FCA Paid $77 Million in CAFE Penalties in 2016

FishOnOne wrote:
I question if Dodge and Chrysler will be around much longer with their current line up of vehicles.

I think they have a shot yet for a couple reasons.

In continentental North America the adaptation will be slower than the rest of the world. At 2 bucks a gallon gas is only about twice as expensive as electric as opposed to 4 or 5 or more times.

Trucks are popular here even as grocery getters and manufacturers are 4 or 5 years from ramping up production on electric trucks.

Mercedes is part of Daimler and they are getting serious about Electric

This and a bunch of other reasons will give them some time to adapt

I think Ford is in the worst shape with no real production EV offerings for the next 4 years.

GM at least has the Bolt but it is having difficulty selling them as the price is not far off the Tesla Model 3 and the model 3 is sooooo much more car at every level.

Nissan will plug along with the Leaf until 2022 when the new BEV 2 platform will come out for their new lineup of EV’s.

Toyota is an anomaly and it’s hard to say what the plan is. They say they are not going Electric for at least 5 years and maybe more even though Tesla and Nissan are literally eating their lunch right now. They have their foot in the technology though so I think they could switch gears pretty quick if the markets change.

The biggest enemy of ice vehicles is the EV test drive. And although many are reluctant to walk into a dealer for a test drive the “neighbourhood test drive” is starting to happen more often as more and more EV’s show up in people driveways. Neither Nissan or Tesla advertise EV’s but both are supply constrained right now. For many it is a WTF ?? moment and plans for an EV in the household come soon after.

This year there will be 1500 EV’s everyday showing up in people’s driveways in North America. 1500 new vehicles everyday without gas tanks. Although that is still not a lot in the big scheme of things it is about twice as many as it was two years ago.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. And yes, North American manufacturers need to watch the market carefully and be reactive if they want to have any export business. The North American market is kinda unique in the world though and I see a market for gas vehicles here even in 10 years.

All the above. JMHO

wow we could build a part of a wall around our homes.
chevman

I question if Dodge and Chrysler will be around much longer with their current line up of vehicles.

campigloo wrote:
NJRVer got me curious with the $4000.00 truck. Googled incomes. Avg in 1974 was 8030 and in 2016 it was 48,600 according to Wikipedia.
Wow. Big chunk different.

So wages have increase six times since 1964 so that truck should now cost $24,000.

campigloo wrote:
NJRVer got me curious with the $4000.00 truck. Googled incomes. Avg in 1974 was 8030 and in 2016 it was 48,600 according to Wikipedia.
Wow. Big chunk different.

So if back then you spent half a years wages on a truck, and now still half a years wages on a truck.

ShinerBock wrote:

NJRVer wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

NJRVer wrote:


Geez, the nerve of some people wanting to live long healthy lives. They should be glad to sacrifice that so corporations can put more money in their pockets.

How is it putting more money in the pockets of the corporation if this $77M fine is going to the government and is passed onto the consumer? If the government requires the use of stability control, then how is the cost of the YAW sensors, speed sensors, and control module that gets added to the cost of the vehicle go to the corporation? If these parts weren't mandated, the cost of the vehicle will be less, not go into the pockets of the corporations.

How much is a human life worth?

What does that have to with what I said? Let me guess, this is the typical "If you don't support what I believe it is the best way, then you must want people to die" argument?

You said the companies would pocket the money if these regulations weren't in place and I said that is false since it would lower the cost of the vehicle if these parts or fines were not required therefore keeping the money in the consumer's pocket, not into the corporation.

My original comment was in response to NMDriver pointing out that all that "gov't regulation" you and others seem to be against raised the price of vehicles, but more importantly raised the life expectancy of crash victims.

NJRVer got me curious with the $4000.00 truck. Googled incomes. Avg in 1974 was 8030 and in 2016 it was 48,600 according to Wikipedia.
Wow. Big chunk different.

mich800 wrote:

routeforty wrote:
Read a quote on another forum attributed to Robert Heinlein-"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to buy what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him". Rather has a ring of truth to it during the last several years. :E

And he died way before the ACA.

Don't get me started on that. You can keep your doctor, you can keep your insurance provider and it'll be cheaper. It is a pack of lies. My premiums have skyrocketed, my deductible skyrocketed, I had no choice but to switch companies because my original one wasn't available in my state any longer and my new coverage wouldn't cover my doctor.

Thanks BIG GUBMENT!!!!

NJRVer wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

NJRVer wrote:


Geez, the nerve of some people wanting to live long healthy lives. They should be glad to sacrifice that so corporations can put more money in their pockets.

How is it putting more money in the pockets of the corporation if this $77M fine is going to the government and is passed onto the consumer? If the government requires the use of stability control, then how is the cost of the YAW sensors, speed sensors, and control module that gets added to the cost of the vehicle go to the corporation? If these parts weren't mandated, the cost of the vehicle will be less, not go into the pockets of the corporations.

How much is a human life worth?

What does that have to with what I said? Let me guess, this is the typical "If you don't support what I believe it is the best way, then you must want people to die" argument?

You said the companies would pocket the money if these regulations weren't in place and I said that is false since it would lower the cost of the vehicle if these parts or fines were not required therefore keeping the money in the consumer's pocket, not into the corporation.

Apparently not 5.7 B.