Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Government United States

Ford Calls On Automakers To Support California Fuel Economy Deal (reuters.com) 168

Posted by BeauHD from the call-to-action dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Ford is urging major automakers to consider backing a framework deal with California on vehicle emissions in a bid to reach industry consensus before President-elect Joe Biden takes office, according to a letter seen by Reuters on Monday. Major automakers are set to discuss next steps at a virtual meeting of their auto trade association Tuesday, which comes a week after General Motors abruptly announced it would no longer back the Trump administration's ongoing effort to bar California from setting its own vehicle emissions rules.

In a previously unreported letter, Ford Americas President Kumar Galhotra on Wednesday said with Biden's win, the fight over Trump's effort to preempt California on vehicle emissions "is now, at least for the next set of years, essentially moot. The more relevant issue is thus the question of the standards." Galhotra urged automakers "to actively consider embracing the California framework." He added: "The Biden Administration will not let the Trump standards stand, and either by way of litigation and/or a regulatory reboot, the new team will move in a different, more stringent direction." A Ford spokeswoman declined comment on the letter but said the California agreement "should be the foundation for new regulations as the Biden administration considers stronger fuel economy standards in 2021."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ford Calls On Automakers To Support California Fuel Economy Deal More

Ford Calls On Automakers To Support California Fuel Economy Deal

Comments Filter:

  • Translation: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2020 @10:43PM (#60784528)

    This deal will benefit Ford.

    • Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Tuesday December 01, 2020 @11:04PM (#60784576) Homepage
      It takes years for changes to be implemented into production. Ford has probably already started designs to meet the California plans and simply wants to continue on a path they have already started. Why waste money when you don't have to?

      Chances are good the other automakers have started as well, so they will agree.

      • Being the most populous state in the country, with several other states following the same rules, it means that auto makers want those customers. The industry is listening, natural market forces at work. You can't just have a tantrum and demand that they make polluting cars again. But not to worry, you can still have a big ass polluting truck in California if that's what you want.

        • It's not just the state. If they want to sell cars internationally there are other rules to comply by. It's cheaper to produce a platform for the most stringent requirements than it is to customise to smaller markets. Remember Ford invented this concept of standardisation. Or at least he pretended to (the model T was available in colours other than Black).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by afidel ( 530433 )

          The 9 ZEV states represent 28% of the US population, add in the 4 CARB states without the zero emission vehicle requirement and you have nearly 1/3 of the US population. So yeah, it's kinda not an option to ignore them.

      • Ford has probably already started designs to meet the California plans and simply wants to continue on a path they have already started.

        Why would a reduction in standards prevent them from continuing on their path? If Federal standards are maintained Ford would meet them. If Federal standards were lowered Ford would exceed them. Exceeding standards is allowed.

    • I wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that Ford essentially doesn't sell cars anymore. What are the details of the proposed regulations? I know with some of the older ones, you get to ignore them by selling trucks instead.

      The summary isn't really helping to comprehend what's going on, it refers to a "fuel economy deal" and a "deal on vehicle emissions", which are not the same thing. Maybe they're doing both...

      • It's a good question. California wanted tight MPG standards, but came to an agreement with the feds under Obama that instead we would get nationwide MPG standards (CAFE) which were not so tight. Trump rolled back CAFE to a lesser standard: to 1.5 percent per year and 40 miles per gallon average by 2026, from 5 percent annual improvements and 54.5 mpg average by 2025. So CAFE still exists, although it has been watered down. This is separate from California's per-vehicle emissions standards, which are looser

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by drhamad ( 868567 )
      I mean, sure. Isn't enlightened self-interest the very basis of our union? That being said, it's interesting because Ford essentially no longer manufactures cars. A full line manufacturer that follows the standards should be able to meet them more easily than Ford.

      • Ford does manufacture lots of cars still. Sure, the market the hell out of their trucks, but they also make economy cars, electric vehicles, hybrids, etc.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ixidor ( 996844 )
          i only see the mustang and fusion for sale as new at the local dealership. its possible the all electric / hybrid may be in a different category.

          • I see so many new Fusions though, I assumed it was still making them and had other varieties of autos for those parts of the country uninterested in fuel efficient economy cars. Big trucks are nice, but most are very expensive for mere commuting.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Hasaf ( 3744357 )
          Going to Ford's website and clicking on cars, one sees only two entries, the Mustang and the Fusion.
          In the SUVs & Crossover category, one sees eight models. This lineup consists of: Ecosport, Escape, Bronco Sport, Bronco, Edge, Explorer, Mustang Mach-e, and the Expidition.
          In Trucks and Vans there are five entries. These consist of: Ranger, Transit Connect, F-150, Superduty, Transit.
          The number of truck and van models is matched, at five by the number of models in the electrified section. In this secti

          • Transit connect is the size of a classic station wagon. It doesn't count as a truck. Maybe a minivan, but by American standards it is just a fat car.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Hasaf ( 3744357 )
              This has been done before. By registering a car as a truck it is able to bypass many regulations, such as those regulating: Fuel Economy, Emissions, and Safety. They still have to meet limits in those areas, but the regulations were much less strict. My first car was regulated as agricultural equipment.

              • Transit connect isn't big enough to be registered as a truck. It might still be registered as a commercial vehicle in some places, though, because of the lack of windows. That doesn't change emissions standards however, only raises your registration and insurance fees.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by afidel ( 530433 )

            That last US Fusion rolled off the line on July 31st 2020. So really they only make 1 car now.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by chill ( 34294 )

          No. Ford announced back in 2018 [nbcnews.com] that they were stopping production of all passenger cars except for the Mustang. Anything you see currently is either used or just winding down inventory.

      • That's the first time I've seen anyone use the term "enlightened self interest" outside of a EE 'doc' Smith novel or a Wiki entry. If only more people thought that way.

        If I had mod points to give, they'd be yours...

    • Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Wednesday December 02, 2020 @01:16AM (#60784802) Journal
      Of course it will. They have to develop vehicles that meet the tougher emissions standards for California. It'll cost them less money overall if they only have to produce one of each type of vehicle to meet one set of emissions standards. It also means those vehicles will have an easier time passing smog checks in other states, and overall emissions are reduced. Everybody wins.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        This is about economy, rather than emissions, but I would be inclined to agree that the same basic forces are at work. The automakers were already prepared for California standards, and although switching all domestic production over to those standards won't be painless, it is something they have a plan for, and the underpinnings in place.

        Other regions using California standards for emissions wouldn't even be news. The Phoenix area has been doing it for decades.

    • It won't harm any automakers, even FCA. They will just make their muscle cars into mild hybrids, like they've already started doing with Ram trucks. All automakers sell vehicles into other markets, so they still have to develop powertrains that can deliver on international emissions standards. Other nations have requirements in line with California's standards. Every major automaker in the world was ready to meet their requirements, even the Germans. They only cheated on diesel emissions because they couldn

    • This deal will benefit Ford.

      Any solid regulatory framework even one that places additional burden on a company benefits the company compared to a federal government that changes the rules as often as people change underwear.

      The cost of implementation of any rule change is usually less than the cost of compliance. In that regard it makes perfect sense to just look to California which has had a pretty steady and predictable roadmap regardless of what the F-wit in Chief could come up with the past few years. Plus it's not like they will

      • Plus it's not like they will produce a car for California and the rest of the world and a second car for the other 49 states of the USA.

        Automakers in the US have been producing a car for California and a second car for the other 49 states for quite some time. [ca.gov]

        Not all new vehicles are manufactured to be sold in California. Many manufacturers make vehicles to be sold only in the other 49 states. These vehicles (49-state) are made with smog equipment that meets federal emission standards, but not California standards. California-certified (50-state) vehicles are made to be sold in California.

        Here's what an engine sticker looks like. [hudsonford.com]

        • No, they have not. All they have been doing is tuning differently or adding some more emissions equipment to the Cali version. They haven't even been making engines for some states and not others.

          • No, they have not. All they have been doing is tuning differently or adding some more emissions equipment to the Cali version. They haven't even been making engines for some states and not others.

            Well, yes. It's not different engines. I really meant "engine bay" sticker in my last sentence. Obviously it's just the ECM software/emissions system that are different for the same model vehicle to be sold in California.

            But when an F150 rolls off the line in Dearborn, some are certified only to Federal standards, some are certified only to California standards, and some are dual-certified to both Federal and California standards. Only the latter two make it from Michigan to California, and I believe m

  • Tesla will never go along with this deal...

    Okay, now that I think about it, it would be hilarious and kind of the style of Elon Musk to actually join this thing just for the lulz.

  • So ... we should buy Tesla stocks then ? If the plan is to nerf all new US ICE vehicles to be more fuel-efficient like in EU (0.9 liter engines or smaller) - then US EV sales will skyrocket - as they'll be the only cars with enough oomph to be fun to drive.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Computershack ( 1143409 )

      So ... we should buy Tesla stocks then ? If the plan is to nerf all new US ICE vehicles to be more fuel-efficient like in EU (0.9 liter engines or smaller) - then US EV sales will skyrocket - as they'll be the only cars with enough oomph to be fun to drive.

      You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. We're getting 0-60 times out of 2 litre cars you need to use 4+ litre twin turbo V6/8 to get. And because we're using smaller engines and lighter cars they handle better too. Those who like cars that are really fun to drive are buying European and Japanese models, not American. I've never understood how American car manufacturers manage to generate so little power for the cubic capacity of the engines.

      • Something about heavy cars being safer, but really is was divisional messaging. Everything has to be partisan these days, even fuel economy.

        • Re:So ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday December 02, 2020 @02:07AM (#60784894)

          Heavy cars are safer in a collision with a lighter car. But if everyone buys a heavier car, there is little benefit but everyone has worse gas mileage.

          In game theory, this is a prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org].

          One solution to a prisoner's dilemma is for an external authority (e.g. the government) to compel or incentivize cooperative behavior.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Weight doesn't make a big difference to the safety of modern cars. It used to be true before crumple zones and the protective cabin space existed, but now now.

            • Re:So ... (Score:5, Interesting)

              by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday December 02, 2020 @08:43AM (#60785422) Journal

              Weight doesn't make a big difference to the safety of modern cars. It used to be true before crumple zones and the protective cabin space existed, but now now.

              You've never seen the results of a high-speed collision between a three-ton SUV, or a five-ton F350, and an econobox, then. With a large mass differential, far more energy is imparted to the smaller vehicle than those crumple zones can possibly absorb. I've seen small vehicles with their front bumpers in their back seats.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                In that case the crumple zones are not working very well.

                The bigger issue with trucks and SUVs is that they tend to be taller, moving much of the impact energy away from the areas of smaller cars that are designed to absorb the energy.

                Some jurisdictions require vehicles to be designed so that the energy is mostly kept lower down. As well helping when hitting other vehicles it helps pedestrians who might end up with broken legs but at least not upper body and head injuries.

                • In that case the crumple zones are not working very well.

                  There's a limit to how much energy the crumple zones can absorb, and the energy above that is distributed between the vehicles in precisely the way the physics of elastic collisions predicts. If one vehicle weighs 3X as much as the other, the smaller vehicle experiences 3/4 of the excess force, which is often enough to overcome the strength of any realistic passenger compartment protective cage. Worse, when you reach that point the passenger compartment of the smaller car begins to act as another crumple zo

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    Yes, but if the vehicle is heavy then it needs more energy absorption capability to pass safety tests or the stresses on its own passengers are too great. Most safety standards also record the forces on the thing that the vehicle hit, to prevent manufacturers making them too rigid and endangering other road users.

                    • Yes, but if the vehicle is heavy then it needs more energy absorption capability to pass safety tests

                      Safety tests are conducted at far lower speeds than are normal on the highways in my area.

                      I'm really not just guessing here. I have seen too many of the real-world results.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Interesting that this was modded flamebait. Are there some truck owning trolls upset at the justification for owning one is being debunked? Something else?

              • Modding it flamebait is bananas, but you were wrong. All else equal, the larger vehicle does better in a crash. And modern trucks have crumple zones and a million airbags just like cars, and even visibility-destroying pillars to improve rollover protection. In fact, they might as well be big ugly cars. The interior room has been stolen by those crumple zones and airbags, and now trucks are as cramped as cars. This is fine for 99% of people because they will never venture off the pavement. For those who do g

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  I wouldn't say there is no benefit, but it's not like the old days where if you wanted safety you had to buy a big built-like-a-tank Volvo.

                  • Volvo has never made a vehicle larger than a mid size by American standards, and many of them have been downright small, like their old coupés...

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Wanted to add a bit more explanation to this. The heavier your car the more it needs to crumple and deform in the event of a crash to meet safety standards. Most places put limits on the g-forces that passengers can experience, the amount of damage they can sustain from an impact with a solid object, and the only way to reduce it is to make the car softer, i.e. more energy is absorbed deforming the bodywork instead of the passenger's body.

              It doesn't entirely mitigate the issue if a heavy car hits a lighter

          • You're assuming all cars can be reduced in weight together. Unfortunately, there are these large, heavy vehicles on the roads called trucks, which cannot be made lighter since they're hauling a fixed weight load called cargo. So you end up in a situation where if you lighten all cars to increase gas mileage, you also increase the fatality and injury rate in car vs truck accidents.

            Ideally we'd just get the trucks off the road (or at least the high-speed roads). The cargo which is transported long-distan

      • I've never understood how American car manufacturers manage to generate so little power for the cubic capacity of the engines.

        We tune for torque. In Europe a V8 might have 300 hp and 300 lb-ft, in the US it will be 250 HP and 350 lb-ft. Keeping the RPMs down keeps engineering costs down, torque is what you feel when you push the accelerator, and fuel is cheap here so we can have big motors and still feed them.

        FWIW I prefer small engines with turbos, especially now that turbos are cheap. And now that VGTs exist and small engines can make good torque at surprisingly low RPMs, they are more feasible for Americans who expect shit to h

      • You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. We're getting 0-60 times out of 2 litre cars you need to use 4+ litre twin turbo V6/8 to get. And because we're using smaller engines and lighter cars they handle better too. Those who like cars that are really fun to drive are buying European and Japanese models, not American. I've never understood how American car manufacturers manage to generate so little power for the cubic capacity of the engines.

        Judging from your comment, I'm going to say you don't know what you're talking about either. The only way you're getting 0-60 times out of a 2.0L four banger that is even close to a "twin turbo V8" is by using some form of forced induction. Using any form of forced induction exponentially increases the expense of the base engine design as the engine needs to be capable of withstanding the additional stress of higher cylinder pressures and temperatures. Only an idiot slaps a forced induction system onto an o

    • I'd buy Ford on a long play. It's dirt cheap and their EVs are starting to hit the market this winter, and they're targeting the two biggest segments of the market: fleets and pickups. Tesla's pickup truck isn't fleet friendly and certainly isn't very utility friendly. It's not the be-all-end-all, but if I were looking for value in a stock, it wouldn't be in Tesla stock.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Ecuador ( 740021 )

      I had a '95 Mercury Cougar 3.6L V6 in the US while a student. The fuel efficiency was truly abysmal (14 mpg = 20.2L/100km) as you would expect from such a huge engine. That huge engine produced just 140HP and given the car was over 1.6 tonnes, you would definitely not call it fast. Oh, and automatic transmission (the American way) took away most of the fun the RW drive could still provide. In the end it was slower and much less fun to drive than my sister's little Fiat at the time in Europe, which only used

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kalpol ( 714519 )
        That V6 produced 215 ft lbs of torque though at 2500 RPM, which is where the difference really is as I expect the 1.2L Punto made about 80 and you have to redline it to get there (although having had a lot of old Fiats, they were usually pretty torquey at low RPMs which makes them fun to drive). There's an old saying that HP sells cars but torque drives them. And that Cougar was available with a 5-speed manual transmission, which made it a lot more fun to drive. Ford's automatic transmissions then were no

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ecuador ( 740021 )

          I remember stepping on the accelerator of that 3.8 engine having driven up to 1.6L European cars until then was a bit "WTF" for the very mediocre acceleration. I did appreciate the torque, as the car did have the same acceleration regardless of the incline and whether you started at 0 or were already at 60. But I would not call it fun, apart from some RWD related oversteering at tight turns etc. Don't remember a manual version back then, a friend had the XR7 5L, which was still auto and it was definitely mo

    • If you think that it's virtually guaranteed that five years from now Tesla will be the largest automaker in the US, you'd pay about $250 for the stock.

      Currently sellers are demanding $525.
      The current price would be appropriate for a company that's already the largest auto manufacturer in the world, with a long track record of producing stable profits over several decades.

      The current price already assumes that Tesla will be hugely successful, right away, and that there is basically no risk that car makers wh

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by psergiu ( 67614 )

        Well Tesla also is (or working towards becoming) the biggest car battery manufacturer in the US - Even if they stop selling Tesla cars, they still can make a fortune selling batteries to all the other car manufacturers - as most of of them don't have the factories and expertise to produce their own batteries.

        • Maybe.

          Maybe if Tesla was "making a fortune" selling batteries to Toyota, Toyota might decide they'd like to keep that fortune for themselves. So they'd put up their own factory. Now, the gigafactory cost a couple billion dollars to build, so that makes it awfully hard for other companies to match that, right?

          Toyota brings in $287 billion / year. Building their own gigafactory would cost about two days of revenue. Then they would be the ones "making a fortune".

          Same for Volkswagen or any other car company.

    • 0.9 liter engines or smaller

      You're clearly not talking about that Europe on the other side of the Atlantic, because I can tell you the most popular engine sizes are around the 1.4-2.2L mark. The only cars with 0.9L engines are the tiny inner city cars that make up a small portion of sales.

      My commute last week pegged the speed limiter at 250km/h in a 4L V8 bi-turbo, greetings from the real Europe.

      then US EV sales will skyrocket - as they'll be the only cars with enough oomph to be fun to drive.

      They already are. Hell I can't remember who it was (Chevrolet?) but one company was recently forced to update their marketing saying they are

  • Are the CORPERATIONS on the side of the left? im SHOCKED!!!
  • The automaker already onboard for said compliance champions rules shutting other automakers out, go figure. Since California is very long but not very wide I predict many Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico sales in the future, assuming GM and Dodge are still willing to sell OHV V8s

  • FORD is fighting a war on two fronts, CAFE/BEV. It has no control over battery. But where its money could buy its fleet years, that could be built-in to law.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close