Obama's New Fuel Standards Will Cost Auto Industry An Estimated $157 Billion

Lets do some more maths... if comsumer vehicles use approximately 75 billion gallons of fuel annually. And this 54mpg CAFE standard is approximately 40mpg EPA (Using Kia and Honda average EPA score in comparison to their CAFE rating). And the industry average is 27mpg (including trucks). This will result in 32.5% less fuel being consumed. Or 24 billion fewer gallons of fuel annually. The price of gas is currently about $3.43/gallon, and 16% of that price is tax... this means the government will annually lose $13.2 billion in tax revenue every year due to the fuel economy standards... lets assume a linear scaling of fuel efficiency... and by 2025 the government will lose out on an additional $85.8 billion dollars of tax revenue. This is of course if gas prices stay the same. If gas prices double between now and 2025 the loss in potential government revenue will exceed the price to the automakers.

That is some fancy math there buddy.

You know the industry will pass these costs on the the consumer, so while it may cost the industry $157 billion in the future. It will be you and I paying it in higher car costs and insurance. Insurance is partly based on replacement cost, so if the vehicle costs more to replace it costs you more to insure.

So if it costs the government money, it costs the manufacturers money, and it costs the consumers money... who on earth is pushing this through???

I just read the latest estimates are this will cost $2000 per vehicle in added costs to the consumer. (You know that will rise)

Why you can't simply let the industry make what sells and remain profitable and place an gradually increasing ANNUAL guzzler surcharge on the thirsty vehicles?
By forcing those that think they absolutely have to have a land yacht pay the price for it a bit more each year. Hopefully it will force the consumer to weigh the options on their next purchase and would allow the migration to occur naturally.

It is all about of of pocket expenses not saving fuel. Consumers always say they want better mileage, but will rarely pay for it when buying the vehicle.

Market dynamics will then dictate the shift to better mileage options.

$2000 upfront cost and $6-7000 saved in fuel costs over 10 years. Consumers win.
Gov't may lose some tax revenues, but I'm sure they'll find a way to make that up. :)

BSBB- "some folks do need a vehicle that fits the so-called "gas-guzzler" stigma. Those whose livelihood compel them to haul heavy loads or tow heavy trailers cannot do that in a Prius. So, why should those folks be penalized?"

That is called the "cost of business". But you could increase the tax deduction per mile on business guzzlers to offset the burden.

The point is millions of people own a guzzler that don't need to. In order for them to shift, you need to hit them in the wallet.

$2000 upfront cost and $6-7000 saved in fuel costs over 10 years? Well aren't you optimistic. By 2025 a 25% gain in fuel economy across the board will net an average of $400 a year in savings. Meaning that if you bought a new car in 2025 with the CAFE regulations in full effect, it will still take you 5 years before you break even on the initial investment in fuel economy (about the time that most long term car loans/warranties expire and drivers start looking for a new vehicle)

By the time you break even from these costs I'll be 44 years old!

He's a good guy and reasonable in general, but his admin is paid for by lobbyist and is too tainted by money. This is just a give away for certain industries. Same crap as the Bush Repubs, just different players.

That is called politics.

In other news, it's been determined that safety equipment costs the auto manufacturers beaucoup bucks. Studies suggest that less safety equipment would improve the automaker's net profits, even with the increased litigation costs.

FUBO and the hybrid you rode in.

What about our lungs and over all health?