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.
37 is reasonable, 54 is insane.
Trump rocks! These anti-car regs have been handcuffing the auto industry for decades. Forcing people to buy cars they don’t want.
My wife worked at GM and in one of the buildings she worked there was an entire floor dedicated to CAFE compliance. A huge space with many people. Cars used to built with style, comfort and performance as the main goals. Those 3 are secondary to “how do we build are car that meets government mandates that people can afford?”
Exhibit A: Do you think anyone actually wants a car that shuts it’s f’n engine off at every f’n traffic light?
The green commie goal is to make cars unaffordable so folks don’t have them. Planet saved.
There is absolutely no reason car prices should be going up, they should be going down like televisions.
The car companies love CAFE. It forces too much technology into the car which turns un-reliable in the long run. Planned obsolescence is the name of the game.
A perfect example, auto start/stop. Wears your starter out in 3 or 4 years instead of 10-12. Not to mention engine starting does 10 times more damage because their is no oil pressure. You should only turn your engine off if you are going to be sitting for over 3-4 minutes or more, preferably more.
Performance and Reliability are my priorities.
They’ll find another way to jack up the prices.
My next car (2019 Honda Passport) will cost less than my last car (2007 Acura MDX).
If cars could simply be built for value - I am quite sure engineers could easily build and market a comfortable car that would last 400,000 miles and cost under $10,000
I finally broke down and bought my car an almost new car, and had to hunt very hard to find a normal car that had a V-6 and did not have CVT.
These Turbo 4s that are being put in everything are going to have to work a lot harder for the same output, and when the Turbo goes, repairs are expensive. I normally drive 20 year old cars, so I expect our Toyota Avalon will last at least 20 years without needing a drivetrain overhaul. CVTs WON’T last that long, and I doubt the Turbo 4s will, either.
54 is only viable with carbon fibre or other lightweight manufacturing that is not currently viable cost wise.
To get a 50% increase you have to decrease weight, its the only viable way.
These stupid regulations should have been completely obliterated on day one of the Trump administration - not cautiously slowed in year three.
There is a good and simple rule to follow. If Obama did it, it is wrong and should be eliminated. Just follow that rule and you will be correct 99% of the time. That’s certainly the case here.
I just had a rental that did that. Irritated the F out of me. You could feel it power down and then had to wait for it to power up when you pushed the gas to go after a red light. Sometimes I’d get a jerk out of it because I’d punch the gas and then there was a delay so it got the gas all at once. I hated it.
They always do.
Secondary does not mean irrelevant.
“Irritated the F out of me.“
Most cars have a button to disable it. But you have to push the button
EVERY TIME YOU START YOUR CAR. Now they’re starting to remove the button.
Sorry, but ever more regulation and requirements as well as consumer demand make that a pipe dream.
You get a lot more for your money than you used to.
One of the cheapest cars in 1970 was the VW Beetle, its base MSRP was $1,839... Adjusted for inflation that’s $12,137.97 in todays dollars
The Nissan Versa is at 13,255 is the cheapest care available in the US today... and no one would argue that the Nissan Versa offers far more value for the money than the base VW Bug, so you definitely get more for your money.. (this is true across all autos honestly)
So, true cost is declining, but you are getting so much more for the money that the overall cost is not going to drop anytime soon. I have no doubt if cars came in an absolute base model anymore.. you could get cheaper, but no one buys them so they don’t make them.
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.