re: #738 subsailor68

Morning avanti! I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree. Government dictated increases in cost are, in reality, a tax on the product.

While I agree that the average cost of a car may go down if they stop building SUV’s, it hardly matters if the cars that are left go unsold.

I think it was P.J. O’Rourke who said something like “GM loses money on every car, but they plan to make it up in volume.”

And, while you’re correct that 4-6 years does run us out to 2016, it impacts the auto makers much earlier:

For 2016 — the final year new the rules will apply — the fleet fuel efficiency standard for all domestically sold passenger cars will be 39 mpg. It will be 30 mpg for all domestically sold light trucks and sport utility vehicles. The average of these two equals a passenger car and light truck fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 mpg. The current requirements are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg or trucks. The tighter standards will first affect the 2011 model year for cars and trucks.

Not really disagreeing, just semantics. I see you point that government safety, emission and CAFE standard add to the cost just as a tax would, the word tax is just one of those overused buzz words IMHO.
You may recall when emission standards were first imposed, Detroit claimed they might be impossible to meet, expensive and kill performance and economy. As it turned out, the resulting computer controls helped both economy and performance. It may well turn out the same way this time, but I share some of your concerns. The fact that the entire world will be working on the issue, should help resolve some of our concerns.