WI: No CAFE standard?

Is CAFE bad law

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • No

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • It's complicated (explain in response post)

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
I vehemently disagree on CAFE bring bad law - without it Detroit would never have even attempted to improve their cars' fuel efficiency standards, and probably would have held on to old-school carbureted V8s for quite a while longer)
That's in response to my view (based on Jeanes' comments in a C&D column some number of years ago) CAFE is effectively a protectionist measure for Detroit & UAW, & higher gas taxes (& so prices) will provide the same result, without leading to manufacture of cars nobody actually wants.

Whence this thread: is CAFE actually good or bad? What options did DC have? What needed to be done to get something other than CAFE, & who'd need to be in charge to get it?

Or is CAFE the best route? If so, why?
 

GarethC

Donor
Anecdotally (which means I'm not sure I'm right but am sure I'm too lazy to properly check...), no CAFE law means no exemption for light trucks means no cost-savings for SUVs.
 
It's the simplest route, and it definitely fits the political culture of the era. The 70s were were all about the primacy of the American consumer. This keeps the direct burden off of consumers- even if carmakers raised prices, there's a huge perception difference between that and a direct tax.

And as much as we like to look at things through only one lens at a time, it's undeniable that air quality was a serious concern. So you find a solution that makes consumers happy in a quality of life way, in a pocketbook way, and that Detroit can live with, and you go with it.

I feel like if you had a real environmental crusader in the Oval you might've gotten something less concerned with jobs and the economy, but even then there are major hurdles. The labor/environmentalist split hasn't really solidified yet in the early 70s, so a Democrat's going to have union support as a primary goal. A more iconoclastic Republican environmentalist, maybe? But then finding one that's willing to ignore Detroit front office...I don't know who it would be.

You'd probably have to go back a decade or two or three and re-jigger the entire political landscape. These are the decades made for AH alternate coalitions and political realities, so you should be able to find something.
 
And as much as we like to look at things through only one lens at a time, it's undeniable that air quality was a serious concern. So you find a solution that makes consumers happy in a quality of life way, in a pocketbook way, and that Detroit can live with, and you go with it.

You can do tailpipe emissions and not do CAFE, as emissions is what got Detroit to move away from the 1960s designs with carburetors, and to fuel injection and more electronic ECUs rather than a bunch of vacuum amplifiers to trick the carb into behaving.

Fewer emissions means the engine is working more efficiently, and that gives more HP as well as lower NOx.

Without the mileage targets, the Big Three may stick with their relatively bulletproof 3 speed transmissions, rather than the slapdash 4 speeds and lockup converters as emergency Programs to wring out a mpg or two. That helps with reliable, longer lasting transmissions.

In time, they would come out with better designed auto trannys with more speeds. After all, they moved from 2 speed autos to 3 speed without any Government interference. The market would demand better MPGs as gasoline prices increase, so you might see manuals in more US cars in the '80s and 90s
 
In time, they would come out with better designed auto trannys with more speeds. After all, they moved from 2 speed autos to 3 speed without any Government interference. The market would demand better MPGs as gasoline prices increase, so you might see manuals in more US cars in the '80s and 90s

I only really feel comfortable speaking to this last bit, and dammit if I can't find my source in a clutch. I recall a study from maybe the early 2000s that said that while gas prices do affect fuel economy, it's a pretty weak correlation compared to the CAFE drive of the 1970s. Crap, if anyone can find this I'd appreciate it. Hate to cite a thing and then just walk away without the evidence...
(busy work day!)
 
You can do tailpipe emissions and not do CAFE, as emissions is what got Detroit to move away from the 1960s designs with carburetors, and to fuel injection and more electronic ECUs rather than a bunch of vacuum amplifiers to trick the carb into behaving.

Fewer emissions means the engine is working more efficiently, and that gives more HP as well as lower NOx.
That's an interesting sidelight on it. Can (might) CARB have had the desired effect? Or a federal pollution standard? (My dislike of the CARB approach to smog checks, with tickets for disconnected gear even if tailpipe emissions are under the limit,:confounded: is another thread.;) Don't get me started on clunker laws.:mad: )
Without the mileage targets, the Big Three may stick with their relatively bulletproof 3 speed transmissions
It also suggests heavier cars generally, so not even the lightweight casings.

All that makes me wonder what the Big Three was getting from NASCAR between 1970 & 1980. No aero improvements, no lighter body materials, no lightweight tranny cases, no lo/no-friction coatings (or none I know of), none of the goodies hot rodders take for granted now, OTC & even from wrecking yards. So WTF?:confounded:

Was Detroit really that complacent? Or did they know DC would never actually pass a gas tax, so the Big Three could "cheat" by using captive imports to capture the small fraction of people who cared about mpg & build the same overweight gas-guzzlers for everybody else? And then ask for quotas (oh, excuuuse me, "voluntary import restrictions":rolleyes: ) when Japanese makers kicked their asses, & turn around & make more money, rather than hold the line on MSRP & take market share...:rolleyes: Or build better cars.:rolleyes:
 

SwampTiger

Banned
You do realize the GM Hydramatic is a four speed automatic in 1939. The key is overdrive. Borg-Warner sold a ton of add on overdrive units in the fifties and sixties. Laycock did the same for British cars. GM chose to keep the three speed Turbohydramatic for a very long time. Development time may have been the culprit. The Oil Crisis hit in 1973, the new four speeds arrived in 1981.

The mileage requirement may have been the only way to force the Big Three into line. AMC was doing fine until the mid-sixties. Bad management led them up-market stressing the Ambassador and Rebel/Matador lines.
If a high gasoline tax, say $.50+/gallon, was combined with the CAFE standards spread over 4-6 years, the industry would have time to adjust. The compact market had just begun its regular 10 year cycle of interest in small cars, and was losing interest with them just as fast. Pinto and Vega may have sort-of worked in the USA, but failed miserably versus Toyota, Datsun/Nissan and other Japanese cars. Maybe ban cars and light trucks over a specified size/weight unless they meet stringent fuel economy and pollution standards.

I have considered the idea of US manufacturers beginning "World Car" production in 1970 rather than with the Chevette in 1975 and Escort later. Earlier American built cars based on the European models would provide reasonable replacements for Nova, Valiant, Falcon, Vega and Pinto designs. Starting earlier would allow development of platforms to meet US safety, pollution and fuel economy standards. Economics is the issue. Provide incentives for smaller cars in addition to penalties for larger ones. Politically, use the tax as a way to build and repair infrastructure, build suburban and urban mass transit, and incentivise manufactures of small cars. Do not reduce the national speed limit to 55 MPH, hated across the US. This would still be a hard fight. But, if Pontiac decided to start Vauxhall Viva production in 1971-72 in the US using UAW workers, they could be ahead of the game come 1973-4. The kick in of incentives with the Oil Crisis forces other makers onto the bandwagon by 1975. GM introduces the Chevette in 1975 and a Americanized Rekord in 1974.

As I grew up driving big Chevys, Mercurys and Dodges, I would foresee the continuation of such cars until a truly devastating Oil Crisis. The manufacturers had no reason to shrink cars in the US. Most travel was on longer stretches of Interstate Highways, with smooth two lanes throughout the country. The push for safer and cleaner cars actually interfered with better fuel economy by adding weight and strangling engines. Pollution was minimal outside of cities, reducing support in the rural areas. Commuters drove 20-70 miles daily. Thus, the average suburban and rural drivers preferred the large cars for everyday use.
 
That's an interesting sidelight on it. Can (might) CARB have had the desired effect? Or a federal pollution standard? (My dislike of the CARB approach to smog checks, with tickets for disconnected gear even if tailpipe emissions are under the limit,:confounded: is another thread.;) Don't get me started on clunker laws.:mad: )

It really should be, for a vehicle registered at this weight, must not emit more than xxx for this Model Year.
Doesn't matter how you get there.

It also suggests heavier cars generally, so not even the lightweight casings.

All that makes me wonder what the Big Three was getting from NASCAR between 1970 & 1980. No aero improvements, no lighter body materials, no lightweight tranny cases, no lo/no-friction coatings (or none I know of), none of the goodies hot rodders take for granted now, OTC & even from wrecking yards. So WTF?:confounded:

The Ford AOD began its life as an offshoot of the old '50s Borg Warner Cruise-O-Matic(that became the MX,FX, and eventually FMX) and in the late '60s it seems HF II spiked what would be it's next outgrowth as the 4 speed AOD, as who wanted a more efficient 4 speed Automatic in '66, anyway? Engines were getting bigger and that 4 speed didn't like high HP motors. put in two Oil Shocks, and then dusted it off, brought it back and refreshed it in '78, and then Ford spent the next decade working out most of the bugs. GM and Mopar didn't even bother in the '60s or '70s, and really had to play catch up, with GM doing the 700R4 in '82, while Chrysler didn't get serious till 1989

Going with an alloy casting for three speeds took longer than it should have, too, and that was a no brainer to get weight down on a three speed

NASCAR pretty much stopped using actual Stock Cars in the middle of the '70s, first it was just the Front Clip, A pillars and Roof had to be stock, then Matthews and Holman were doing custom chassis with the Hood and Roof being stock. By this time the Big Three were all out of direct supports, and the Teams were more concerned on cheating at the existing rules than to really innovate some that could be used for the typical Sedan that somebody could actually buy on Monday

Was Detroit really that complacent?
Yes, and with equal parts of denial
 
If a high gasoline tax, say $.50+/gallon, was combined with the CAFE standards spread over 4-6 years, the industry would have time to adjust.
I'd wonder why just the tax wouldn't do enough. Is there a reason it doesn't have the intended effect? (Yes, I'm trying to avoid CAFE entirely.)
Pinto and Vega may have sort-of worked in the USA
AIUI, part of that was rushing to get them built, & part was building down to a price. It's not helped by corporate lawers deciding it's cheaper to pay lawsuit judgments than build the damn car safely.:mad: And executives actually signing off on that.:eek::eek::mad::mad: (For the record, poor quality aside, I liked the Vega, & the Mustang II. With better quality, IMO, both could have been reasonably successful outside the U.S. They were a bit big...& the Valiant/clones & Nova/clones bigger still, IIRC.)
I have considered the idea of US manufacturers beginning "World Car" production in 1970
What do you see as your trigger? Honestly, I don't see one. If you go back a bit, you might use the growing success of the Type 1 (commonly, but incorrectly, Beetle...;) ) as a driver.
if Pontiac decided to start Vauxhall Viva production in 1971-72
Am I wrong the Viva was plagued with troubles? (Built in North America by UAW, I like.)
GM introduces the Chevette in 1975 and a Americanized Rekord in 1974.
Okay, there are a few issues.

One, is that the Vauxhall Chevette? I found the North American styling more boring.

Two, if you have the Chevette, why do you want/need the Rekord?

Three, if you have the Viva, why do you need either? Why not just badge it a Chevy, too?

Four, would you (I hope) badge the Viva (or Rekord) as a Buick & Olds, too?

Five, I really, really hope you'd design the Viva/Rekord so they'd accept the 3.8 or 4.3 V6. (OTL's North American Chevette does.) Yes, that blows up fuel economy...but the hot rodder in me can't resist.;)
 
Five, I really, really hope you'd design the Viva/Rekord so they'd accept the 3.8 or 4.3 V6. (OTL's North American Chevette does.) Yes, that blows up fuel economy...but the hot rodder in me can't resist.;)
No this blows up fuel economy
28790841-834-Blown-BBC-Pro-Street-Chevette.jpg
 

SwampTiger

Banned
phx1138: A lot to unpack. I don't think a gas tax would be sufficient in the early 70's. Gas prices went from $.50 per gallon to $2.00 in Louisiana, then dropped to around $1.00 after the Oil Crisis. This barely reduced gasoline consumption for the decade. In addition, you had EPA pollution requirements and safety requirements all appearing at the same time. It wasn't until reliable digital automotive electronics arrived before the industry caught up to the varying requirements. You needed to get the American manufacturers and consumers to change their mindsets.

By 1970, US automakers were building or introducing the Gremlin, Pinto and Vega. They were worried about VW and Japanese competition on the low priced lines. The trigger had been pulled. If GM had decided that each make could build their own variant of Opel or Vauxhall, or take Buick's tack of importing Opels, you may have seen the money poured into the Vega go into locally producing and improving these smaller models. GM did this worldwide, just not in the USA.

Pinto and Vega had problems related to poor design, corporate greed and basic inexperience building a small car, as opposed to a cheap car. Vauxhall had problems related to the British labor crisis of the 60's and 70's, quality control, and inadequate rustproofing. If built in the USA, and modified for local conditions, these cars should have been better than Pintos and Vegas. Why Ford and GM failed to build at least one of these models in the US confuses me. In addition, no four door model was considered for Pinto or Vega. Who builds a 2 door wagon, and ignores a four door variant? Heck, I would have lusted after a V6 Firenza in 1975.

1. Chevette was used only by Chevrolet and Pontiac. Minimal difference between the two. Yes, boring. Where is the Pontiac Endura nose?

2. Next size up to replace the oversized/overweight Nova,

3. Remember Buick had Opel. Chevy had Vega. Pontiac was stuck with Chevy's hand me downs. If built in the US, they are not doomed by the German Mark rising in value, causing Opel prices to skyrocket.

4. Buick and Oldsmobile can choose which car they wish to build.

5. Chevrolet South Africa stuffed a Camaro Z28 302 into a Firenza, Viva based coupe. Holden stuffed V8's into Commodores, a Rekord derivative. Yeah, the 60 and 90 degree V6's fit.
 
No this blows up fuel economy
28790841-834-Blown-BBC-Pro-Street-Chevette.jpg
To my knowledge, there is no jurisdiction where that is remotely street legal.:rolleyes::openedeyewink:

It's also extremely unsubtle.;) (I favor the 4.3 or 3.8 turbo in a Chevette, or a {Simca} hemi-converted 153ci flatty in an Anglia or Prefect, because it looks stock.)
I don't think a gas tax would be sufficient in the early 70's. Gas prices went from $.50 per gallon to $2.00 in Louisiana, then dropped to around $1.00 after the Oil Crisis. This barely reduced gasoline consumption for the decade.
:eek:

That said, tho, the national panic did seem to provoke a move toward smaller cars. I'm not sure LA can be called "anecdotal", but I'd want stronger evidence one way or the other before deciding.
You needed to get the American manufacturers and consumers to change their mindsets.
No argument on that. For me, it's how, not if.
By 1970, US automakers were building or introducing the Gremlin, Pinto and Vega. They were worried about VW and Japanese competition on the low priced lines. The trigger had been pulled.
Okay. I had the sense it took longer--but maybe I'm judging on date of appearance & forgetting lead time. I do think a popular Type 1 could move a maker to try smaller before OTL. (The Metropolitan was a bit too much, but... Maybe the proposed Ford compact that ultimately became the Vedette. Which has the advantage of being able to use the Simca Brazil-developed hemi.:cool::cool: Better still, it would mean lots more flatty parts stay available.:cool: )
If GM had decided that each make could build their own variant of Opel or Vauxhall, or take Buick's tack of importing Opels, you may have seen the money poured into the Vega go into locally producing and improving these smaller models. GM did this worldwide, just not in the USA.
I could happily have GM importing & badge-engineering Opel sedans, or Vauxhalls; it's only the duplication that I find dubious.
Pinto and Vega had problems related to poor design, corporate greed and basic inexperience building a small car, as opposed to a cheap car.
I won't disagree. It was a clusterf*ck.
Vauxhall had problems related to the British labor crisis of the 60's and 70's, quality control, and inadequate rustproofing. If built in the USA, and modified for local conditions, these cars should have been better than Pintos and Vegas.
That works for me.
Why Ford and GM failed to build at least one of these models in the US confuses me. In addition, no four door model was considered for Pinto or Vega. Who builds a 2 door wagon, and ignores a four door variant?
Yeah, there was plenty of stupid to go around.:rolleyes:
Chevette was used only by Chevrolet and Pontiac.
I've seen the name attached to a Vauxhall, which appears to be the same platform. It's this styling approach IMO GM should've used, across the line, including a Buick & Olds:
Vauxhall_Chevette_Sedanlette.jpg

(I'd also have imported/local-built the pickoupe:)
Late_Chevrolet_Chevy_500_in_Cosm%C3%B3polis.jpg

Next size up to replace the oversized/overweight Nova
Noted.
Remember Buick had Opel. Chevy had Vega. Pontiac was stuck with Chevy's hand me downs. If built in the US, they are not doomed by the German Mark rising in value, causing Opel prices to skyrocket.

Buick and Oldsmobile can choose which car they wish to build.
I'm not opposed to building in U.S./Canada (or even Mexico). I'm just thinking, treat 'em like the G-bodies, & facelift/badge-engineer, don't build a ton of different types.
Chevrolet South Africa stuffed a Camaro Z28 302 into a Firenza, Viva based coupe. Holden stuffed V8's into Commodores, a Rekord derivative. Yeah, the 60 and 90 degree V6's fit.
:cool::cool::cool: Now get somebody at the factory to do it... New VP for Product Development Don Yenko?:cool: ( :openedeyewink: ) (I suspect poaching Shelby form Ford would be hard.:eek: Maybe Jim Hall?)
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
I wonder if AMC had skipped Rob Abernathy as GM in 1962, could the small car line continue as the focus. In addition to the upsized American introduced in 1964, have a return of the Metropolitan on the previous American chassis of 100 inches with a four cylinder version of the AMC 199 six cylinder. I understand they are competing against bargain basement Big Three models. AMC always had better optioned base models to fight the Big Three. Two thirds of a 199 six is 133 CID. With a 232 six you get a 155 CID four. Since you have to design a new crankshaft, you can set the displacement where ever you like.
 
have a return of the Metropolitan on the previous American chassis of 100 inches with a four cylinder version of the AMC 199 six cylinder.
IMO, that's a bit small for the era, when the Rambler Rebel & Willys Aero, at 108", were considered small. IDK about AMC's inline fours from that era, but I confess, I'm dubious about a "spinoff" from a six.

That said, let me counter-propose: '53 Willys Aero with a wedge-head V6 (or inline) around 230ci standard (like the proposed Mopar, &, to save steel (& money), 'glass trunklid, hood, & front fenders--plus optional 250-270hp 300ci or so V8 (brand new OHV? OHC?:cool::cool: ). You've now saved the company, created the muscle car,:cool::cool: given hot rodders & customizers a great car to build on,:cool: butterflied some of the ugliest cars ever built :)cool: TY!!), maybe produced the hottest V8 for decades,:cool::cool::cool: with any luck butterflied NRHA's ban on Altereds (okay, not likely :'( { :closedtongue: }), & pointed the way to improved fuel economy & better performance.

This might also lead to Ford importing the Vedette, & maybe, ultimately, saving the Simca Pasteur hemi version of the V8-60.:cool::cool::cool:
 

SwampTiger

Banned
AMC did not produce their own four cylinder until 1984/5, based on the AMC six. They used the early Chevy/Pontiac four based on the Chevy straight six.

The Rambler American was stretched to 106 inch wheelbase for 1964. Keeping a 100 inch WB variant may have impacted sales of the longer version, but would have allowed competition with the VW/Japanese competitors. Providing a four cylinder variant further supports a short American's economy credentials. Add in BW overdrive and Rambler's included equipment advantage for a great entryuy level vehicle.
 
AMC did not produce their own four cylinder until 1984/5, based on the AMC six. They used the early Chevy/Pontiac four based on the Chevy straight six.
...
Providing a four cylinder variant further supports a short American's economy credentials. Add in BW overdrive and Rambler's included equipment advantage for a great entryuy level vehicle.
AMC could have made a decent 'Slant 4' by chopping a 401 in half, and using the 304's 3.75 sized pistons, that gets you near a Square Bore design, and is capable of 1hp per cubic inch, that would be 162cu.in. in this case. Good torque at low rpms, so doesn't need to be spun up fast to feel the motor is doing something. Forged steel rods and crank, real strong.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Vibration is the bane of the Big Four Cylinder. GM kept the fours of Chevy and Pontiac at 2.5 liters size for a reason. The Chevy was 3.875 X 3.25 for 153 CID. The Pontiac at 4.00 X 3.00 for 151. AMC did the same with their 2.5 liter four at 3.875 X 3.1875 for 150 CID. The Pontiac got balance shafts later in its life. The Mitsubishi 2.6 liter was also a balance shaft engine. If you want a large four, try the Mercruiser 3.0 based on the Chevy II stretched to 4.00 X 3.60 for 181 CID, or the 3.7 liter at 4.36 X 3.75 or 224 CID based upon a 460 Ford. In a car, expect tingly feelings to continue for a hour after you get out. The 3.0 has replaced various fours in hot rods. The 3.7 has been used in racing. Neither would be a good daily driver.

On the OP, I doubt the American manufacturers would have reduced their fuel mileage appreciably without the CAFE standards. Cars remained large into the 80's. The arrival of the big GM and Ford RWD cars in the 90's confirmed the market's desire for large cars. If the light trucks were held to the same CAFE and safety standards, sizes of cars and light trucks would have shrunk. Add in maximum weight limits, for safety and fuel economy, and you could get appreciable reductions in fuel use. The strangling of engines by the EPA rules was at cross purposes to the CAFE standards. Manufacturers needed larger engines to get decent performance. They struggled to meet all of the governmental requirements which had arrived between 1967 and 1980. The Japanese were able to adapt faster than the Americans. Chrysler nearly died.
 
The strangling of engines by the EPA rules was at cross purposes to the CAFE standards. Manufacturers needed larger engines to get decent performance.
Given vacuum based engine controls and carburetors, large piston sizes had combustion issues that were not easy to correct when EGR is in play. Flame Front speed was not a friend to large bores.
What Detroit needed was smaller cylinder bores, and make up the cubes with more cylinders, V10 and V12
 
What Detroit needed was smaller cylinder bores, and make up the cubes with more cylinders, V10 and V12
Return of the Cad V12s & V16s?:cool::cool::cool: (Okay, they might only be 250ci & not 500...) So the Eldo gets that V12 GM contemplated? :cool: The Toro, too? And EFI? (Distributorless ignition's a pipedream before the '90s, I'd guess... :teary: )

Am I nuts to think you could build a *Cimarron with a tiny-cid V12?:eek: Or at least the Allante with a 60v?:cool::cool:
 
Top