model yugo cheap? Sure... but no one would buy them.. so they don’t make them.
Sounds like a faulty switch...
Generally ECO buttons just lessen acceleration so your fuel consumption curve is reduced.
How about a backup camera? Perhaps a qute from the Heritage foundation: Evidence continues to mount that strict fuel economy standards are making cars and trucks more expensive than they would be otherwise. Up through 2008, new vehicle prices—adjusted for quality and the composition of the fleet—had declined steadily for decades. Since then, however, prices have stopped falling and are growing at almost the same rate as general inflation. Given that the average new vehicle costs $33,661,[1 Kelley Blue Book put the average October 2016 new car sale at $34,663; National Income and Product Accounts data imply an average October 2016 price of $32,659. I average the two. Press release, “New-Car Transaction Prices Increase More Than 2 Percent Year-Over-Year in October 2016, According To Kelley Blue Book,” Kelly Blue Book, November 1, 2016, http://mediaroom.kbb.com/2016-11-01-New-Car-Transaction-Prices-Increase-More-Than-2-Percent-Year-Over-Year-In-October-2016-According-To-Kelley-Blue-Book (accessed November 30, 2016), and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts, Table 7.2.5S, 2002 to 2016, http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm (accessed November 30, 2016). ] the price of a typical vehicle is $7,698 higher than if the pre-recession relative price trend had continued.
again, a back up camera is NOT a required feature. No government regulation requires them, and you can buy vehicles without them.
You keep trying to blame regulation by citing things the market is asking for not things being demanded by government.
I’ve shown you the real numbers, cars today adjusted for inflation are on par with what they were in the 1970s and certainly have far far more features and functions in them than they did back then.
Does regulation add cost? Sure, but blaming regulation as the main driver is stupid and wrong.
OK...
Backup cameras now required in new cars in the US. ... A federal regulation took full effect Wednesday requiring the rearview cameras and video displays on new models. Safety advocates say the cameras will help prevent accidents in which pedestrians — often children — are run over because a driver can’t see them.May 2, 2018
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.