RE: U.S. Regs

[TWFAUST@xxxxxxx]

> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:12:30 -0400
> From: Joe Elliott <jee@domain.elided>
> Subject: re: US regs
>
> At 3:22 AM +0000 7/24/03, alfa-digest wrote:
>> The big Three (actually the big two and a half) seem to have
>> Washington
>> wrapped around their little finger(s).
>
> I don't know if I'd say that.  Look at the disparity between
> emissions-oriented US regs and fuel economy-oriented ones.  A lot of
> the former for decades, very little of the latter, very recently.
> I'd say it's mostly the oil industry running the show in Washington
> these days.
>
> - -Joe


As far as I know CAFE Regs (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) are still very
much alive. What skewed things for so long is the emergence of mini vans and
SUV's, these vehicles are classified as "light trucks" under the regulations.
As
the regs were written for "cars" many did not apply to "light trucks".  An
example is that for many years "mom vans" did not have side impact bars in the
doors. This was changed when America's moms were alerted to this by Consumer
Reports and other news sources. Locally, 50% of new car registrations are
"light
trucks".
     Many safety and emission regulations have been altered to include them.
Fuel economy regs for them are different. As far as I know, they are still not
included under CAFE (this is where the term CAFE Racer arose, underpowered
but highly stylized cars in the 70's, such as the Mustang II King Cobra),
consequently gas guzzling SUVs do not require that a larger number of fuel
efficient
cars be sold to bring the Corporate Average into compliance. Aside from the
enormous profit margin on SUVs, as compared to cars, is it any wonder that GM
loves the SUV?
Tom Faust
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided