That’s according to a statement made by Don Chambers, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers’ Association (NADA) government relations committee.

Under the Obama administration, the plans to boost Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 would require the adoption of advanced technologies for each vehicle, in order for automakers to achieve them. It would also mean that a portion of the costs in utilizing these technologies would end up being passed onto consumers, which could result in pricing a number of potential new vehicle buyers out of the market.

A study, which NADA plans to release in February will show that the costs associated with using new fuel saving technologies will be far in excess of government projections, by as much as 60 percent in fact, which means the sticker price of a new vehicle could increase by as much as $5,000.

Chambers’ comments were made during a hearing in Detroit, where members of the public are given the chance to voice their comments on the proposed CAFE regulations, before they’re finalized later this year. Two more hearings are scheduled for later this month, one on January 19 in Philadelphia, another on January 24 in San Francisco.

However, despite criticism from the NADA, the proposed CAFE regs have strong support, not only from environmental groups like the Sierra Club but also the United Auto Workers’ Union and no fewer than 13 automakers, including the Detroit triumvirate of Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.

In fact, many of those  who attended the Detroit hearing, believe that in the long run, tougher fuel economy standards will ultimately save motorists money thanks to fewer trips to the pumps, as well as reducing US dependence on foreign oil supplies.

However, German automakers Daimler AG and Volkswagen, which currently offer some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles on sale in the US, won’t back the CAFE proposal because there’s no incentive for diesel fueled vehicles.

Chambers says he supports the notion for more fuel efficient vehicles, but if it increases the price to the point that buyers can no longer obtain financing then “it makes no difference.”

Mitch Bainwol, who heads up the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers believes that, at the end of the day, consumer buying habits will ultimately decide whether automakers can actually meet the proposed Federal fuel economy standards, he also proposes a thorough mid-term review of the CAFE policy to see if the rules actually relate to fuel price trends, technological advances and consumer buying habits.

“Looking into the future, consumer purchasing patterns will be the biggest unknown,” he said, though given CAFE’s patchy track record, perhaps looking at lessons from the past could help paint a clear picture of what’s to come.

[Source: Automotive News]

Most automakers have gotten in line with the White House and accepted (even welcomed) the new CAFE regulations. Not Volkswagen. In fact, they criticize the new CAFE standards as being biased towards trucks—which of course, they don’t build.

The proposal “places an unfairly high burden on passenger cars, while allowing special compliance flexibility for heavier light trucks,” according to a statement from Tony Cervone, vice president of communications for Volkswagen America. Furthermore, “the largest trucks carry almost no burden for the 2017-2020 timeframe, and are granted numerous ways to mathematically meet targets in the outlying years without significant real-world gains.”

Long story short, Volkswagen fears that manufacturers will find ways to skirt the CAFE regulations by building larger vehicles and classifying them as trucks, rather than finding ways to improve the mileage of their current lineup. The largest vehicle in VW’s lineup is the Touraeg, which luckily for them counts as one of those larger trucks (along with the Routan minivan, somehow).

VW’s point isn’t new: classifying smaller vehicles as light trucks to cheat efficiency regulations is something every manufacturer is guilty of, and hell, it’s basically what kept GM and Ford alive during those dark days of the early 2000s. But VW finds itself outspoken when raising this matter, as every other major manufacturer has supported the government’s new CAFE standards. Will VW hold its ground?

As every automaker looks for ways to save fuel in order to meet the upcoming CAFE targets, Chrysler is proving that thrifty doesn’t necessarily have to mean small.

The company’s two full-size sedans, the rear-drive Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger are mostly recognized for their stature and performance (especially in SRT-8 form). But an eight-speed automatic transmission, which is scheduled for introduction this fall, both cars have a chance to deliver some surprising fuel economy numbers.

According to CEO Sergio Marchionne, the 3.6-liter V-6 versions of both sedans are expected to deliver around 31 miles per gallon on the highway, significantly improved from the current car (around 4 mpg better) and even thriftier than Japanese offerings such as the Honda Accord.

However, start adding V-8 engines and all-wheel drive into the mix and it’s likely such numbers will be harder to achieve (though Chrysler remains fairly buoyant on V-8 mpg estimates, stating the 5.7-liter Hemi engined cars are likely to get around 29 mpg on the open road). Technology such as more advanced cylinder deactivation and a front-wheel decoupling feature on AWD models, could mean that within a few years, there’s every chance these cars could return even higher numbers.

Source: [Automotive News]

After much debate, the White House has lowered its CAFE target for 2025 from 62 MPG to 54.5.

The original 62 MPG figure has been dragged through the dirt before, having previously been lowered to 56.2 before this current figure. But now, the 1.7-mpg drop helps ease the concerns, however slightly, expressed by the auto industry that this annual mileage increase will drive up the cost of cars and destroy car sales as well as manufacturing jobs.

The CAFE situation dictates that cars will have to be 5% more fuel-efficient every year, from 2017 to 2025. On the one hand, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that this would add $2,100 to a car’s base price. On the other, according to the Consumer Federation of America, with the earlier 56-mpg revision consumers would save over $6,000 in gasoline costs throughout the car’s lifetime.

As you can tell, even with a revised CAFE target the debate won’t be over anytime soon.

[Source: TheDetroitNews]

There’s no question that the US Federal government’s proposed Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards have drawn a lot of fire and widespread opposition from automakers, especially as the Obama administration is now pushing for a 56 miles per gallon fleet average target by 2025.

In particular, General Motors and Chrysler, still on the road to recovery after receiving Government assistance in 2008-09 have expressed dismay at the proposed standards, since large trucks and SUVs, which will find the regulations tougher to meet, still represent a sizeable portion of their profits.

As a result, in an effort to win support for it’s fuel economy plan, the Obama administration is considering proposals that would loosen the requirements for large trucks and SUVs, giving automakers, namely the Detroit three, a larger window with which to comply with the new regulations.

This would mean an improvement of 3.5 mpg per year, instead of the 5 mpg increments required by passenger cars and smaller trucks and SUVs.

Import automakers, whose product portofolios tend to focus more on smaller cars and SUVs, claim these changes would give their Detroit rivals an unfair advantage, citing that such proposals would ultimately defeat the objective of the proposed CAFE requirements.

This isn’t first time this year the Feds have backed off on proposed fuel economy standards. Originally ,the mandate for 2025 was a 60 miles per gallon fleet average, though widespread opposition reduced it to the current 56 mpg proposal.

[Source: Automotive News]

With automakers currently struggling to meet the 35-mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards set in place for 2016, the thought of a 62-mpg CAFE number for 2025 is unimaginable by many. That 62-mpg number, the result of a proposed 3 to 6 percent increase in fleet fuel economy starting in 2017, has just been delayed.

Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said any further decisions about the 2017 to 2025 goals would be put on hold until September of 2011, citing the need for further study.

One major consideration is that in the fight to increase fuel economy, one of the best ways is to reduce vehicle weight. While advantageous in certain respects, it may also have a negative effect on vehicle safety.

Part of a larger plan by the Obama Administration, the added cost to each vehicle required to achieve these numbers could range from $770 to $3,500 – a number that has been contested by opponents. Proponents of the plan say the up-front cost added to cars would result in cost savings for consumers who would save between $5,700 to $7,400 in fuel costs over a four year period.

Automakers, which had previously been open to increasingly strict fuel economy rules, have now changed their tune, believing they have a more sympathetic ear with Republicans, who are beginning to take over power in the House.

Of note, it’s important to point out that CAFE and EPA fuel economy ratings are not the same and that a 62-mpg CAFE number, is more like 43-mpg in the real world. While more realistic, the only cars on the market that currently achieve such high fuel economy numbers are the Chevy Volt and Toyota Prius.

[Source: The Detroit News]

Ever since it’s inception, the Federal Government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards program has never been far from controversy. With the proposed 35 miles per gallon standard less than a decade away; auto manufacturers are struggling to find ways of meeting these fleet average targets. Because light trucks as well as cars are now included in the targets, domestic automakers like Ford, GM and Chrysler are likely to find the new regulations particularly tough to deal with, since a great deal of their profit still rests on truck production. Now, thanks to a meeting in May, when President Obama called on the EPA and Department of Transportation to included medium and heavy-duty vehicles within the CAFE umbrella (under different and yet undisclosed fuel economy standards), things have become even more messy and complicated.

Recently a 414 page report, issued by The National Academies (a group made up of  academics, business leaders, scientists and consultants from the financial, oil and transportation industries) stated that in order for pickups, especially medium-duty ones to meet CAFE targets greater than current fuel economy standards; new technologies will have to be utilized or the automakers risk heavy fines.

Either way, sticker prices could increase by as much as $15,000 per truck once the regulations are enforced. According to Charlie Territo, a spokesperson for the Washington D.C. based Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, “costs will depend on the specific fuel economy targets and the cost of the technology that needs to be added. What remains to be seen is whether consumers are willing to pay those costs.”

The report cites a number of potential avenues for saving fuel on pickups, including turbocharging and using smaller displacement engines; hybrid drivetrains and more efficient diesel engines, still another, more simpler proposal is raising taxes on the fuel itself. However when it comes to technology the key issue is being able to balance more fuel efficient drivetrains with weight savings, especially difficult considering the amount of safety equipment is now mandated by the Feds on modern vehicles.

Whatever the proposed medium and heavy-duty CAFE requirements end up being, you can bet that they will likely hurt small business and contractors, those that currently rely on medium and heavy-duty pickups and represent the largest segment of buyers in this market. And to make matters worse, much of America’s wealth is built on small businesses, the kind that use pickups. So while the CAFE regulations might have had good intentions – reducing greenhouse gases and oil dependence, at this juncture, given the targets already outlined, the economic effects are likely to be disastrous in an already depressed business environment, unless significant changes to the CAFE standards that include more realistic short term targets are added.

[Source: Pickup Trucks.com]

At the LA Auto Show this November, Hyundai will debut a new concept car that will give a better idea of how the Korean automaker intends to achieve its 50-mpg CAFE goal. Company CEO John Krafcik recently made the bold statement that Hyundai would average 50-mpg across its lineup by 2025. Currently, the automaker has just over a 30-mpg fleet average – the best in the industry.

While no details have been provided, it’s possible that Hyundai could show a near-production version of the Blue-Will Concept, which has been rumored to hit production as a Toyota Prius rival.

That vehicle is a plug-in hybrid that uses a 152-hp 1.6-liter direct-injection gasoline engine and a 100kW electric motor with a lithium-polymer battery pack. Hyundai claims 106-mpg in plug-in hybrid mode and 50-55-mpg in standard hybrid mode.

GALLERY: Hyundai Blue-Will Concept Debut in Frankfurt

[Source: InsideLine]

With fuel economy still one of the primary buzz words in the auto industry these days, manufacturers are looking to do what they can to boost the mileage of their vehicles. When it comes to light trucks, any savings in gas mileage helps, especially in view of impending CAFE regulations. One method General Motors is seriously looking at, concerns louvered radiator grilles.

SRG Global Inc., based in Tayor, Michigan has developed a new design of grill for the General to use on its Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups. According to Dave Prater, SRG’s Vice President of product engineering and  development, the new grille design, in essence works like a flap, with moveable louvers, integrated with the grille assembly and controlled by the vehicle’s ECU, opening and closing in response to changes in engine temperature. Closing off the air flow not only reduces carbon dioxide emissions by allowing the engine to warm up faster, but it also boosts fuel economy, since less aerodynamic drag is created at speed.

At Present, BMW AG uses a version of the concept on its 3-Series automobiles, but the louver is a secondary part, mounted behind the grille. SRG’s design for the GM pickups would integrate it with the main assembly. The louvered GM grille program is a push by SRG, a relative newcomer, to gain wider access in the automotive sector, a market which, according to Prater, “has been relatively stagnant over the last several months.”

SRG’s background is chrome plating plastic products (it currently supplies chrome grilles to Honda for use on the Acura TL) and now;  thanks to opening a new 46,000 square foot facility in Troy, has in place the tools, staff and expertise to work on developing such products as the GM louvered grille assembly. Time will tell if it proves a success.

[Source: Ward's Auto World]

When the new Camaro came out, General Motors explained the very careful two-pronged approach for the car, with the high-volume V6 models appealing to lifestyle consumers, while the high-powered and more expensive V8 version selling to the limited enthusiast crowd. So imagine the surprise in the marketing and product planning departments upon learning that two out of three Camaros sold come equipped with a V8 engine.

GM even went to great lengths to make the V6 models attractive, equipping them with a 29 mpg highway rating, more than 300-hp and a starting price of just $23,530.

This news is a bit of a double-edged-sword for GM. The down side is that high sales of V8-powered SS models will hurt the company’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rating. The up-side, however, is that with V6 an V8 models costing almost the same to produce, the profit margins on SS models is much higher.

[Source: InsideLine]